I have just been reading various articles about city bans, town bans and state bans. I've been reading various articles by Cherner, Glantz and other blowhards and what I want to know is why.....when business owners, patrons and various others against the ban voice our opinions or survey results we are told we haven't given the bans enough time to get a true result yet......then in the next breath they start spouting results of survey's they've done where there has been no economic impact, the majority supports the ban, etc. So we are to believe their survey's and not our own figures? Hasn't it been the same length of time for them as us?

I'm reading mayor's and so on telling everyone that there hasn't been anywheres near enough time to measure the true impact of the ban and then the next line to justify the ban is "figures show most bars and restaurants are back to previous tax records". Bull, bull and more bull.

Yes, the official party line is that smoking bans are good for business and the antis' own studies prove that they're good for business. Of course in the next breath they talk about taking the bans to the next town, the next county, the next state in order to "level the playing field."

California is always held up as a model, except that they never mention they are still having problems enforcing the state ban and that something like 40% of the bars in San Francisco are ignoring the law and still permitting smoking. They also don't mention how they've become more and more punitive to business owners who are reported for permitting smoking. Now they're talking about jailing them! Is this the kind of "success" other states should emulate? Maybe other states should emulate their screwed-up power system too--the one that didn't have enough power for the people and generated rolling blackouts. Or maybe other states should emulate their political messes and have 100 people running for governor in a political free-for-all.
As David Letterman asked Secy. of State Colin Powell, "How long until California isn't even a state anymore?" (or words to that effect).

The bans have brought conflict, business closures, job layoffs, and misery everywhere they've been enacted, but of course this only negatively affects the "little" people, not the legislators and not the we-know-what's-best-for-you nannies, their lawyer pals, and their Big Pharma partners.

Published Friday, January 21, 2000

40% of bars ignore law on smoking, study finds

LOS ANGELES -- Forty percent of California's stand-alone bars are flouting an indoor smoking ban that went into effect two years ago, according to estimates by a health organization.

The state law was passed to protect the health of employees and patrons from the effects of secondhand smoke. The latest estimates on compliance come from the California Smoke-free Bar Program, an offshoot of the American Lung Association.
----------------------------------------
That was for the entire state. For San Francisco it's even better:

"Because the San Francisco Department of Public Health's Tobacco Free Project recently found only 40% of stand-alone bars to be in compliance..."
------------------------------------
60 percent of bars in SF ignore the ban. That's for 2003 I believe.

Thanks for giving the solid info and correct figures about the California ban and the statewide 40% noncompliance and San Francisco's 60% non-compliance.

It's not a surprise San Francisco bars are still ignoring the CA smoking ban. At least those bars have the common sense to realize if they actually enforce the ban, their business will eventually go up in smoke, and workers would lose jobs.

Too bad the antis don't care about bars and clubs closing down thanks to a citywide/statewide smoking ban in all buildings. They probably don't care about the money business lose from the smoking bans too. The only thing antis care about is having a tobacco-free society...which is something that will NEVER happen.

Jay
"Life is fun. Have a laugh AND a smoke."

I have been to SF several times and have found that not only are there many bars that ignore the ban (presumably some of them could be owner-operated bars that are exempt from the ban) but that even "smoke-free" bars made an effort to accomodate us smokers. One bar had removed a few of its outside windows and closed of the inside with some glass doors to create a smoking room that was still stihin the law. It was heated too which was nice in the middle of December. I'm originally from Boston where they just instituted a truly draconian NY state style ban - no smoking under any roof, umbrella, you name it, owner operated or otherwise. I guess the city has gone back to its puritan roots! All the bars have these stupid no smoking signs that read BostO2n - come in and breathe easier - or some bullshit like that. I asked one of my smoking friends who live there if there were any bars that bend the rules a little and he shook his head. Thankfully Baltimore, where I now live, will never impose such stupidity - I'd say over 50% of the population here smokes and the city has much more important issues to deal with like having among the highest STD rate, teen pregnancy rate, murder rate, and heroin use rate of any US city. For a while, absolute smoking bans will probably only happen in yuppievilles like Boston and NYC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NickM71:
All the bars have these stupid no smoking signs that read BostO2n - come in and breathe easier - or some bullshit like that.

---

Hey Nick, I don't think they're kidding about breathing easier. I just looked up air pollution in Boston and found this at

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/cep/cbos.asp

Boston, MA and Surrounding Area

In Suffolk County, which includes Boston, the levels of air toxics are 128 times EPA’s safe* level of carcinogens in air.

