Sometimes the damage being done extends beyond just those evil bars and taverns…
I’m going to repost this entire article because it’s so damned sad. Anybody who think that those wicked smokers are the only ones being hurt by smoking bans needs to read this.
From The Cincinnati Enquirer:
Smoking ban chokes charity
“Ohio’s indoor smoking ban has cleared the air for 50 or so players during the Saturday bingo games of the Arc of Clermont/Brown. That makes it easier to notice the 100 empty seats that used to be filled by other players.
‘The smoking ban really did hurt us because most of the people are going to Kentucky or Indiana now to play bingo, or they’ll go to Argosy (Casino) in Lawrenceburg,’ said Jessica Ruebel, executive director.
The private, nonprofit agency provides an eight-week summer camp and other free recreational programs for children and adults with mental or physical disabilities.
Founded 54 years ago as the Association for Retarded Citizens, Arc of Clermont/Brown has depended on bingo as its primary fundraiser for more than 20 years, although it receives some grant money and donations, Ruebel said.
Arc eliminated its Monday bingo game because the number of players had dropped to about 10, Ruebel said. Combined with the declining number of Saturday players, revenue has dwindled from about $6,000 a week to about $1,500, she said.
Volunteers keep the agency functioning – barely – Ruebel said.
‘I can’t sleep at night,’ said Ruebel, who hasn’t accepted a paycheck since August. ‘I lay in bed, and I think, ‘Oh, gosh, how are we going to pay the electric bill? How are we going to pay our bingo license?”
Canceled were the annual New Year’s Eve dance, the Valentine’s Day dance and the St. Patrick’s Day celebration.
The Easter celebration March 22 – which will include an egg hunt for about 50 disabled people – likely will be the last that Arc of Clermont/Brown will offer as an independent agency. It has begun talks with Arc of Ohio for that organization to take over.
Turning over the deed to its headquarters could ease the local agency’s $85,000 debt, but ‘We are fighting to stay alive,’ Ruebel said.
Saturday has usually been the big bingo night at Arc headquarters at 1075 Ohio Pike in Withamsville.
At least 50 players have stopped attending bingo since Ohio began enforcing the smoking ban in May. Another 50 players dropped out because the financially strapped organization can’t compete with door prizes and food offerings by other bingo parlors, Ruebel said.”
Filed under: Ban Damage, Ohio Ban News, Small Business Owners, economic impact | Tagged: ban economics, charity losses, ohio smoking ban, smoking bans
Smoking bans are the real threat to Democracy
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of “second-hand” smoke.
Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of
unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
people to make the “right” decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his
own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and
unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion of government into our lives.
We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ban supporters say smokers inflict harm on other people, including bar and restaurant employees and patrons. Many activities impose risks on others. Rock climbers endanger rescue workers, pool owners endanger lifeguards and patrons, fishing boat captains endanger their crews, and so on.
People chose to be rangers or lifeguards or commercial fishermen. Why shouldn’t people to choose to patronize or work in smoking bars and restaurants?
Most health and safety regulations are justified because they protect people from hidden risks. Government inspects restaurant kitchens because patrons can’t. Bars where smoking is permitted are hardly hidden risks.
Some safety regulations do involve recognized risks. Coal mining, farming and commercial fishing are all extremely risky jobs and heavily regulated, yet there is no push to ban them.
We should respect the entrepreneurs’ choice to own these businesses and the workers’ choice to operate them. If smokers want to smoke in a bar, and an entrepreneur wants to provide that bar, and workers are willing to work there, why shouldn’t we accept their choices?
Societies have market economies in part because the pursuit of profit and the threat of competition force the marketplace to provide choices for people with many different preferences. This should include the choice of smoking-allowed and smoke-free bars and restaurants.
City Councils and General Assemblies can nurture that choice by requiring all bars and restaurants to determine their own smoking policies. Smoking-allowed, no smoking or to have separate smoking and nonsmoking sections. To help consumers identify which establishments cater to their preferences, bars and restaurants could be required to post their smoking policies at their entrances, and they could be penalized for violating them.
A law like that would allow smokers and nonsmokers to enjoy the environments they choose. If most customers prefer a nonsmoking environment, many bars and restaurants will follow the money and prohibit smoking. But other establishments will cater to smokers and allow tobacco use.
Free societies allow people to make decisions that others don’t like. That includes allowing smokers to have bars and restaurants to cater to their preferences, just as nonsmokers should have establishments that cater to theirs. You should stand by the ideals of a free society instead of opting to force smokers to live by the preferences of some nonsmokers. Signage gives Choice.