It's not enough that the State of Texas tried to pass a state-wide ban on smoking in public, now my local city, Fort Worth is attempting to do the same thing. The city council is supposed to vote on this measure Tuesday. I sat down tonight and did some research and fired off letters to all the council members including the mayor. Whether it does any good or not remains to be seen. However, with all the talk around the country lately about smoking bans and huge increases in taxes, I thought I'd share some of my findings as well as a draft of the letter I composed. Most of this will be easily adaptable to any number of situations. Please feel free to use any of it to your benefit.
Most of the info I have are in DOC files which I copied and pasted out of web sites. They include hyperlinks to the original articles just to make it easy. The letter I drafted is included in it's entirety below. The links referenced below will need to be pasted. I didn't feel like embedding all those links. Sorry. If you want the DOC files, PM your email addy and I'll forward them to you.
Hopefully this will save someone some time and trouble since this seems to be the rage now, smoker bashing that is.
Wish us luck on Tuesday.
Gary
===================================
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I am writing to request that you do not support any kind of new smoking ordinances which further restrict businesses within the city of Fort Worth. The current smoking guidelines enforced by the city are both adequate and effective. There is no real benefit to be gained by placing more burdensome and additional limitations on businesses which have already spent a great deal of time and money complying with existing ordinances. An outright ban on smoking in public places would render these many thousands of dollars in equipment and remodeling investments worthless.
I ask you to consider a number of elements relating to the subject of smoking in a public place and then reconsider what you are proposing to do and how you plan to implement it.
1st Issue
Health Matters:
Second Hand Smoke (SHS) or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) have never been definitively proven to be as detrimental to public health as everyone would be led to believe. Time and again, these studies by the EPA and the WHO have been disproved as false and misleading. In each occasion, it was proved conclusively that the data was manipulated and cherry picked in order to achieve a predetermined result.
Just when it seemed anti-smoking activists finally succeeded in producing scientific reports establishing secondhand smoke as a health risk, a federal judge overturned the EPA report in 1998. He ruled the EPA cheated on the science. Later in 1998, the WHO published the largest study ever done on secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The study reported no statistically significant association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. By Steven Milloy http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html
The EPA even went so far as to not only remove from the study, two thirds of the data which was unfavorable to their desired results, but they also doubled the margin of error to a level of statistical insignificance so that they could maintain the same results which had been published prior to the conclusion of the study.
Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they changed the CI to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error. By Dave Hitt http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
Michael Crichton, an author who knows something about research, was even asked about this matter by a student. His response is included in this YouTube video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoZ-b1OaW4
If more proof of this information is necessary, check out Dominick Armentano’s comments at this link; http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html
Second hand smoke may be an annoyance to some people, but the data is just not there to support the supposed level of health risks we hear so much about nor the scare tactics that go along with them.
2nd Issue
Economic Issues:
Beyond health matters, one of the most important criteria that should be considered by any rule making body, be they local, state, or otherwise, should be the economic impact made by their decisions. Much has been written about the nature and severity of the impact surrounding Smoking Ban ordinances. The truth is however, is that it drives revenue down in businesses such as restaurants, bars and other establishments that cater to crowds where smokers frequent. Restaurant managers have even commented that new ordinances bring about favorable responses from their patrons, but at the end of the day, smokers no longer come in early for a drink, nor do they stay late afterwards to visit. Not only are the restaurants losing revenue, they are losing it in a segment where they realize their strongest profit margins, liquor sales. Smoking bans hurt their businesses in more ways than one.
Bars, whether in restaurants or separate, are dependent on smokers, said Bob Sambol, whose bar business has dropped 20 percent at Bob's Steak & Chop House in Dallas. Although his customers have voiced more praise than complaint about the ban, his dining revenue also has dipped 10 percent, he said. "Smokers are not coming early to have a drink or staying at all after dinner," Mr. Sambol said. "I don't know what's going to happen. It's aggravating." http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_2n...asSmokeLaw.html
Another big concern is, “where are those patrons going?”. In a metroplex area such as ours, customers have plenty of options that cross over city limits. With fast growing cities surrounding Fort Worth like Burleson, Keller, NRH, Hurst and Lake Worth, a smokng ban ordinance will effectively be pushing revenue right out of the city. Dallas has already experienced this even though they are reluctant to admit it. Arlington has successfully run customers from Arlington businesses to neighboring Mansfield with similar ordinances.
Smokers who used to cap their workday with a beer and cigarette on the sidewalk patio at Kelly's are now "just going someplace else," owner Tim Kelly said. Sales are off by as much as $900 on some weeknights, he said. But a block away at Two Brothers Cigars, sales are up at least 20 percent since the ordinance made its debut. The tobacco store and lounge is one of the few places in Plano where smokers can still light up with impunity. In the case of Kelly's and Two Brothers, tighter smoking regulations are having opposite effects on businesses just one block apart.
But he(Gene Street) said his Southlake restaurant (Snookies) is reeling from that city's two-month-old smoking ordinance. Sales plummeted by 80 percent in June as smokers fled to neighboring Grapevine, Keller and Bedford. "Southlake hurt a lot," Mr. Street said. "We're on the verge of closing that store." http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...an.2b9c9be.html
“…you can drive five minutes and the laws change," said Jamee Green, executive director of the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.42caf7d.html
If this ordinance is passed, many Fort Worth businesses will suffer, some will close. Their employees will wind up looking for new work. Those people will then be spending more outside of Fort Worth too. The overall economic impact to the city of Fort Worth would be significant. Voting a stricter smoking ordinance is a bad decision, based on flawed logic.
