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.
Regarding Bingo: I have several documents that might be relevant, but I don't think they're up on the net. One that I just examined is a financial statement by Ian Taylor of Satellite Bingo in Alberta Canada. He has a number of different figures in different tables comparing bingo finances in Edmonton the year before and the year after their ban, as well as comparable figures over the same time periods for nearby Calgary without a ban. The Calgary figures remained stable. The Edmonton bingos lost 25 million dollars. (Note: These are THEIR figures, not mine, and I have not examined this particular question carefully enough to vouch for the work. From other figures in other areas that I've seen however I would believe it is valid.)
In terms of my own work in the area, I examined Minnesota's "Taxable Charitable Gambling Receipts" over a period of five or six years as MN evolved from a Free Choice state, into a state with partial bans, into a state with a total ban. You can see the results of that expressed in a very clear and striking graphic form in my earlier referenced:
on page 19. You'll note that state gambling revenues (these are bingos, pull tabs, kenos -- not casinos) went from about 120 million dollars a month in pre-ban 2003 down to about 90 million dollars a month in post-ban 2008. They then dropped an additional 10 million when the recession hit in late 2008. You'll also note how perfectly the drops tracked with the implementation of both the partial and the full bans. All figures available and verifiable from Minnesota's government website.
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.
So, you would really tell the old guy who spent 3 years in a Japanese prison camp he can't have a cigar with his beer?
Are you arguing that nicotine is not addictive, and there are no medical impacts from smoking? That instead there is an elaborate conspiracy to recast it as malicious substance for anti-smoking crusader's ends???
SmokeJaguar, are you familiar with the concept of the Straw Man argument? While you haven't actually made it, you've used the same concept here. Find me ANYPLACE, in ANYTHING that I have written that would lead you to conclude that I believe "there are no medical impacts from smoking." Please stop back and state whether you found any so that your question does not mislead others who might read this thread.
In terms of nicotine being addictive, I would say that it is mildly addictive in the same sense that many other enjoyable things are. I've seen people addicted to alcohol and heroin being forced to go without their "fixes," and believe me, nicotine is a pansy by comparison. For my own part I'm actually far more addicted to chocolate than nicotine and would quickly choose to give up smoking if I had to choose between the two.
In terms of conspiracies, simply look over the subject matter of the papers presented at the biennial World Conferences. They're quite impressive affairs you know: the one in Chicago a while back cost over ten million dollars and had over 5,000 participants. Try reading some of the very impressive and expensively produced strategy guides that are used by the astroturfed "grassroots" groups that push for the bans using government funding. There's no "conspiracy" in the classic sense of the word, and I used the first fifty pages of my book to explain that: it's more of a "perfect storm" -- individuals with different motivations, many of them psychologically quite questionable and some of them simply materialistic or power-oriented.
Without the money brought in from cigarette taxes, the Master Settlement Agreement, and the input of the NicoGummyPatchyProductPeople, smoking bans would never have gotten off the ground or survived to this day. Do you have any idea of the amount of money that's gone into pushing these things? In 2001 alone the Master Settlement Agreement funneled over 880 million dollars into "Tobacco Control" activities. And remember: the MSA is just ONE of the sources of funding out there for these people. In 2003 the New Jersey Breathes group was facing the possibility of having its funding cut to "just" 14 million dollars and one of its directors complained to the press "That's it. Everything stops. There is no more money."
When fourteen million dollars is called "no money" there's something VERY seriously wrong with this picture.
So, you would really tell the old guy who spent 3 years in a Japanese prison camp he can't have a cigar with his beer?
That's really sad.
Tex, the Posts, the Charities, the closed pubs, all of the other costs of smoking bans, they're all just written off as collateral damage, "unintended consequences." About ten years ago there was a California congressman campaigning for a ban on beach smoking because of the "beach butt litter problem." I wrote to him and he confirmed it was something he was very concerned about and would do anything in his power to correct.
