<$BlogRSDURL$>

Monday, May 30, 2005

Protecting the Adults: Austin Bans Smoking -->Written by Jan LarsonMonday, May 16, 2005

The voters of Austin, Texas, an island of blue in the sea of red that is the state of Texas, approved a wide-ranging ordinance that banned smoking in almost all public places including bars and live music venues.

Ironically, the businesses that stand to lose the most, at least in the short run, in a city that is the self-proclaimed “live music capital of the world,” are the above mentioned bars and music venues.

It is also remarkably ironic that those on the left that profess tolerance and freedom of choice were the leading supporters of the no smoking ordinance. Of course we all know by now that there is no logic to the inconsistent positions of those on the left.

I will state for the record that I am not a smoker and in the six plus years that I have lived in the Austin area, I have rarely gone into a bar, smoke-filled or not, and have never spent an evening in a smoke-filled music venue. The primary reason? I don’t care to sit in smoke-filled rooms.

Since a number of large cities, including New York, have banned smoking in bars in recent years, the fact that Austin followed suit is not really newsworthy. All of the talking points on both sides of the smoking issue have been widely discussed and I won’t get into them here—with one exception. The one point made by supporters of smoking bans that I do find particularly fallacious is the notion that smoking bans are necessary to protect patrons and employees. Just as I personally managed to avoid smoked-filled establishments, I do not believe anyone in Austin or anywhere else has even been forced to work in or visit such establishments. Any assertion to the contrary is disingenuous.

I should be thrilled that many of the Austin-area clubs that I have heretofore avoided will no longer be on my “do not visit” list, but instead of being thrilled, I am troubled.

I am troubled because, despite the rhetoric, I’m willing to wager that many that voted to ban smoking were not thinking of rescuing the hapless employees forced to endure a hazardous atmosphere while trying to make a dime. There are really only two reasons that someone would support a smoking ban, either selfishness or self-righteousness.

The selfish simply want to enjoy the benefits of a smoke-free environment, but are not willing to invest their own money or take the risk to open a smoke-free bar. If there were a market for smoke-free bars and music venues, certainly the laws of supply and demand would dictate that they would be successful and those that allowed smoking would not. At worst they would co-exist allowing smokers and non-smokers alike to have a drink or listen to a band in an atmosphere (no pun intended) most pleasing to them.

The self-righteous always know what is best for you and me; our freedom to choose be damned. They argue that smoking is a recognized health hazard with no redeeming benefits and thus, no one should be smoking in the first place.

Similarly one could argue that skydiving is hazardous with no redeeming benefits too. After all, the best thing that can happen to a skydiver is to end up standing on the ground just like he was standing before the plane took off. Why not ban skydiving too? Auto racing? Eating fatty food? Running with a fork in your hand? What else?

You might argue that since the voters approved the smoking ban that I shouldn’t complain. After all, it wasn’t a small group of bureaucrats or, worse yet, judges that snuffed out the cigarettes in Austin. Yes, the voters voted, but why should anyone that hasn’t set foot in a bar in 30 years have a say? I’m a believer that the marketplace, not bureaucrats, judges or voters should decide.

Banning smoking in bars, places where everyone that enters does so voluntarily, undeniably constitutes an erosion of the rights of smokers for no real benefit to anyone, including the smokers. They are going to smoke anyway.

Some fear that smoking bans will eventually lead to bans on other behavior deemed “bad” by those that “know best.” No one can say when that might happen, but the precedent has been set all across the country. When the rights of one group are stripped away, it only follows that no one’s rights are safe from attack.
About the Writer: Jan A. Larson is currently employed in private industry in Texas. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Nebraska, a Master of Science degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Colorado State University.

jan@pieofknowledge.com.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

May 24, 2005 12:31:39 PM
To :
"eric boyd" , "craig roxxon" , "Michelle Gervais" , "Beverly hods" , "jan hogg" , "Nick Melnyk" , "fred quarrie" , "admin smokersr" , , "Frank Zaniol"
CC :
"garnet dawn" , "Linda duguay" , "Garnet@Forces" , , "Morris lewicky" , "Mike F McFadden" , "Samantha Philippes" , pubco-office@rogers.com

