Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SuzyQ, you wrote, "Actually, I did not write that. I was quoting another person's opinion. Her opinion is that pub closures are due to many factors, and the ones that are closing are doing so because they are not competitive." I apologize for assuming you agreed with her, though it seemed a reasonable assumption to make. The only note I saw from you there about being "not competitive" was in relation to pubs recently blaming competition from supermarket prices, and I addressed that issue in my response.
And you wrote, "And now you state that there should be financial penalties for stores that sell booze in order to keep non-competitive pubs open. Really?" No, I don't feel that way. I think I made it pretty clear that such sentiment comes from the pubs that have still survived despite the smoking ban. HMG has made it pretty clear that they refuse to consider a revision of the ban despite the public outcry on their vaunted "Public Review" message board, so the pubs are pleading for help in other ways.
And you wrote, "So people who have decided they prefer an evening at home with friends to an evening at the pub should start going back to pubs in order to keep more pubs open? Ever stop to think that they may prefer to just spend less money, particularly in the current economic climate?" No, I don't think they should, at least not while the ban is in place. They should do what they enjoy in the company of people they enjoy being with, which in this case has meant more partying at home in their "smokey-drinkey" mini-pubs in their rec rooms and such. Of course such partying tends to be a bit more dangerous to people in many ways, and may be illegal to boot over there, but it's what people have opted to do in the face of an oppressive government regulation.
And, in relation to the negative side effects of pubs, you write, "Again, I did not write it. I quoted another person's opinion." And again, I apologize for assuming that you agreed with what you quoted as an argument. Unfortunately it's getting a bit hard to keep up with what parts of what you write you actually agree with.
And you wrote, "And now drinking in a pub is less likely to contribute to spousal abuse than drinking at home? Do you have a study for that?" No, and I'll freely admit I do not. However it seems quite a reasonable assumption on at least two counts: (1) With the booze being cheaper and no barman to oversee its consumption, it's likely the home drinker will drink more, and thus, if you believe booze contributes to abuse, be more likely to engage in such abuse. And (2) Simply being cooped up at home and having some degree of brooding resentment over having their social life interfered with is likely to raise their aggression level and make such abuse more likely.
And finally you wrote, "Why should I support a failing casino any more than I would a failing movie theater or a failing automobile dealership? Now that is misdirection to the nth degree." As I pointed out clearly, you would only be called on to be financially responsible to cover the damages caused by a ban if you were either a lawmaker who supported it or someone paid by an antismoking group. Since you don't believe a ban would cause such losses in the first place, then you should have no worries regardless and should actually be enthusiastic about making such an offer. I'm assuming here of course that you actually wrote those words and agree with them ... maybe a bit chancy as an assumption at this point. OK, I'll be away for a bit here to make some lunch and hit the store, but I'll check back later.
Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 01-05-2012 at 01:07 PM..
Reason: Added a word, deleted a paragraph space, and added an ending.
This was written for business managers.
The difference with fragrance vs. second hand smoke is that the potential pool of people who can be seriously injured is smaller with fragrances.
That does not mean that there is no risk.
Most of the time, fragrances become an issue when someone complains. At that point, an employer would be wise to suggest that employees ditch the fragrances.
I see no reason for wholesale bans for fragrances on the line of tobacco bans.
Our home is pretty much fragrance free. DH dislikes strong odors --- they make his nose run --- so I do not use perfume, cologne or hairspray. I choose unscented personal care and home cleaning products as much as possible.
Strangely, DH is not bothered by the smell of gun oil.
Who of us has not been in an elevator with the woman doused in perfume, surrounded by a nauseating cloud of cloying scent --- or the teenager who thinks Axe replaces bathing!
I know who it was written for. My concern is the obvious fact the paper is predicting (upon good information and evidence), that "annoying fragrances" are the next target by the Health Police for control purposes, and their "useful idiots" who follow the party line because they believe their right not to be inconvenienced supercedes the rights of others to control their own property and business interests.
Sorry. I just realized that I left one important point hanging out there and it's been a bit too long to politely add an edit to the previous posting.
SuzyQ, in relation to people drinking more at home in the UK now, you wrote, "Ever stop to think that they may prefer to just spend less money, particularly in the current economic climate?" Suzy, the "economics" excuse is a standard one that's been getting made by Antismokers for well over five years at this point. Please refer to the reference made below to the Snowdon article on Ban Damages. The decision to drink at home instead of at the pubs, has tracked fairly precisely with the imposition at different times of the bans in the UK sections and in Ireland. The economics in the meantime was fairly uniform for the four areas considered.