A few months later a study was done that determined that most of the butts being washed up on the beaches that had created such a problem recently were coming from storm sewer runoff carrying the butts cast down on the streets by smokers who'd been thrown out of their bars, restaurants, and workplaces to smoke by the curbs. When I wrote back to that congressman and suggested the beach butt litter problem that was so dear to his heart could be quickly and largely fixed just by amending the smoking ban he mysteriously never responded. The butt litter was just "collateral damage," and, even better for the Antismokers, it was collateral damage that then let them vilify smokers even more.
My guess is that the bingo games do not pay the rent. Maybe stillkit could enlighten us.
No, bingo does not pay the rent because there is no rent. We own the building.
But, it does pay for maintenance, licenses, heat and a/c and a few salaries. In fact, bingo even subsidizes the bar, which is not a profit making center but a service to our members. In short, it funds the whole operation.
It's pretty simple: No bingo, no VFW post. No smoking, no bingo.
Tex, the Posts, the Charities, the closed pubs, all of the other costs of smoking bans, they're all just written off as collateral damage, "unintended consequences." About ten years ago there was a California congressman campaigning for a ban on beach smoking because of the "beach butt litter problem." I wrote to him and he confirmed it was something he was very concerned about and would do anything in his power to correct.
A few months later a study was done that determined that most of the butts being washed up on the beaches that had created such a problem recently were coming from storm sewer runoff carrying the butts cast down on the streets by smokers who'd been thrown out of their bars, restaurants, and workplaces to smoke by the curbs. When I wrote back to that congressman and suggested the beach butt litter problem that was so dear to his heart could be quickly and largely fixed just by amending the smoking ban he mysteriously never responded. The butt litter was just "collateral damage," and, even better for the Antismokers, it was collateral damage that then let them vilify smokers even more.
One estimate I saw claimed 2500 lost jobs just in Hennepin County, MN after the ban. It was more in Michigan.
But, who cares about that when public "health" is at stake? There is no other consideration, no adverse effect too great to endure for the benefit of a smoke free environment...right?
No, bingo does not pay the rent because there is no rent. We own the building.
But, it does pay for maintenance, licenses, heat and a/c and a few salaries. In fact, bingo even subsidizes the bar, which is not a profit making center but a service to our members. In short, it funds the whole operation.
It's pretty simple: No bingo, no VFW post. No smoking, no bingo.
But you, yourself, recommend going smokeless for bingo!
But you, yourself, recommend going smokeless for bingo!
Yes, I did suggest it for the benefit of younger Veteran's, but knew it would never fly and I knew why. I was the Post Commander at the time and wasn't completely clueless.
But, you see, the key difference is that I knew the membership would have to vote on it. That THEY would make the decision, based upon what they believed was in the best interests of the post. Pass or fail, the membership rules.
Not so with arbitrary smoking bans imposed with no regard for the wishes of places like our VFW.
You tell me which is more fair? Let the members rule their own post, or impose an unwanted ban from outside?
One estimate I saw claimed 2500 lost jobs just in Hennepin County, MN after the ban. It was more in Michigan.
But, who cares about that when public "health" is at stake? There is no other consideration, no adverse effect too great to endure for the benefit of a smoke free environment...right?
I think you need a vision check. Here's what Minnesota Public Radio says. I think they are more accurate than some pro-smoking advocacy group.
MPR: How many jobs lost due to smoking ban?
***Unemployment claims for people in the food and drink business in Hennepin County have gone up since the ban was passed. But not by thousands or even hundreds. So far in 2005, 18 more claims were filed by county bar and restaurant workers than in 2004. . . . .
Ramsey County -- which allows smoking in bars and private clubs -- saw a 5 percent increase in unemployment claims between 2004 and 2005. With the exception of Washington County, the counties closest to Hennepin County -- counties where smoking is not banned -- have all experienced increases in unemployment claims. Some as high as 30 percent.