ANTI-SMOKING COMMENTS PAINT INCOMPLETE PICTURE..THE CHRONICLE JOURNAL SAT. 21/05

Dr Jim Morris, Chairperson for the rabid anti-smoker group Tobacco Free Thunder Bay, tells us removing tobacco shelves from corner stores 'will not hurt retailers.' To push their smoking bans anti-smoker groups including Morris' misled us by assuring us smoking bans wouldn't hurt bar sales. The Fair Air Associationof Canada recently released an economic impact study using government figures showing 'smoking bans in several Ontario cities have had a real and dramatic impact on revenue. Bars and pubs sales were reduced: 23.5% inOttawa, 18.7% in London, 24.3% in Kingston and 20.4% in Kitchener.' The Pub and Bar Coalition estimates 900 pubs and bars will be forced to close if Bill 164 becomes law. Anti-smoker groups also deceived us by claiming smoking bans wouldn't hurt charity casinos and bingo halls that support local charitable groups. Yet bingo halls in Ottawa alone lose $4.7 million annually and seventy local charitable organizations lost their funding as a direct result of Ottawa's smoking ban. The Ontario Lottery Corporation reported Brantford's charity casino revenues dropped 20% when that city's smoking ban came into effect. Winnipeg's casino lost $21 million and, sadly, 269 employees lost their jobs. Who in their right mind could believe Morris' self-serving claims today?

Eric Boyd
507A Rosemeadow Cr
Waterloo, Ontario
N2T 2A4
Mobile 519 503-0280
Email eboyd@uwaterloo.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please allow me to respond to Dr. Morris' May 14 letter in which he praises the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and calls for even more restrictions. Anti-smoking zealots would be well- advised to get their heads out of the clouds and deal with their dislike of smoking in a fairer and more realistic way.

Smokers will smoke, popular or not, legal or not. As adults, taxpayers and voters, as long as tobacco is a legal product, have a right to smoke if they so chose. The smoking issue could have been easily settled by designated smoking/non-smoking areas thus leaving business owners and individuals with choice. That system worked well for several years and satisfied all but the most rapid anti-smokers. As it is, total smoking bans have created more societal problems than they have solved.

Arguments used to justify total bans become less credible and more destructive by the day.

There is no "level playing field" in business. By their nature, certain businesses need to accommodate smokers to survive and prosper. Total bans have destroyed the livelihoods of such business owners.

Smoking bans hurts charities. Lotteries and bingo halls report serious losses. The suppression of this information and the denial of authorities has not stopped the truth from leaking out.

High tobacco taxes contribute to poverty. Smokers on low fixed incomes do not quit smoking: they sacrifice in other areas. Do we we ever see a homeless person quit-smoking regardless of the cost?

Smoking bans and high taxes contribute to crime. Smugglers and thieves are the ones benefiting. A person forced outside to smoke is easy prey for rapist and muggers. There is a marked increase in private parties where there is no control over drunkenness and violence as there would be in a business environment.

Public health suffers more than it gains from the marketing of illegal tobacco products laced with chemicals and other dangerous agents. These illegal products are easily available to teenagers, and cancels out attempts to prevent under-age smoking.

Total smoking bans are now seen by many as a competition amongst communities, provinces and countries to achieve the gold standard and gain points with the WHO. The same tired arguments against tobacco use have been used throughout history against all activities deemed "unsavory." but regardless of the law, alcohol use, illegal drug use, prostitution and pornography survive and flourish. Smoking, the most innocuous of all, will also continue.

Defenders of a free society should strive for compromise rather than total smoking bans. Those who continue to support the repression of free choice will wish they had done differently when it comes their time to be vilified and ostracized for making a particular lifestyle choice. That time will certainly come to all if governments are allowed to continue and accelerate theirs attacks on our privilege of free choice.

"As soon as men decide that all measured are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy"--Christopher Dawson, Judgment of the Nations

Eileen Hutcheson

Acton, Ontario

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to respond to Mr. Jim Morris(Chairperson Tobacco-Free Thunder Bay) in the letters page of Saturdays, May 14/05

I operate a large volume tobacco store and would like to present another view on the "smoking front." I do agree that smoking is harmful to one's health, but tobacco products are still a legal product to sell.

It seems a little less than democratic when a government can dictate to me that I have to cover all of the tobacco products and that I can only devote so much space in my own store to stocking such product in my own store.

Why not cover up all liquor in the liquor stores and beer in the beer stores and while we are at it, let's tell them they can only have four feet to display their product. This way people won't drink.

