smartin1955 (Sheila Martin)

Follow

Comment history

Study: Kansas' smoking ban hasn't affected business in restaurants, bars

If the prices shot up and the revenue to the state stayed the same, that clearly indicates a loss. Bar owners know when their business went to poop. They know who quit coming in. You do not. You can suggest whatever mythical hypothesis comes into your head, to justify this nonsense, but it isn't flying. Kansas should be swimming in an increase of liquor and beer revenue. The 10% tax is only collected in bars and restaurants. The 8% you pay at the liquor store HAS gone up. It's the 10% that has not gone up proportionately.

I would suggest that due to the earthquake in Malaysia, that the earth tilted on it's axis and that's why it doesn't rain in Kansas. It may have also caused some bars to close.
Or, maybe it was the last lunar eclipse? Maybe you're an expert because you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night?

January 26, 2013 at 10:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Study: Kansas' smoking ban hasn't affected business in restaurants, bars

I guess the influx didn't happen to all those places that have closed already? Too bad.
You might want to actually read up on smoking ban losses. Google it. St Louis Federal Reserve economist Michael Pakko did a study which is not rosey, and Forbes Magazine did an article which is easy to find. Dr Michael Marlowe, economist, reported on the loss to small businesses. Ofalun, Missouri, City Councilman Jim Pepper reports 5 closed businesses in his small town. Springfield, Missouri reported 11 closed soon after the ban. Do your homework and ease up on the propaganda.

People who "want to be healthy" don't hang out at bars, kiddo, they're at the gym.

There is no influx of non smokers. But keep up the good work. You can fool some of the people some of the time.

January 26, 2013 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Study: Kansas' smoking ban hasn't affected business in restaurants, bars

SO why not allow the bars who want to cater to smokers to do so? Does the entire universe have to revolve around how your clothes smell? Goodness gracious. If the ban has been such a huge success, why don't we allow the bars to choose? If you are correct NONE will. If you are wrong, some will, some won't.

January 26, 2013 at 10:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Study: Kansas' smoking ban hasn't affected business in restaurants, bars

Either ban the selling of tobacco altogether or leave adults alone in adults only businesses.
Let the owner decide. IF no one wants to go to a smokey bar, then the bar will close. That is the choice that the pro ban people will not allow as it would destroy the myth. If 20% of adults want to smoke, and 20% of bar owners want to allow it, and 85% of a bar's customers are smokers, and the other 15% don't care, then who are these incessant whiners and why do they insist of hanging around where they don't want to be and where they are NOT wanted as customers? Maybe they need a shrink?

January 26, 2013 at 9:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Study: Kansas' smoking ban hasn't affected business in restaurants, bars

As long as everyone is bankrupt it's a "level playing field? If the government decides that blues music should be banned, do you suppose that will hurt the country music places, or just the blues clubs?

The next freedom we lose might be something YOU enjoy. It might be a ban on grilling steaks in your yard, as the chemicals in burning charcoal are the same, only more concentrated, as the chemicals in tobacco smoke. It might be burning those wonderfully fragrant candles, which have more toxins than smoking.

If you can find an unbiased (un pharma grant funded) chemist or economist in Lawrence (what's the odds?) ask them about ban damage to bars and the "chemical concentrations" in second hand tobacco smoke in a decently ventilated bar. Ask them to look at the over 150 studies, where only a small percentage show any causal connection with any disease process. And the majority of those were done in China, and funded by pharma.

The truth, I guess, is too complex for a newspaper to deal with, so they just print the propaganda handed them by pro ban, sanctimonious, unquestioned, very biased, talking heads.

January 26, 2013 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Study: Kansas' smoking ban hasn't affected business in restaurants, bars

Add the Hutchinson Bowling alley, the R Bar, Bumpers Diner, at least six businesses in Wichita, bingo halls, two pool halls in Salina, to the closed list.

We were told that smoking bans would be good for business. That's what the paper said when they incessantly quoted pro ban talking heads. Smoking bans are very bad for small businesses who choose to cater to adult smokers. All of us knew that Lawrence with it's new crop of young party animals would be relatively unscathed by the ban, but out here, in the rest of Kansas, we are alot of older folks, who enjoy the companionship of our friends in our little bars.

By the way, I have been bartending for 40 years and I have bever seen anyone fall over dead from second hand smoke, or anything else for that matter. WHat I an seeing is little businesses, owned by Kansans, not out of state chains, closing. It makes me sick.

