Thursday, August 11, 2005

Everyone's favorite communications director...... still pissing on your head and claiming it's just rain.

Bob Moffitt, communications director for the American Lung Association of Minnesota, said self-reported monthly sales figures can be inflated to make a case for the bars, but "you won't lie to the tax man."
Once a year has gone by, Moffitt claims tax data will show no impact.

Update 2012 over 550 Minneapolis / St. Paul area bars & restaurants have closed since smoking bans were enacted in Minnesota.

That's not money you're is compensatory revenue shortfalls. Give it a year if you're still in business (and we hope you're not) then you're probably one of the few who didn't lose business due to the smoking ban. If you are losing money now...wait til more of your competitors go out of business, once the (supply) number of establishments goes down then the smaller pool of patrons (demand) will even out your revenues. Either way "we", the non-profits who received $200,000,000.00 in Nicotrol, Nicoderm marketing money to ensure smoking ban passage, will make sure that fast food restaurant sales; which were already non-smoking; are also included to skew the numbers and show that there was no tax impact.

Mike Jennings is president of the Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, a member of the city task force that studied the ban before its inception and owner of Rosen's, The District and The Refuge on the 400 block of 1st Avenue North. Jennings said that many cities compare annual data from all restaurants, including new establishments and places such as McDonald's. The true story will only come from comparing numbers of individual businesses, which Jennings said the city's study comes close to.
Anselmo, Miller and Jennings all said that the increased minimum wage - instituted this month - will force bar owners to raise prices to offset increased labor costs, and artificially raise annual sales and sales tax figures.

Ah, the increased minimum wage what a shrewd move, the bars & restaurants affected will have to increase their prices, which will give the anti-smoking activists the numbers they desire. Even though the increase won't add the the bottom line profits.
...If an exceptions vote does come to the board, Hennepin County Commissioner - and Minneapolis mayoral candidate - Peter McLaughlin may be the swing vote.
At the meeting, McLaughlin asked that Hennepin County staff get data sooner than later - even if it means casting a tough vote before the mayoral election.
"People are losing their jobs, bars are losing money, I believe that," said McLaughlin afterwards in an interview. Still, he added, "a study is a responsible thing to do.....

full story here:
Additional reason for smoking bans is the societal costs to healthcare.
Proponents of the ban quote numbers, too. Speaking before commissioners at an open forum on July 12, Dr. Brian Rank, medical director for HealthPartners Medical Group & Clinics, stated that in 2002 smoking added $1.98 billion per year - $393 per person - to Minnesotans' health care premiums.
Then again there is this fact overlooked by the anti-smoking activists (Nicotrol, Nicoderm bribed officials)
Smokers pay their way. Proponents of a cigarette tax increase claim that it will help to offset the additional health care costs imposed by smokers. However, research by the Rand Foundation and Harvard economist Kip Viscusi shows that smokers more than pay their way already. In his book, Smoke-Filled Rooms: A Postmortem on the Tobacco Deal (excerpt here), Viscusi shows that Minnesota smokers actually generate a financial gain to the state of 10.5 cents per pack - include state revenues from the cigarette tax and the state receives a financial gain of 58.5 cents per pack from smokers (see also Viscusi's article "Smoke & Mirrors")
58.5 cents per pack positive cash flow to the state after healthcare costs are paid, and that was before our 75 cent per pack tobacco "fee" increase recently. Hmmm......I guess Dr. Brian Rank's numbers are just "blowing smoke", then again that was 2002.

It used to be that big tobacco was considered the sleaziest industry around, now that award goes to big pharmaceutical nicotine interests such as Johnson & Johnson, RWJF, and the greedy whores feeding at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation "all you can spend buffet"........I of course am talking about American Lung, American Cancer, American Medical Assoc., Non-Smoker's Rights, etc. who are less concerned about your health than with the next multi-million dollar grant coming from RWJF (Nicotrol, Nicoderm) .

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)