[cooljay788]

...that smoking bans thoughout the nation have a lot to do with the Nation's economy problems? It's bad enough Bush had a lot to do with messing up the nation's economy.

But I bet if we got rid of all smoking bans in this nation, as well as get rid of FSCs, we would see improvements in the economy then.

A lotta smokers don't spend their money in states/cities with smoking bans. It makes sense to me. I ain't giving someone my money if I ain't allowed to smoke in a tavern or club.

But no smoking bans = more money (from smokers) for the businesses.

[PiccoloNamek]

I do not think there is any correlation or causal link between smoking bans and our current economic problems.

That being said, I do think that at the very least the bans that apply to private establishments should definitely be lifted, just as a matter of principle. What right does the government have to tell a private business that people cannot smoke in it? A lot of good bars have gone out of business because of such bans. Lifting them may have beneficial local economic effects.

[barfly]

If its obvious that the government should keep out of the affairs of a private business because bans are a detriment to the economy, that is the causal link. Smoking bans hurt the economy definitely, just like FSCs hurt people more than non-FSCs. The government just can't get it right so they should definitely stay out of it. Let 65 million smokers have their smokes Uncle Sam! Every move the filthy greedy state revenuers and Feds make nowadays, hurts the economy.

Look at what HR5912 is going to do to the economy if that passes:

US Postal Service will have many more billions of dollars in lost revenues than the tiny 3 billion they say they are losing now because tobacco products will become "non-mailable matter".

Every smoker in this country and abroad will have to drive (or walk) to the local convenience store to purchase cigarettes.

There won't be any online savings because the online retailers will all be forced out of business. The prices of cigs will go way way up. The entire supply chain for tobacco products will be hurt.

WE SMOKERS will all be hurt by it with higher cig prices, more fuel usage, additional wear and tear on vehicles, un-necessary stress on smokers rushing out to get cigs or out looking for cigs will cause traffic accidents, more store robberies, more people bumming smokes, smokers becoming irritable and getting in fights with anti's (I hope) and fighting with everybody, etc....

There will be disasterous and very measurable consequences to the economy if this HR5912 takes effect IMHO.

The newest big screw up by the government is FSCs. No testing whatsoever, no FDA approval and not a word to smokers using the products and now FSCs are the law of the land. I see why they reformed the tort laws now because there is currently and will be more of lawsuits from people that say they are being harmed by these FSC chemical additives. I think increasing the poisoning rate (and therefore the death rate) of smokers will harm the economy.

[cooljay788]

So when 1000s of businesses close in smoking ban areas throughout the nation, that has no effect on the economy whatsoever? Not even a minor effect on the economy?

It isn’t hard to figure out when more smokers avoid going to taverns and clubs due to those places being smoke-free, that makes the owner lose revenue money (unless lots of nonsmokers visit those places to make up for the loss of smoking patrons).

And when say a bar owner loses money and customers, that effects the sales going on within the bar industry as a whole. Especially if you multiply that by 100s of other smoke-free bars who have lost customers.

And when an owner loses money after a certain period of time, that owner has to find a way to survive with the business, or basically lay off the workers and close up the bar for good. And that closed up bar doesn't have a small effect on the nation's economy.

Maybe if only one hospitality business in the whole nation closed up due to a smoking ban causing the owner's business to drop, I can see smoking bans not having a direct connection with the nation's economy problems then. But since 1000s of business have closed in the USA over the years due to smoking bans, you can't igonore the fact smoking bans play a role in hurting the nation's economy.

I wanna ask the antis where the heck are the nonsmokers at filling up the taverns, bars, and even the restaurants every single day and night if smoking bans are NOT a factor in the nation's economy problems? Nonsmokers got their wish of smoke-free businesses. But they don't wanna support the owners on a regular basis by patronizing the businesses?

I'm sure if smoking was allowed in those places, smokers would be in there every day and night, and I mean REAL smokers (as well as a few real SOCIAL smokers). And then someone WOULD be right in saying I can't use the hospitality industry as a reason for the nation's economy problems then.

I remember a McDonald's in downtown of my city that used to be PACKED with mostly smokers every single day and night. And in 2002 when that restaurant decided to ban smoking, that's when you would be lucky to see a full house of people eating in there at all.

I've seen it for myself where when you ban smoking, the smokers won't bother in coming back to the restaurant at all. That McDonald’s I referred to is now gone. They closed up for good in 2003. They obviously lost a lot of customers with having a smoke-free restaurant.

And smoking bans don't have an effect whatsoever on the nation's economy?

[PiccoloNamek]

Saying it has no effect on local economies would be incorrect. Of course it does. But, in comparison to the credit crunch, the popping of the housing bubble, and the rapidly rising levels of unemployment, I do not think that its effects even register on the richter scale of national economic problems.

[barfly]

Folks, we are all entitled to our own opinions even if we don't agree with each other. I don't agree with some of these posts before me. I do respect the opinions though because they are unique and not too inflamatory (hopefully). I don't attack people for having an opinion different from mine. I don't try to figure out who is an anti and who is a Real smoker. I don't care about any of that because it is counter-productive on a board like this one or any forum, message board or group. Everybody should agree to not make disagreements personal. Disagree and agree all you want against those groups that excite or upset you. Just don't direct it at members here by using words that turn a great post into a personal attack. I can get along with anybody and I can disagree or agree w/o making it personal.

[seesolo]

Originally Posted by barfly Folks, we are all entitled to our own opinions even if we don't agree with each other. I don't agree with some of these posts before me. I do respect the opinions though because they are unique and not too inflamatory (hopefully). I don't attack people for having an opinion different from mine. I don't try to figure out who is an anti and who is a Real smoker. I don't care about any of that because it is counter-productive on a board like this one or any forum, message board or group. Everybody should agree to not make disagreements personal. Disagree and agree all you want against those groups that excite or upset you. Just don't direct it at members here by using words that turn a great post into a personal attack. I can get along with anybody and I can disagree or agree w/o making it personal.

yo i feel you barfly, seriously though i think that poster is fronting about smoking he/she can be subtle against smoking, idk man, but the vibe and the tone he gives off, either he is just combative to others opinion or he is one of those people who has nothing better to do but tell people not to smoke with that said - flame on

[barfly]

Originally Posted by seesolo yo i feel you barfly, seriously though i think that poster is fronting about smoking he/she can be subtle against smoking, idk man, but the vibe and the tone he gives off, either he is just combative to others opinions or he is one of those people who has nothing better to do but tell people not to smoke with that said - flame on

Whether he is a smoker, anti, whatever or is not, is irrelevant. He is entitled to his opinion as we all are. I think if you are against smoking, subtlety should be a requirement in a forum like this. Most of the posters here I believe to be smokers. However, whatever they are, I respect their unique opinions even if they are not smokers or just pretending to be. Light 'em up if you got 'em.

[bobbyT]

i like open discourse with smokers and non-smokers...at the end of the day, cigarettes are a legal product and i like my individual rights...if they were illegal, that would be a different story, but all these politicians get campaign donations from big Tobacco, then they pit smokers vs? non-smokers and act like they have nothing to do with it...believe me, if you are a non-smoker and get lung cancer like Christopher Reeves' wife, it isn't from second hand smoke, it is from emissions from cars and factories...just think of it from a common sense standpoint...just from a volume of smoke...what gives off more, a car, a smokestack, or an individual cigarette?

[Smylex]

It is sick that the govt. gets itself into private buisness affairs like smoking tax. More tobbaco companies would be giving back to our economy if they didn't have to give 75% of their earnings to our govt. to waste on BS.