[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by BBMW

If you're talking about CVS, yes, they stopped selling cigarettes largely as a PR/business decision. They didn't feel it fit their business plan, and the image they want to project. They're fully free to do that, and probably should be praised for doing so. But there are a vast number of retail businesses that get a decent percentage of their revenue from tobacco sales, and they'll fight tooth and nail to prevent losing that.

I think you're missing the point that so few people are smoking these days that it is possible for large retail operations to jettison tobacco sales entirely and not miss them. A big freakin' team of accountants at CVS looked at the numbers and agreed that being the first drug chain to be tobacco-free was worth the revenue hit.

That wasn't possible 20 years ago, or even 10, or even FIVE.

There are still people out there whose preferred carrier is Northwest because they were the first to embrace smoke-free flying. CVS knows this. I don't think this was a particularly bad gamble for them.


It doesn't matter if people agree or not. "No Smoking" is going to take hold everywhere. This is inevitable. There is no stopping it. Smokers are going to continue to be squeezed out of the rest of society until there aren't any left.

[EA]

I think they've just switched to vape, and that is how cvs doesn't miss the revenue.

[ScoopLV]

They sell patches and gum. I haven't seen any eCigs there. (I've been there many times in the last couple weeks buying cases of water and soda for the floor installers.)

They're also making a big deal about being tobacco free.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Call me cynical. But I think eCigs are the tobacco industry's last-gasp (ha!) attempt to get another generation hooked on nicotine.

You're cynical.

The tobacco companies were the LAST people to get on board. The "eCig" industry (I think that it's a TERRIBLE term, because it evokes images of cigarettes, and these are anything but a cigarette) is about as close to a "grass roots" industry as is possible. People are mixing their own liquids. They're building their own hardware. Yes, the tobacco companies are (finally) getting into the business, but vaping has been around for a long time, and for most of that time, the tobacco companies were fighting it.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I don't even care if there is no health risk whatsoever. If a non-smoker doesn't want to breathe smoke. That's that.

Wow, that's some very, very twisted logic you have there, Scoop. Ironically, it's also the standard anti-smoking logic.

Apply the same premise to anything - ANYTHING - else.

"I don't care if there's no risk. If a non-driver doesn't want to breathe exhaust, that's that."

"I don't care if there's no risk. If a non-coffee-drinker doesn't want to smell coffee, that's that."

"I don't care if there's no risk. If a non-perfume-wearer doesn't want to smell perfume, that's that."

I hereby declare that I hate everything. You must now all bend to my whims and stop doing everything, because I don't want to see, smell, hear, taste, read about, experience or otherwise discover that you're doing stuff I've chosen not to do.

I'm unimpressed, Scoop. That argument isn't up to the standard I've come to expect from you. I'm not surprised, though. Anti-smokers tend to completely lose their grasp on logic and common sense when discussing smoking.

[ScoopLV]

Cigarette smoke isn't the same as perfume or exhaust -- neither of which I want to smell, either.


Again, in conclusion: Andy Kaufman.

I don't see how anyone can stake out a position to debate this.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by shellymdnv

The CDC would beg to differ on that one

CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke - Smoking & Tobacco Use

Originally Posted by shellymdnv

Well as a Survey Methodologist I can assure you ...

The fact that you, as a "survey methodologist," posted the above link proves only that you haven't researched the methodology of that study. How embarrassing that must be.

Don't worry, though. Other people have done that work already.

The claim that second hand smoke is dangerous is straight up propaganda. In order to have any negative health effects from second hand smoke, the amount of that you'd have to be exposed to, as well as the duration of exposure, far exceeds that which you'll ever find in the real world.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I disagree. Smokers still fly even though the airlines have banned smoking for years.

There aren't any alternatives to flying if you have to be somewhere fast.

There are literally millions of alternatives to going to a casino for entertainment.

Analogy fail, Scoop. More anti-smoking logic loss. I wonder if there's a clinical name for that condition?

[swagger]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

I would like to see a casino go smokefree in LV to see if it works.

Harrah's in the '90s.

How well did it work? Easy answer - are they a non-smoking casino today?

[swagger]

Originally Posted by BBMW

What the state could do, without stepping on too many toes (other than the smokers), is, as other states have done, slap really big taxes on cigarettes. Does NV even have a separate tax on them now? What does a "normal" pack go for out there.

NV has had a tax on them for at least as long as I've lived here.

But I don't pay it - I get my smokes from the Paiute shop downtown. I still have to pay federal taxes, but they're exempt from state taxes.