Suzy, you wrote, "How can I accuse you of cherry picking when I specifically ask you to choose the studies that you want me to read? If I do that, I lose the privilege of accusing you of cherry picking."
Oh! Ok. In that case let's start with Otsuka:
Otsuka, R. et al. Acute Effects of Passive Smoking…. JAMA. Vol 286. #4. 2001)
since that is the study that is often held up as showing the deadly effects of being exposed to smoke for even short periods of time (30 minutes). Would you like to read it first so that you can defend it against my criticisms?
I was pleasantly surprised to find that JAMA has that one available for free.
Your criticism?
Quote:
You then wrote, "Why should hotels put ash trays in non-smoking rooms? Do they not put them in smoking rooms any more? " Ordinarily there's no reason for them to do so, unless they suspect that some guests might find someone to bring back to the room and be hesitant about throwing them outside to smoke, but maybe that doesn't really happen in hotels nowadays. In a hotel that provides NO smoking rooms however, it's quite reasonable to expect, as you indicated earlier, that some smokers will violate the rule. Thus, if the hotel is truly concerned about fires and the safety of its guests and it agrees with your opinion about smokers then it should provide ashtrays.
Do you really not understand how silly this argument is?
Quote:
And you wrote, "The bit I posted was for historical purposes. Why does it worry you so much?" Doesn't worry me at all Suzy. It was irrelevant to the topic though and I was afraid it might upset Katiana.
Then isn't that up to Katiana? Why mention it it all all?
Quote:
And finally you wrote, "I suspect that if you claim to be serving prime beef and you are really serving a lower grade, that you will find yourself in hot water. I do not buy your argument that it is good business to lie. Eventually, someone blows the whistle. What happens to your business then?"
You clearly didn't understand the example I gave: the ones making the claims about their beef and their business were the ones serving the better grade of beef. My argument was that they most certainly wouldn't want to spoil their success by encouraging a law that would remove their unique advantage. If they were concerned about lying they'd simply say nothing while hoping their silence would encourage the status quo.
I did misunderstand. Sorry. I still think it is silly to envision a business owner pretending to do one thing when he is actually doing another. Why not just boast that your beef is the best?
I would invite him to sit on my couch and have a cigarette with him. After a few drags, when Obama became a bit more relaxed, I'd ask him to tell all of his Liberal followers to stop intruding into every aspect of my life.
I'd bring up The Constitution - but, then that would be the end of our visit.
Superficially, it might be. But read this part again:
"Since the home remains a major source of secondhand smoke exposure for children, this work shows that an additional justification for enacting smoke-free legislation is the secondary effect of encouraging voluntary smoke-free rules at home, particularly in homes occupied by smokers,"
The point is that "voluntary" is always the first approach. It affords a veneer of "reason" and "compromise" which is good public relations.
BUT...the ultimate goal is already decided upon...in this case, a total ban on smoking even in ones private home. So? What happens if some people do not "voluntarily" stop smoking in their residences?
It is pretty much spelled out in the quoted statement, I think. That is, the next stop is to force them to by enacting "smoke-free legislation."
SuzyQ, please point out the post where I said I believed in a strictly linear theory of causation.
I noticed you have not addressed the point of your being forced to pay, as either a lawmaker or as paid member of an antismoking group, for business losses caused by smoking bans if such a legal agreement were made with those groups. Would you care to expand on that? Or were you simply mistaken when you said you'd be forced to pay in such a situation?
You have repeatedly stated that low levels of STS are not harmful. You do not believe the "head" of the "hockey stick" curve is valid, only the straight line portion. You have repeatedly stated that you believe that the risk from STS is directly related to amount and duration of exposure. That makes it a linear relationship.
Your question about paying for business losses related to smoking bans is ridiculous. Come back to me when such a hypothetical situation exists somewhere.
You are assuming that all the smokers will stop gambling. Do you think that is true? Will they stop gambling altogether because they cannot sit at the slot machine and smoke, but have to go outside?
I don't think so.
Not all of them will quit, but as the statistics you mentioned show, enough will for it to hurt business.
Here's a real life example: Our local VFW exists because of the money made off bingo. There's always a cloud of cigarette smoke in the bingo hall because more than half our players smoke.
It was suggested, by ME ( ) that we make the Post non-smoking to encourage younger Vets to come. A survey of the bingo players was taken and OVER HALF said they would not come if smoking were banned. Over half!
A smoking ban at our VFW would literally be a death blow to the post because it cannot exist without that bingo revenue.
Would that be a worthwhile exchange for us? Would it be worth it? The membership said, "No."