In 2007, REPUBLICAN Gov. Tim Pawlenty singed a statewide restaurant smoking ban into law.
SuzyQ, Re: My reply style: Sorry, but I find doing it this way the most comfortable and flexible, particularly if I am replying to several people in one post. However, I think we may agree that the lengthy point-by-point back and forths we've been having are both a bit difficult to follow and may be counterproductive for both of us in terms of communications. How about this: we'll both make an effort to stick to criticizing just the major points in the others' responses and concentrate on our own most important points. That may make it simpler for other CD readers to follow if they wish to. I'm suggesting this however knowing that I'm going to be as likely to fail in it as you, but I'll give it a try!
You can get tips on using the multiquote function from CD. It really is easier.
Quote:
You also offered to allow me to pick my own choice of studies for analysis without accusations of cherry-picking and I started with Ryo Otsuka's 2001 study that formed the claims that even short (30 minutes) exposures to smoke are harmful to one's heart. What people don't realize is that Otsuka took a rather unusual and extreme subsegment of the general 1990's Japanese population for his subject group, people in that smoke-filled-and-loving-it society who avoided smoke completely in their domestic, working, and social lives. He then had them sign a statement acknowledging the "risks" they'd be facing, shut them into a sealed gas-chamber, then filled that gas chamber with a smokey smog at a level 400% that which existed in the middle of the smoking sections on old pressurized aircraft of the 1980s. (1992 FAA study: ScienceDirect - Atmospheric Environment. Part A. General Topics : Measurement of cabin air quality aboard commercial airliners Nagda, N et al. “Measurement of cabin air quality aboard commercial airliners” )
No, that is not what he did.
The subjects were volunteers from the medical school. Half were smokers and half were non-smokers.
"Passive Smoking
After baseline hemodynamic and echocardiographic recording, all subjects spent 30 minutes in the smoking room (450 cm × 300 cm with a 250-cm ceiling) in our hospital. When this room was used for the study, some individuals who were not among the study participants visited to smoke on their own accord."
In other words, they deliberately chose a setting that reflected the exposure to SHS that would occur in a bar or restaurant. They even allowed non-participants to come in and smoke. There was no attempt to produce a laboratory simulation of passive smoking.
"These measurements [the blood vessel flow rates] were made by the investigators who were blinded to the subjects' smoking status."
The people doing the measurements did not know who smoked and who did not.
"Informed consent" is required for all studies that use human subjects.
Quote:
The result? A small circulatory system change similar to what might normally be found simply after eating a typical meal. The most amazing thing is that there were no heart attacks just from the emotional stress! There was no control. Even a high school science project would have had a sham control model and “protocol signing” with subjects exposed to harmless but irritating odors and fog. The control study results would probably have been identical. If high school students had presented such a poorly controlled and constructed study as a science project and drawn similarly extreme conclusions, they would probably have been flunked!
Why wasn’t even a simple control set up? Could it be simply that the results would have negated the point of the study and that maybe the Antismoking grant money would have dried up? Perhaps… I honestly can’t think of any other reason. It seems that Otsuka’s study didn’t show a physical reaction to smoke, but instead simply showed a physical reaction to fear and stress -- conditions promoted more by Antismokers than by smoke.
It is obvious that you are completely unfamiliar with the various types of medical studies.
This was a comparison of two groups of men who were similar except for their smoking status. The test subjects were the nonsmokers. The "control" group was the smokers.
I do not understand your rationale for thinking that the response was due to "fear and stress". Are you familiar with what happens when you are stressed? Perhaps your pulse increases? Maybe your blood pressure goes up? My older son did a little science project on that when he was in junior high school. He showed that players at a video arcade in our community raised their blood pressure when they played. Got an "A" on it.
Otsuka measured pulse and blood pressure in his subjects, before and after exposure to passive smoke.
