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.
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.
The pivoting point will probably be whether there is a significant segment of the population who is actually made ill by fragrances. There is a difference between being inconvenienced and getting sick.
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.
So studies that show bans decrease pub income are valid, and studies that show bans decrease heart attacks are not?
I would guess that if smokers decided that their experience at the "mini-pub" at home was less satisfying than the pub experience, eventually they would drift back to the pub and stand outside with their smoking friends to smoke.
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."
What do you say?
The American Legion Post in my town allows smoking. I went inside last summer to buy barbecue, which they sell a couple of times per year to raise money. Great barbecue! They always sell out! I will never go inside again. The food was being sold in the bingo hall, and in the few minutes it took me to make the purchase, my eyes started stinging and tearing and I was nauseated. There were actually only a few people in there at the time. It has to be much worse when there are more folks actively smoking.
I would never go there to play bingo.
So the question is, how many new members would join and how many non-smoking bingo players would there be (members or guests) if you eliminated smoking? If you only polled a membership that is largely composed of smokers, then the result you got is predictable.
And if you do not bring in younger members, what is the future of your organization? When the smokers die off, who will be left?
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."
What do you say?
So what will happen to your post once these older members start dying off and you fail to recruit younger members? I once accompanied my FIL to his VFW post and I couldn't sit in there for more than 5 minutes before my eyes started to burn. This is also why you're seeing new fraternal organizations for post-9/11 veterans.
Since you surveyed members, you should also survey non-members; see what would your post need to do to attract new blood. Chances are it won't be bingo night.
The American Legion Post in my town allows smoking. I went inside last summer to buy barbecue, which they sell a couple of times per year to raise money. Great barbecue! They always sell out! I will never go inside again. The food was being sold in the bingo hall, and in the few minutes it took me to make the purchase, my eyes started stinging and tearing and I was nauseated. There were actually only a few people in there at the time. It has to be much worse when there are more folks actively smoking.
I would never go there to play bingo.
So the question is, how many new members would join and how many non-smoking bingo players would there be (members or guests) if you eliminated smoking? If you only polled a membership that is largely composed of smokers, then the result you got is predictable.
And if you do not bring in younger members, what is the future of your organization? When the smokers die off, who will be left?
Those are questions our post cannot answer because we simply don't know. I suspect the post is doomed anyhow as younger Veteran's just aren't that interested.
However, a blanket smoking ban (which was proposed in the Texas Legislature...again) would have immediately killed it off because the revenue to pay the bills would suddenly stop coming in. A total indoor ban would not give the post time to recover and maybe attract new members because the bills would be due next month.
All that aside, would you, personally, be willing for the post to close just to pass a smoking ban? Would it be worth it to you?
So what will happen to your post once these older members start dying off and you fail to recruit younger members? I once accompanied my FIL to his VFW post and I couldn't sit in there for more than 5 minutes before my eyes started to burn. This is also why you're seeing new fraternal organizations for post-9/11 veterans.
Since you surveyed members, you should also survey non-members; see what would your post need to do to attract new blood. Chances are it won't be bingo night.
We did survey the non-members. Most of our bingo players are not members. Then, with that information, we put it to a vote at the regular membership meeting and it was voted down, solidly. Mine was the only vote for making it non-smoking.
And, ours is not a unique problem. Most VFW and American Legion posts are in the same position. I total, indoor smoking ban would be a kiss of death for them.
The pivoting point will probably be whether there is a significant segment of the population who is actually made ill by fragrances. There is a difference between being inconvenienced and getting sick.
Yes, there is. However, that distinction is of no importance to the Health Police types whose ultimate goal is control and regulation of the freedoms and choices of others. It is just a matter of practically getting from point A to point B by increments. And of course, using good public relations propoganda to fool the gullible portion of the public (see "useful idiots") to sell the snake-oil that the steps are only reasonable measures undertaken for the good of (fill in the blank) with: Public health, our children, the greater good, etc, etc.
And even lesser to those types ("useful idiots")who have grown up believing there is NO distinction, and that A = B. That what they want is all that matters.
Do you seriously believe that the people whose agenda involves eventual total regulation of all traditionally taken for granted (rightfully) choices/freedoms, will not "find" something to "prove" how excessive fragrances can lead to illness or some sort? Such as those with asthma? And, as it seems MJM has shown countless times, there is no real proof that second-hand smoke is any more dangerous than any other type of air pollution.
Sorry, but the mention of a difference is only relevant if and only if, those control freak types will really stop at that. They won't...and history is a great guide. Because, for some, it is not really about smoking anyway, it is about control.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis.
"There is no greater tyranny than the tyranny of good intentions."
- Stillkit
Those are questions our post cannot answer because we simply don't know. I suspect the post is doomed anyhow as younger Veteran's just aren't that interested.
However, a blanket smoking ban (which was proposed in the Texas Legislature...again) would have immediately killed it off because the revenue to pay the bills would suddenly stop coming in. A total indoor ban would not give the post time to recover and maybe attract new members because the bills would be due next month.
All that aside, would you, personally, be willing for the post to close just to pass a smoking ban? Would it be worth it to you?
What people say they will do in a situation and what they actually do are two very different things. People are creatures of habit and will resist change. In this case, if you ban smoking I bet some would stay away for a week before coming back.
Your post appears to be doomed on its current course, whether or not the smoking ban passes. At best you're delaying the inevitable. The only way it will survive is if you take a risk now. To quote former Army Chief of Staff Shinseki:
"If you dislike change, you're going to dislike irrelevance even more."
What people say they will do in a situation and what they actually do are two very different things. People are creatures of habit and will resist change. In this case, if you ban smoking I bet some would stay away for a week before coming back.
Your post appears to be doomed on its current course, whether or not the smoking ban passes. At best you're delaying the inevitable. The only way it will survive is if you take a risk now. To quote former Army Chief of Staff Shinseki:
"If you dislike change, you're going to dislike irrelevance even more."
Agreed! I'd propose a trial of non-smoking bingo nights. Evaluate it after 3 months or so.
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.
) 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!