Michael, Could I please request that you use the quote function instead of copy and paste? With so many posts, it makes it difficult to find the previous post from which you are pulling the quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden
SuzyQ, you wrote, "Actually, I did not write that. I was quoting another person's opinion. Her opinion is that pub closures are due to many factors, and the ones that are closing are doing so because they are not competitive." I apologize for assuming you agreed with her, though it seemed a reasonable assumption to make. The only note I saw from you there about being "not competitive" was in relation to pubs recently blaming competition from supermarket prices, and I addressed that issue in my response.
Do you not understand that this was an opinion piece, and I referenced it as such?
It points out that, in the opinion of the author, there are many factors leading to the failure of pubs. In her opinion, the pubs that fail do so because, shall we say, they are bland and lack character.
To me, that means they fail because they are not competitive. The ones that survive do so because they have managers that make the place inviting despite smoking bans or competition from direct sales of alcohol.
Quote:
And you wrote, "And now you state that there should be financial penalties for stores that sell booze in order to keep non-competitive pubs open. Really?" No, I don't feel that way. I think I made it pretty clear that such sentiment comes from the pubs that have still survived despite the smoking ban. HMG has made it pretty clear that they refuse to consider a revision of the ban despite the public outcry on their vaunted "Public Review" message board, so the pubs are pleading for help in other ways.
If you do not agree that there should be financial penalties for direct sale of liquor, why did you bring it up? That is misdirection.
Quote:
And you wrote, "So people who have decided they prefer an evening at home with friends to an evening at the pub should start going back to pubs in order to keep more pubs open? Ever stop to think that they may prefer to just spend less money, particularly in the current economic climate?" No, I don't think they should, at least not while the ban is in place. They should do what they enjoy in the company of people they enjoy being with, which in this case has meant more partying at home in their "smokey-drinkey" mini-pubs in their rec rooms and such. Of course such partying tends to be a bit more dangerous to people in many ways, and may be illegal to boot over there, but it's what people have opted to do in the face of an oppressive government regulation.
It's illegal to smoke and drink in your own home in GB?
Quote:
And, in relation to the negative side effects of pubs, you write, "Again, I did not write it. I quoted another person's opinion." And again, I apologize for assuming that you agreed with what you quoted as an argument. Unfortunately it's getting a bit hard to keep up with what parts of what you write you actually agree with.
I did not say I did not disagree with it. I said I did not write it.
Quote:
And you wrote, "And now drinking in a pub is less likely to contribute to spousal abuse than drinking at home? Do you have a study for that?" No, and I'll freely admit I do not. However it seems quite a reasonable assumption on at least two counts: (1) With the booze being cheaper and no barman to oversee its consumption, it's likely the home drinker will drink more, and thus, if you believe booze contributes to abuse, be more likely to engage in such abuse. And (2) Simply being cooped up at home and having some degree of brooding resentment over having their social life interfered with is likely to raise their aggression level and make such abuse more likely.
So the barman is more likely to cut off the drinker than the spouse? Can you prove that? can you prove your second statement?
Quote:
And finally you wrote, "Why should I support a failing casino any more than I would a failing movie theater or a failing automobile dealership? Now that is misdirection to the nth degree." As I pointed out clearly, you would only be called on to be financially responsible to cover the damages caused by a ban if you were either a lawmaker who supported it or someone paid by an antismoking group. Since you don't believe a ban would cause such losses in the first place, then you should have no worries regardless and should actually be enthusiastic about making such an offer. I'm assuming here of course that you actually wrote those words and agree with them ... maybe a bit chancy as an assumption at this point.
Why should you have any problem assuming that I write what I post? Why would I post something I do not believe? There is no ghost writer here, I assure you.
I am neither a lawmaker nor someone paid by an anti-smoking group. I am just expressing my personal opinion and providing the evidence to support it.
I am flattered that you think I might be, however. Anyone who wants to pay me for this, please feel free to DM me!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
" Ordinarily there's no reason for them to do so, unless they suspect that some guests might find someone to bring back to the room and be hesitant about throwing them outside to smoke, but maybe that doesn't really happen in hotels nowadays. In a hotel that provides NO smoking rooms however, it's quite reasonable to expect, as you indicated earlier, that some smokers will violate the rule. Thus, if the hotel is truly concerned about fires and the safety of its guests and it agrees with your opinion about smokers then it should provide ashtrays.
) that we make the Post non-smoking to encourage younger Vets to come. A survey of the bingo players was taken and OVER HALF said they would not come if smoking were banned. Over half!