Mr Gossen and the Kansas Health Institute have received a fortune in grants from the "philanthropic arm" of the pharma that sells the patches and gums. Is that why he failed, in his report to the Legislature, to mention the multitude of studies showing economoc harm to bars? Je also failed in this "economic assesment" (by a non economist!) to mention that a keg of beer went from $49 ten years ago to $98 now. Case beer went up $3 since '05.

I'm not a college educated person, but I can do THIS math.

January 26, 2013 at 7:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jensen urges legislators to reject bill to weaken indoor smoking ban

The medical insurance industry supports the smoking ban because the legal discrimintion of smokers lets them jack up the prices on that group. Obese people are next, as J&J sell Splenda and the most popular lap band procedure. Then KCUU will lobby for that also, as they get grant funded by J&J thru their "Robert Wood Johnson Foundation". J&J's "war" on smokers started the day they cornered the market on Nicoderm, Nicorette, NIcotrol, and NIcoderm CQ. The "war" on sugar started the day they bought Splenda.

I would expect people in, a town full of geniuses, to do the simple math here!

May 7, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jensen urges legislators to reject bill to weaken indoor smoking ban

If KUCC does not deserve the designation WITHOUT being blackmailed to lobby by the NCI then KUCC doens't deserve the designation.

May 7, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Give it time

Let Lawrence keep their smoking ban. If it's working for you, terrific. Businesses are closing across Kansas. Adults only businesses. Outside of Lawrence, long term small TAX PAYING businesses, are trying to survive until we can get this matter fixed. I have done my own meta analysis study, (just as scientific as the ones done by the pharma grant funded school marm nannies) and the result is that 100% of people who own small businesses feel they have a right to decide WHOM they wish to cater to. If no one wants to come in due to smoke, the owner will decide what he/she wishes to do about it. It's called the free market. Perhaps you have heard of it? All these businesses are perfectly willing to post signs on all entrances which will notify the public that smoking is allowed. If you are so addicted to second hand smoke, that you feel you are forced to enter, then perhaps a different sort of analysis is needed! You may rest assured that businesses who wish to allow smoking, do not want YOU to enter, anymore than YOU want to enter them. So, get over your fine self, and go on down the road to a place that fits what you want, and try real hard to leave others in peace! You grant spongers up at KU will still get your money from nicotine replacement to produce your slanted science, and the little bars and their friends and families and customers will pay their bills and find some small enjoyment in this otherwise fairly dull existence. Can't we all get along, little doggie? No? Against your grantors' demands? Well, perhaps so many Kansas schools and politicos should not be taking the money from nicotine replacement for all this garbage.

December 23, 2010 at 11:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GOP may push for repeal of state smoking ban


First Nationwide Study Finds No Link Between Smoking Bans and Reductions in Heart Attacks
Jacob Sullum | December 20, 2010

Last year, criticizing a CDC-commissioned report from the Institute of Medicine that endorsed highly implausible claims of immediate, substantial reductions in heart attacks resulting from smoking bans, I noted that the authors had ignored the most comprehensive study of the subject, which found no such effect. Now that study, which at the time of the IOM report was available as a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, has been published by the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Instead of looking at small cities with volatile hospital admission numbers—the M.O. of studies that linked smoking bans to dramatic reductions in heart attacks—the authors of the new study, led by Kanaka Shetty of the RAND Corporation, used nationwide data to see if smoking bans were associated with changes in hospital admissions or mortality. "In contrast with smaller regional studies," they write, "we find that smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases." In fact, "An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

Since 2003, when activists began claiming that workplace smoking bans immediately cut heart attacks by 40 percent or more, I've been saying that some jurisdictions will see such drops purely by chance, while others will see no change or increases of similar magnitude. Before you can say that smoking bans are associated with short-term declines in heart attacks (leaving aside the biological plausibility of such a link), you have to show that the first phenomenon is more common than the other two. Anti-smoking activists such as Stanton Glantz, preferring to cherry-pick examples that fit their theory, have never done that, and now we can plainly see why: It isn't true. Although heart attacks do decline in some places with smoking bans, there are just as many places where they rise. On average, the difference between jurisdictions with smoking bans and jurisdictions without smoking bans is essentially zero.

December 20, 2010 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )