Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Up In Smoke: Sources and Zealots

    By Corinthian Scales, Section News
    Posted on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 03:13:58 PM EST
    Tags: MLLC, BLS, Smoking, Zealots, Ohio, Minnesota, Holland, Community (all tags)

    Yannow, it really never ceases to amaze me that when one is presented with information available by sources responsible to its respective body be it us citizens or a membership, it still just isn't good enough or flawed.

    Today that amazement reared its ugly head again.

    But, before going forward...

    Be careful of your thoughts; they may become words at any moment.  ~Ira Gassen

    Okay, fair enough, the US Department of Labors' Bureau of Labor Statistics?  Toss them out the window.  Seriously, their figures can only be accurate when times are good, right?  The MLBA and its membership figures?  The Michigan Liquor Control Commission (MLCC) Query Site for Active  Licensees sales?  Feh.  Toss all those figures by the wayside.

    Certainly, Theodore J. King must not know what he's talking about either.

    In Michigan, the smoking ban enacted May 1, 2010 has had a profound impact.  According to numbers obtained from the Michigan Department of Labor, which oversees the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, 176 bar licenses have been lost and an additional 63 liquor licenses have been placed in escrow with the Liquor Control Commission since the law went into effect.  According to The Protect Private Property Rights in Michigan Movement, which obtained these numbers, since May 1 bars have suffered a 50 to 85% drop in revenue compared to previous years before the ban, resulting in the loss or suspension of these liquor licenses.

    Yah!!! Fug'em, those 239 establishment owners didn't respect "others" so-called clean air.  And, let's look to the successes of Ohio's Smoking Ban...

    Earlier this year, it was reported that Ohio had spent $3.2 million since 2007 enforcing the voter-approved indoor smoking ban.  Of that $3.2 million, only $1.2 million in fines had been issued, and of that $1.2 million in fines, only $400,000 had been collected.  If all the fines are collected, taxpayers would still be left holding the bag for $2 million, all to ensure that adults are not indoors, misbehaving with tobacco.

    In September, when the Cincinnati Reds won their division championship, several people complained after seeing the Reds on television celebrating their victory with cigars in the clubhouse because they were in violation of the Ohio Clean Indoor Air Act (a.k.a. a smoking ban).

    This happened after a poll commissioned by the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati found in August that 53% of Ohio adults surveyed want the ban lifted for bars. (I don't think that was the response the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati wanted).

    Hmmm... I wonder if that same anti-smoking rhetoric will ratchet up here now that Michigan has Republican control in congress and the governors office?  Errr, never-mind... too late.

    There's no time to waste re-litigating contentious issues such as the smoking ban, which tied up hours, days and weeks of valuable legislative time before it was resolved in 2009. Next year should be a year in which lawmakers and the governor focus on moving forward and don't look back.

    Yep, nothing to see here.  Move along.  Anyway, is Ohio's Smoking Ban just an anomaly too?  Let's take a gander at Minnesota...

    In Minnesota, the state auditor's office recently released their report on liquor revenues for 2008.  Among their findings was the following on page seven: "Among on-sale operations [bars], net profits totaled $1.9 million in 2008, which was a decrease of $913,333, or 31.9 percent, from 2007."  Why a 31.9 percent decrease in bar revenues?  Minnesota adopted a comprehensive smoking ban in 2008.

    This is not hard to understand: smokers are a disproportionately large segment of bar patrons.  Once they are no longer legally allowed to smoke in bars, they stay home to smoke and drink.  People do not go to bars to "live healthy" any more than vegetarians go to steakhouses.  No attempt by governments at social engineering will change that.  Small businesses like bars suffer under smoking bans.

    Amen brother!  Even Europe has figured that out.

    Recently, the new government in Holland partially lifted its indoor smoking ban for owner-operated bars.  These are small establishments, numbering about 3,000.  According to Wiel Maessen, who led the fight against the ban, up to 80% of the Dutch approve of the partial lifting of the ban.

    Why do so many of the Dutch, most of whom are probably nonsmokers, favor this change?  Because at the end of the day, most of the public doesn't really care if people are smoking in bars that they simply choose to avoid.  It's the marketplace, and we must get back to the freedom to choose what the marketplace provides.

    Yah, they get it.  A bunch of wood shoe wearing folk living under a Constitutional Monarchy have more on the ball than us Americans.  Or, perhaps the Dutch figured it foolish to keep up the cultural divide of alienating what once were friends within a community.

    Here in America... the herd simply buries its head in the sand when faced with fact.

    Like the dude or dudette said, "It's very unfortunate that a liberty has been lost, but the few that were intolerant of the majority of non-smokers brought this upon us all and were able to motivate non-smokers to persuade enough of their fellow citizens to urge their representatives to use the heavy hand of government legislation."

    Aren't zealots an interesting conundrum...

    < Given that we have seen... (call to action) - UPDATE | Snyder Must Review Wolverine Air Quality Permit >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    As a smoker (none / 0) (#1)
    by grannynanny on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    I appreciate the post.  The people and/or establishments that claim their revenues are up are just plain lying.

    Just the facts sir - just the facts.

    Prior to this ban my husband and I (he is an ex-smoker) frequented places that were smoke free.  I do not have a problem honoring a voluntary ban but we never go out to have a drink anymore.  It's cheaper at home.

    Two of the places we stopped at a couple times a week for a drink tell us that they are down over 50%.  

    As a non-smoker (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rougman on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 03:58:04 PM EST
    and a freedom lover, I also appreciate the post.

    Great Job CS.. (none / 0) (#3)
    by JGillman on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    I know we hit on this subject a lot, but it really makes a strong point in the fight of our lives to keep the few liberties our masters 'dole out.'

    Spain has some numbers as well... (none / 0) (#4)
    by jgillmanjr on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 07:24:39 PM EST

    Hrm.. you mean it's actually profitable to allow smoking? Heavens no!

    Pathetic (none / 0) (#5)
    by restricted on Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 10:26:48 PM EST
    It's getting colder outside so that along with this comment might affect Corinthian's thin skin. The source you used to point out my comment was the MLBA, the biggest opponent to the current law. You used their statistics as being impartial and that's being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, and I pointed that out in subsequent comments. So you thrash around putting this unintelligible mish mash together to bolster your flawed argument, singling me out as someone who shouldn't have an opinion that's different. It's great that you can have your opinions and they don't have to be honest but the reader will judge and ultimately prevail. Corinthian Scales.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search