Who really pays the price for 'clean air' policies? IE. smoking bans
It's time for taxpayers and politicians to understand who really pays the price for the 'clean air' smoking ban laws enacted....those of us in the hospitality industry.Massive numbers of bars and restaurants have closed, eliminating untold tens perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention the jobs lost in the hospitality vendor / supplier industries. And it is FACT that smoking bans have caused home foreclosures due to those same job losses.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldwide-economic-meltdown-and.html
Therefore the proper thing to do is for those same taxpayers and politicians to compensate those of us who paid dearly for their 'clean air'.
One thing we, collectively in the hospitality industry, think taxpayers should also be aware of is the fact that certain special interest groups (RWJF / J & J) funded and continue to fund smoking ban efforts because they financially benefit from reduced smoking rates by selling their alternative nicotine products such as Nicoderm, Nicotrol, Nicorette, Commit, etc.
Accordingly, we would urge taxpayers to demand that those same pharmaceutical nicotine funded lobbyists and specifically the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and partner Johnson & Johnson Company who provided $446+ million to lobbyists, compensate those of us in the hospitality industry who've paid the price for their 'clean air' laws....if taxpayers fail to hold the lobbyists financially responsible then the alternative is simple, local government must use taxpayer funding to payback what they've taken from the hospitality industry. Average losses in bars & restaurants after smoking bans are enacted have been reported to be in the 30% range by state government auditors.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/10/minnesota-releases-revenue-numbers-that.html
http://www.onlinecasinoadvisory.com/casino-news/land/smoking-ban-killing-illinois-casino-gambling-revenue-43153.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29455559.html
posted by marcus aurelius @ 11:09 AM
"Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights" 
