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.
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.
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."
That's what they said in Michigan too:
August 21st, 2010
The Michigan Restaurant Association recently released results of its first survey on the impact of the smoking ban on restaurants and taverns, indicating that establishments have been more than 2.5 times more likely to experience a decrease in sales than to have experienced increased sales.
According to the survey, about 43 percent of restaurant and tavern operators have reported no change in their sales or the number of visitors to their establishments since the smoking ban took effect May 1. However, while 14.8 percent report an increase in their sales since the ban took effect, 42.4 percent state that their sales are down since the ban was enacted. Additionally, 16 percent of establishments report that the number of visitors to their establishments has increased, while 41.2 percent say that their traffic is down.
According to MRA president and CEO Rob Gifford, while most restaurant and tavern operators have seen little or no benefit from the ban, there are far many more operators who have been hurt by the ban than have benefited.
“Despite the claims of proponents that smoking bans lead to increased business, this clearly has not happened,” said Gifford. “In fact, nearly three times as many restaurants and taverns have been hurt by the ban as have been helped by it.”
In July, the MRA conducted a survey of its members asking for their input on if and how the new statewide smoking ban law has affected them. The survey found:
The majority of restaurant and tavern operators (55 percent) opposed the proposal to ban smoking and continue to do so, despite attempts by some to publicly call the ban an economic success.
The biggest percentage of restaurant operators (43 percent) have seen no change in the number of visitors to their establishments, the length of their patrons’ stays, or in their sales.
Of the restaurant operators who said that the smoking ban has had an effect on the number of visitors, length of stays, or in sales, the number of operators who report a negative impact is more than 2.5 times greater than the number who reports a positive impact.
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?
It would be a shame for the post to close, but would it not be better to prepare for a potential ban by looking for other sources of funding, such as the barbecue sale that the American Legion has here? How about sponsoring a 5K road race? Sponsor an antique car show. Silent auctions are good money-makers in my neck of the woods. Things like the road race and the car show also offer the opportunity to make money from things like t-shirt and food sales.
Of course, things like those are more labor intensive than just calling out bingo numbers. Would you be willing to do it to save the post?
Ask the young whippersnappers what would bring them in.
I now what the VFW is, but I really do not know what it does besides a social function. I presume you charge some form of membership fees. Increasing your membership base would help with that.
Don't just sit on your tush and let it happen. Do something to fix it.
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.
Sorry, but I do not believe that there is any agenda behind banning smoking beyond its effects on health. If there were no health effects, we would be back to avoiding cigarette smoke because it stinks. There would be no bans. They would be unjustified.
The risks associated with fragrances are unlikely to approach that of second hand smoke (and MJM has not proved that second hand smoke is not dangerous.)
Bans only go in when the majority of the voters in a community support them. That means that control is in the hands of the community.
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."
Perfect blueprint for a tyranny of -- at the least -- the type DeToqueville predicted in "Democracy in America".
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” -- Ben Franklin
It's a pretty simple question, so let me direct to you all:
Would the closing of a Veteran's organization be acceptable collateral damage for an indoor smoking ban?
Yes or no.
Unfortunate, but yes.
Your post has fair warning that a ban may inevitably be enacted.
It's up to you to do something to position the post to survive the ban.
If you cannot attract new members, perhaps the post is becoming irrelevant to the veteran community. Irrelevancy may be the dooming factor, not a smoking ban. The fact that you proposed banning smoking to the members to attract new blood indicates that you feel gaining new members is important.
What are other posts doing in areas where bans are in effect?
What are they doing to attract new members?
Have you posted in the Military thread to see what young vets think about veterans organizations?
Would banning smoking make the organization attractive to young vets with families?
I like Katiana's idea. Have a few non-smoking bingo nights, advertise them, and see what happens.
Sorry, but I do not believe that there is any agenda behind banning smoking beyond its effects on health. If there were no health effects, we would be back to avoiding cigarette smoke because it stinks. There would be no bans. They would be unjustified.
Of course there is an agenda. It has been demonstrated and shown by the words of the Anti-Smoking/Health Police folks themselves. And those words have been presented many times before.
And of course you do not believe it. Or at least say you don't. Because, if you actually admitted its obvious existence, then it might be detrimental to the long-range goal. That is, to frankly state the ultimate intent is a total ban on smoking, anywhere. The time has not yet come for that type candidness, right?
Quote:
The risks associated with fragrances are unlikely to approach that of second hand smoke (and MJM has not proved that second hand smoke is not dangerous.)
That wasn't what I said. Go back and read. What I said was that he (and others) have provided ample scientific studies that counter those made by the anti-smoking zealots and their biased studies. How flawed/abbreviated they are in their own turn.
And even if you honestly believe (which I really don't think you do) the disassociation statement about fragrance and SHS as being useless as point of comparrison in terms of ultimate goal ? That is immaterial. Fact is -- if history is any guide -- it WILL be used, eventually.
Quote:
Bans only go in when the majority of the voters in a community support them. That means that control is in the hands of the community.
So would you have any problem with that a majority of voters in a community voting to MANDATE that all private businesses permit smoking? That seems like a simple question...
"But how should we see the demands of freedom when habit-forming behaviour today restricts the freedom of the same person in the future? Once acquired, the habit of smoking is hard to kick, and it can be asked, with some plausibility, whether youthful smokers have an unqualified right to place their future selves in such bondage."
"Libertarian logic for non-interference, when consistently explored, can have extraordinarily stern implications in invalidating the right to assistance from the society when one is hit by self-harming behaviour. If that annulment is not accepted, then the case for libertarian 'immunity' from interference is also correspondingly undermined."
Nobelist Amartya Sen
In other words, it is the smoker who limits his future liberty by smoking. And if you say that society has no right to restrict your smoking, on grounds that it deprives you of liberty, are you willing to accept that society has no role in treating you for the diseases that result from your decision to smoke? No insurance, no Medicare, no Medicaid. Just you?
A rebuttal to Sen is included in the link. That rebuttal concludes that the solution to the problem is to replace the NHS with private insurance:
"However, if private health insurance replaced the disastrous universal "free at the point of consumption" NHS, then we might expect smokers to think twice when they see the immediate and ongoing financial costs to themselves of their behaviour."
The problem there is that non-smokers pay into the insurance pool, so the smoker is not shouldering the financial burden alone.
Perfect blueprint for a tyranny of -- at the least -- the type DeToqueville predicted in "Democracy in America".
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” -- Ben Franklin
Following your logic, you wouldn't have a problem with heroin junkies shooting up in a bar, wouldn't you? After all, both heroin users and smokers are addicts. At least heroin won't make everyone in the joint smell like an ashtray. The only difference is one is socially accepted and the other is not.
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.
