Monday, March 20, 2006

The Minneapolis revenue numbers for bars and restaurants one year after the smoking ban are out

Just as the ALAMN spokesman requested a year ago, "......let's wait 12 months after the smoking ban and see what the numbers tell us...."

Well, the Minneapolis revenue numbers are out, tallied by the pro-smoking ban city officials; if that gives you any indication of the bias to be expected, and the numbers don't support the Nicoderm/RWJF funded testimony that business would be booming after a smoking ban.

In fact neighborhood bar revenues are down -4.15%, according to city officials.

And Minneapolis nightclub revenues are down -0.9%

Though many NE bars report revenue losses between 25-50%

This at a time when local economy and businesses not saddled by "special interest" ordinances are booming.

Of course its hard to tell if the revenue figures take into account the 60+ establishments which closed due to the smoking bans......like the entire 4th floor of the Mall of America which closed because of Bloomington's smoking ban.

One item to note, I meant to link to the Minneapolis hospitality revenue numbers, but true to their bias, all the pro-smoking ban media in town are too dismayed by the news to openly display that which highlights the financial losses due to the smoking bans.

Update: According to the city of Minneapolis the smoking ban revenue data included revenue information from 353 licensed liquor establishments within the city......what's the problem with that you ask? There are actually 618 establishments in Minneapolis with a liquor license.....so it appears that Minneapolis officials "cherry picked" the data to minimize the true economic harm from the smoking ban.

Additionally misleading is the fact that Minneapolis officials used revenue data from hotels, which constitutes nearly half the total revenue examined.....but hotel rooms are exempt from the smoking ban just as they are in California and anywhere else smoking bans have been implemented....the revenue data from hotels then should also be exempted from this study. But only if Minneapolis officials are interested in telling the truth.....I wouldn't count on that though.

Smoke out Gary has more facts and omissions about "the study".

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
  • NRA.org

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

    SILVER BULLET GUN OIL CONTAINS 13% USDA LIQUEFIED PIG
FAT

    "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)