Ah ....the fresh clean smell of unemployment on the Emerald Isle.........still think it's your right to breath it?
Published in the BBC News
More than 500 pubs have closed in Ireland because of the smoking ban, says Seamus O'Donaghue, president of the Vitners' Federation of Ireland (VFI). Speaking at the VFI annual general meeting in Cork he called on the Irish Government to introduce some flexibility in its smoking legislation to save rural publicans who have been the worst hit. "The reality of the smoking ban is anything but successful," he said. "We recognise that the smoking ban is here and is here to stay and we are not asking for it to be rescinded. However, we firmly believe that there is room for compromise. "Although the smoking ban isn't just about pubs, it is rural pubs that have been worst affected. We are aware of just over 200 licensed premises that have closed since the introduction of the smoking ban in March 2004. "According to the CSO, 7,600 jobs were lost in the hospitality sector in 2004 - that equates to 150 jobs per week."
And in today's Publican:
Enterprise Inns is planning for a full smoking ban rather than the government's food-only compromise-and expects to have to close up to 300 pubs.
Sounds like Enterprise's chief doesn't believe there will be a compromised ban, so it's good-bye business and good-bye jobs. But as Jeanne Weigum, the president ........of the Association for Non-Smokers Rights.....is quoted as saying, "....... that's just the way it goes." Perhaps she's so cavalier about other's job losses because of nice fat contributions by pharmaceutical nicotine affiliate RWJF like this:
2001 American Non-Smokers Rights Foundation $971,114.00
More customers likely to drink at home, says reportPublished 18th May 2005
Limited choice, poor quality, steep price inflation and smoking regulations in pubs will continue to push more people into drinking at home over the next three years.
This can also be verified locally, as I posted yesterday a Hennepin County bar was forced to close days ago. Only 2 weeks prior he mentioned they were losing $300.00 + per day, while the liquor store next door was doing a booming business.
Everywhere smoking bans have been implemented businesses and individuals lose, the non-profits claim however the aggragate effect is just the opposite. To that Westover provides the best example in a comment here:
......Tax records will show what economic impact, if any, there is on government finances -- they will not show the impact on individual businesses. If people stop contributing to the American Lung Association and instead give to HIV research, charitable contributions will remain constant. Does that mean the ALA work is unaffected? Same principle, only in the latter case it's not government forcing the issue, but a marketplace response -- just as it is when people voluntarily decide to patronize non-smoking establishments. Government implemented a smoking ban, which is affecting some businesses more than others. That ban is arbitrary in the sense that the public health benefit proposed does not justify (and can be achieved through other means) than curtailing individual rights. In spirit if not in letter of the law, taxpayers (as imposed on them by Thune et. al) should be on the hook to reimburse businesses for the "benefits" derived from the ban. Instead, you want a free ride -- Marcus loses his livelihood to subsidize your smoke-free chili....
I recall receiving an email a few weeks back, which I unfortunately discarded where a local developer is willing to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000,000.00 to get a more responsible city council & county commission in office. If that individual reads this blog, he's got my help, I know many small business owners in the hospitality industry who will gladly chair those anti-business councils & commissions in the next election.