"Hemodynamics
None of the subjects experienced any symptoms or had any electrocardiogram change during either passive smoking or adenosine triphosphate administration. Passive smoking had no effect on hemodynamic parameters including heart rate, blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate–blood pressure product in each group."
So these men were just scared --- but their pulse and heart rate did not change?
Why should sitting in the smoking lounge with their colleagues frighten them?
Quote:
Otsuka was at fault for deliberately using extreme experimental conditions without reasonable controls. The media was at fault in not reporting the reality of the extreme conditions or the likely reaction of extreme nonsmokers forced to remain in those conditions for a full half hour.
I have to ask. I cannot help myself. Did you read this study or are you only repeating what someone else told you about it?
Quote:
And Antismokers are at fault for using this study to convince people that simply being near smokers for a few minutes in normal conditions causes heart attacks. Followup studies, such as one done in 2007 by Dr. Giannini of Angiology University of Pisa, Italy (“The Effects of Acute Passive Smoke Exposure on Endothelium-Dependent Brachial Artery Dilation in Healthy Individuals.” in the journal Angiology -- not sure about the free status: I may have written him for it.) exposed nonsmokers to secondhand smoke at levels up to 2,000% as smoky as in the middle of those old airplane smoking sections, while measuring similar changes in things such as “Flow Mediated Dilation” while also failing to provide proper controls.
The thing that amazes me is that the sheer stress of such experimental conditions didn't produce any heart attacks right there on the floor!
"Eighteen healthy young never smokers (12 men, 6 women) 21 to 55 years old (mean ± SD: 34 ±9 years) underwent ultrasonography measuring baseline brachial-artery diameter and brachial-artery diameter during hyperemia and after sublingual administration of nitroglycerin, twice: in a smoke-free environment, and then in the same environment polluted by 30 to 35 ppm carbon monoxide. Each subject served as his/her control."
Giannini's subjects were not exposed to "smoke" at all. Carbon monoxide is invisible and odorless.
This was done in a lab environment. They did expose the participants to a higher level of carbon monoxide. Otsuka's study was about 6 parts per million, Giannini's 30 to 35 ppm.
Your study of air quality in airplanes requires payment and the abstract does not give the carbon monoxide levels. Here is another study of air quality in airplane cabins:
They measured carbon monoxide levels of 3 to 5 ppm.
So Otsuka's subjects were in the rough equivalent of a smoky airplane cabin.
Giannini used carbon monoxide as a proxy for actual cigarette smoke. That is because the factor in smoke that affects the blood vessels of the heart appears to be carbon monoxide.
Quote:
Yes, there were changes observed that relate in some form to the changes that are speculated to increase the chances of eventual heart disease if maintained steadily for decades ... not for thirty minutes. The changes were actually not that much different in magnitude than similar changes in subjects noted after eating a breakfast of cornflakes with milk. The big difference is that if subjects were forced to eat four or twenty such breakfasts in a single sitting we might very well see some REAL heart attacks right there at the table (at least for the 20 breakfasts!)
Can you provide a source for this statement?
Quote:
Suzy, I now turn it over to you to defend the study as showing the need for total smoking bans.
Otsuka showed that passive smoking increased the level of carbon monoxide (CO) in the blood of non-smokers. Smokers already had high levels of CO and it did not increase with passive smoking. This may be the reason for what the study found concerning the effect of passive smoke on the circulation of the heart.
They showed that just 30 minutes of exposure to passive smoke abruptly slowed down the rate of blood flow through the arteries of the heart. This appears to be due to effects on the lining of the vessels similar to those that produce atherosclerosis, the cause of heart attacks.
The results were highly statistically significant.
"Coronary flow velocity reserve in nonsmokers was significantly reduced by passive smoking (P<.001)."
That means there was less than one chance in a thousand that the results were due to chance.
Second hand smoke is bad for the heart, even just 30 minutes of it.
Q.E.D
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.