Let's put all slot machines behind curtains and limit the amount of slot machines to half a dozen so people won't gamble.

What I especially take exception with is Dr. Morris' assumption is that other companies will pay to stock their products in my store where the tobacco presently is. Tobacco payments in part make it possible to hire employees and pay those employees much better than the minimum wage. I would appreciate being put in touch with these other companies that will pay for this space.

I do however have a suggestion for compromise. Why not allow an establishment to decide if it would become a store for those aged 19 would be allowed to enter, thus allowing adults who do smoke the choice of their product.

This would eliminate the position that children are influenced by the 'power wall' of tobacco. As long as tobacco remains a legal product to sell and use, let's be fair, let's be democratic, let's be practical and please could we have some compromise and input from small family run business.

Ed Choquette

Owner/manager Cathy's Discount

THUNDER BAY, ONT.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Dear Editor, May 21/05 Letter published in the Chronicle Journal

Dr Jim Morris, Chairperson for the rabid anti-smoker group Tobacco FreeThunder Bay, tells us removing tobacco shelves from corner stores 'will not hurt retailers.' To push their smoking bans anti-smoker groups including Morris' misled us by assuring us smoking bans wouldn't hurt bar sales. The Fair Air Associationof Canada recently released an economic impact study using government figures showing 'smoking bans in several Ontario cities have had a real and dramatic impact on revenue. Bars and pubs sales were reduced: 23.5% in Ottawa, 18.7% in London, 24.3% in Kingston and 20.4% in Kitchener.' The Pub and Bar Coalition estimates 900 pubs and bars will be forced to close if Bill 164 becomes law. Anti-smoker groups also deceived us by claiming smoking bans wouldn't hurt charity casinos and bingo halls that support local charitable groups. Yet bingo halls in Ottawa alone lose $4.7 million annually and seventy local charitable organizations lost their funding as a direct result of Ottawa's smoking ban. The Ontario Lottery Corporation reported Brantford's charity casino revenues dropped 20% when that city's smoking ban came into effect. Winnipeg's casino lost $21 million and, sadly, 269 employees lost their jobs. Who in their right mind could believe Morris' self-serving claims today?

Eric Boyd
507A Rosemeadow Cr
Waterloo, Ontario
N2T 2A4
Mobile 519 503-0280
Email eboyd@uwaterloo.ca

Monday, May 09, 2005

The Chronicle Journal(Published)

May 9/05

My daughter and her two teens belong to a local swim club. They work at a bingo to raise money for the swimmers. During the last four months they have been losing money(not making less money). They have pulled the plug on their bingos. I asked my daughter why they were losing money at their bingos. "The smoking ban did us in." she said

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Friday, May 06, 2005

Sent : To Austin Council
May 5, 2005 3:23:44 AM
To :
elysiumAustin@aol.com,bushwickphil@yahoo.com jennifergale2003@yahoo.com, info@keepbetty.com wesbenedict@aol.com,info@greggknaupe.com info@kimforaustin.com, Mandy@MandyDealey.commargot@margotclarke.com, scott@scottAaustin.com ,caseyjoewalker@yahoo.com, jamesPaine@earthlink.netlee@leeleffingwell.com andrewbucknall@yahoo.comdanny.thomas@ci.austin.tx.us daryl.slusher@ci.austin.tx.us,brewster.mccracken@ci.austin.tx.us jackie.goodman@ci.austin.tx.us ,betty.dunkerly@ci.austin.tx.us raul.alvarez@ci.austin.tx.us, will.wynn@austin.tx.us

Show me the 'proof'


Dear Council, May,5/05

The American Cancer Society claims that 35,000 to 40,000 die every year from
second-hand smoke.

They also claim that 3,000 non-smokers die from lung cancer every year.

Ask these blatant liars,'Tell me the names of three people who have died,directly from

second-hand smoke and also show me the death certificates that says,"this person died from second-hand smoke"


Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

To :
"letters.. chronicleJournal" letters@chroniclejournal.com

A local bingo folds because of the smoking ban

Dear Editor, May4/05

My daughter and her two teens belong to a local swim club

They work at a Bingo to raise money for the young swimmers

During the last four months they have been losing money(not making less money)

They have pulled the 'plug' on their bingos.

I asked my daughter, 'what was the reason for losing money at your bingos'?

'The smoking ban did us in', she said.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?