--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.
>
> mickeycrimm wrote:
>
> > So everyone you disagree with should keep their mouths shut?
> > Who did you say was ignorant? Have you ever read any of the
> > UNLV studies?
> >
> > Casino executives don't want to ban smoking for one reason.
> > Every serious study, not propaganda, study, they have read
> > shows a 10% loss of gaming win across the State of Nevada.
> > That's not a recession, sir, that's a depression--
> > corresponding layoffs. They will ban smoking when the
> > cost/benefit analysis shows the lawsuits will cost them more
> > than the loss of revenue.
> >
> > The problem with you big mouth anti-smokers is all you
> > do is run your mouths. When the smoking bans kick in
> > you don't show up to support the businesses who lose
> > the smokers as customers. That's the reason for the
> > loss of revenue. Candy Asses. Stone cold candy asses.
>
> I have not read the UNLV studies, but I find mickeycrimm'
> analysis of casino management's thinking most likely to be
> accurate.
>
> However....
>
> mickeycrimm, are you suggesting that there is a moral
> obligation for anyone to support any business? I don't
> think that opinion will find much support on this forum
> or elsewhere for that matter. Also, I find your
> denegration of non-smokers for not supporting a
> business that obeys a smoking ban to be unwarranted.
>
> I find it much easier to support the opinion that everyone
> is morally justified in asserting their right to a workplace
> that is not unneccesarily dangerous to their health.
>
> Gamb00ler
>
I'm doing the denigrating? Do you have any idea of the insults I've
taken over the years? Even in the polite society of vpFREE smoking
ban proponents have layed their insults down. I find this quite
funny. I pop off one time after tolerating years of the lies, myths,
distortions by anti-smokers and now I'm the bad guy. RFLMAO!!!
All they have to do is be honest. I'm honest about it. Smoking is
bad for your health. Second hand smoke certainly can't be good for
your health. If someone says to me:
"I know the smoking ban hurts some businesses but that is the cost
we have to pay to protect our health."
I respect that opinion and that persons right to act on it
politically. At least they are intellectually honest. And if they
win on the issue, which I believe they will in the end, so be it. I
have nothing against these people.
But if one says to me "The smoking ban will not decrease but rather
will increase revenue" or "the smoking ban did not cause the loss of
revenue, they opened a casino in another state that took the
business" or "there's a recession" or "people are not vacationing
like they used to" or "people are gambling less" or any of the
various and sundry smoke and mirror reasons they will come up with
instead of admitting the one true cause of the loss of business, then
I have no respect for these people. They are intellectually
dishonest. They ignore hard evidence when it doesn't serve their
cause and spew propaganda instead.
You wanna see some hard evidence of what a smoking ban can do then
Google on Helena Smoking Ban.
Helena, Montana instituted a smoking ban that included bars/casinos.
These are small casinos. Up to 20 machines. You have to have a
liquor license to obtain a gaming license so the machines are either
in the bar or a room adjacent to the bar. There are about 20 of
these casinos in Helena.
The smoking ban lasted six months. During that time these
bar/casinos experienced a $5,000,000 shortfall in revenue. The
smoking ban was found unconstitutional for, of all reasons, the law
didn't provide for a jury trial for anyone accused of breaking it.
When the ban lifted revenue returned to pre-ban levels. That's hard
evidence.
If you are a smoking ban proponent, fine. I support you 110% in your
fight---as long as you are honest on the issue.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