LOL

And just who do you think will get blamed for this? I'm sure this will give them a perfect reason to ban smoking outdoors too - its already happened in some suburbs there, so maybe I shouldn't be laughing. As far as anti is concerned, there's no problem that can't be solved through banning smoking or taxing tobacco.

Hey,

For the person who said "You can't smoke under any roof in Boston." Does that include not smoking in your own house at Boston? I hope I'm wrong, because I'm NEVER living in a city that prohibits smoking in your own house. That's pure bullshit!

Jay
"Life is fun. Have a laugh AND a smoke."

Hey Jay,
They haven't banned smoking in private homes in Boston, YET! But give the antis there a chance and I'm sure they'll try and find some way to do just that... A friend of mine is a 1st grade teacher there and she's technically forbidden to smoke during school hours, even if she goes off school property or in her own car. Its unenforceable, but just the idea that they'd create such a rule is disturbing.

Speaking of Boston, are you all aware that the Massachusetts tax collectors (Department of Revenue) have somehow gotten the names and addresses of smokers in that state who purchase cigarettes over the Internet and are firing off letters to them ordering them to pay up for unpaid cigarette taxes, plus interest and penalties, or risk fines and imprisonment?

It was reported by CNET News.com in an article by Declan McCullagh, “Smoking gun – uncovering Net tax evaders,” November 10, 2003.

Massachusetts won’t say how they got the names, but it was apparently from United Parcel Service (UPS), which delivers cigarettes for an online retailer, DirtCheapCig.com.

“UPS spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg confirmed that her employer has complied with legal requests that relate to DirtCheap customers but won’t say whether they came from Massachusetts or another state.”

According to the article, UPS and DirtCheap would be required to turn over their records if a lawsuit had been filed, but apparently there were no such lawsuits at the time the Massachusetts “taxocrats” began sending out the threatening letters. “That means that if UPS did divulge customer records, it may have done so voluntarily, a horrific privacy breach if true.”

I can only imagine that if Massachusetts is successful in turning UPS and other shippers into government informants, more states
will gleefully follow suit.

Will the same "we're the government and we're here to help you" types get the names of everyone else who has made purchases over the internet and demand payment of the "use" taxes (or whatever they are called in Mass?)?

When a general law is applied only to a select (unpopular) group that is scary. As is the thought that gov't is looking over the shoulder of every delivery van.

Do that know what books we buy from Amazon? Movies from Netflix? Is there any limit to "their" need to know? Just to collect legitimate taxes, ya'know, not.........

So much for freedom It's turning into swiss cheese, full o'holes.

I have heard about the Comm. of Mass. tax nazis cracking down on internet cigarette buyers. They say its to be fair to mom and pop corner stores that have to sell cigs at $5.50/pack- th current state minimum, and that the state needs the $. Of course, its just another attempt to de-normalize smokers and make them look like criminals. The anti-movement may have been born in California but it they have perfected there tactics in Mass. and NYC. At least there's no statewide smoking ban in Mass. yet, but there might as well be - all the towns in the eastern half of the state have bans and that covers about 2/3 of the population. If I can help it, I will never move back to Mass.

Nick, you are forgetting about your next door neighbor's smoking ban - Delaware.

That was instituted before the NYstate ban. the bars and restaurants along the state line of MD/DE in MD are loving it!

----------------------------
Smoke gnatzies: small minds buzzing in you business - SWAT'EM

Oh yeah, I had heard something about Delaware enacting a ban but I don't pay much attention to what goes on in Del. since I never have much reason to go there- sorry! I know that at least your smokes are much cheaper than in MD or MA, whenever I drive through on 95, I make sure to stop and pick up a few cartons. There will be a statewide ban in MA effective this summer and I'm sure that bars in RI and NH will be welcoming smoking patrons from Mass with open arms, much like MD has opened its doors to you Delaware folk.

The antis and (some) of the newspapers are having a hayday in Delaware this week, as yesterday was the 1st anniversary of the ban.

No need to apologize for not paying much attention to Delaware..................i know lots of people who live their that feel the same way.....and that is why there is a smoking ban.

----------------------------
Smoke gnatzies: small minds buzzing in you business - SWAT'EM

I think it's this coming Monday, December 1st, that NY's Internet cigarette tax takes effect. There may be an injunction on at least part of it, because the same bill also authorizes the state to collect taxes from gas and tobacco sales on Indian reservations. The Seneca nation has a solid case against it, considering it violates several treaties, along with the US Constitution. And you thought the government didn't screw the Indians anymore!