3rd Issue
Options Available to Businesses:
If it was possible to improve the bottom line of a restaurant or bar by prohibiting smoking, believe me when I tell you, managers and owners would have done it years ago. Instead what they have done is invested in many thousands of dollars worth of equipment and remodeling in an attempt to please as many customers as possible. Some of these changes have been brought about by city ordinance, some were designed up front in the initial plans. Regardless of the motivation, they are all good things because they seek to maximize traffic for the business. Furthermore they have been successful. People will not frequent an establishment if they do not like a particular layout or a poor ventilation system. The customer has many choices and the bar manager is all too well aware of that fact.
There are so many options available to the restaurateur and the bar owner to create a clean enjoyable environment for his customer, smoke handlers, ventilation systems, interior design, and outdoor patios. These businesses have spent a lot of money in these areas to please and to draw in as many patrons to their establishments as possible. It seems impractical, almost shameful, to effectively negate these investments made to address the smoking issue by voting in a new stricter ordinance. Has the city considered the legal contingencies and the cost of defending itself should restaurants and bar owners file lawsuits? If a business has spent thousands of dollars conforming to certain health standards, then suddenly those rules no longer apply, then I think those businesses may have a significant cause of action against the city. Furthermore, any new entrants into the industry would have a distinct advantage. Is the city prepared to try and level that playing field? Would they consider any kind of remediation for obsolete equipment costs and other expenses for a compliance issue that suddenly no longer existed? A more restrictive ordinance would render all those expenses worthless long before those businesses have had time to see a return on their investments. Could the city then be held liable for that? One wonders. Are you prepared to pay to defend it if it does?
The decision of how to handle smoking and non-smoking sections in public place belongs to the owners and managers of those businesses. They are the ones making the investments. They are the ones taking the risks. They are entitled to some say in how their businesses are run.
Last Issue
Political / Governmental Issues:
Implementing a Smoking Ban ordinance seems to be a quick way to garner a lot of attention, both good and bad. Unfortunately it seems many municipalities and other government bodies, make these decisions for all the wrong reasons. This is not a health issue. It might be comfort issue, but it is not a health issue.
Furthermore, it sets a bad precedent for the next moral bandwagon that comes along. What’s next? MP3 players? Research shows loud music is bad for people’s hearing, especially children. Are we going to outlaw MP3 players and car stereos? It’s annoying to me when kids in a restaurant play their headphones too loud or when a car goes down the road playing loud music, does that mean we are going outlaw it? Of course not! This proposed smoking ordinance is equally absurd.
C.S. Lewis once wrote,
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
And it is true. Don’t pass this ordinance and call it a victory for health advocates. I should not have to have your permission to enjoy a legal product in a public place within the city of Fort Worth. Don’t pass this ordinance and tell me everyone can be more comfortable. Let the entrepreneurs take care of that. And don’t pass a smoking ban for the sake of good press. That just cheapens the appearance of city government and diminishes the credibility of the whole process of city management. Decisions made for political reasons over economic reasoning is pure foolishness.
I believe the motivation behind this proposed Smoking Ban ordinance is based more on hype and hysteria than it is based on truth and common sense. Seriously, how many smoky dingy restaurants are there in the city? Not many. Customers have voted with their dollars, and most of them are gone now. In light of all the building Fort Worth is doing in preparation for our future growth as well as upcoming SuperBowl XLV, the convention center, the additional parking, the additional hotel space and all these other efforts aimed to wrest away some of the biggest draws and attractions from Dallas, smoking restrictions will no doubt continue to be a consideration. Don’t mess up that option the way Dallas did. It didn’t work in Dallas. It didn’t work in Arlington. And it won’t work here. The only thing it does do well is drive business away to somewhere outside the city limits. I believe that is counter productive to the desires and goals that Fort Worth’s leaders have set for themselves and for our city.
I have attempted to attach files containing information to support virtually everything I have presented here. Please study this material. Do you own research. But most of all, keep an open mind and consider all the ramifications of what you are proposing.
Thank you for your time.
Gary
Most of the info I have are in DOC files which I copied and pasted out of web sites. They include hyperlinks to the original articles just to make it easy. The letter I drafted is included in it's entirety below. The links referenced below will need to be pasted. I didn't feel like embedding all those links. Sorry. If you want the DOC files, PM your email addy and I'll forward them to you.
Hopefully this will save someone some time and trouble since this seems to be the rage now, smoker bashing that is.
Wish us luck on Tuesday.
Gary
===================================
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I am writing to request that you do not support any kind of new smoking ordinances which further restrict businesses within the city of Fort Worth. The current smoking guidelines enforced by the city are both adequate and effective. There is no real benefit to be gained by placing more burdensome and additional limitations on businesses which have already spent a great deal of time and money complying with existing ordinances. An outright ban on smoking in public places would render these many thousands of dollars in equipment and remodeling investments worthless.
I ask you to consider a number of elements relating to the subject of smoking in a public place and then reconsider what you are proposing to do and how you plan to implement it.
1st Issue
Health Matters:
Second Hand Smoke (SHS) or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) have never been definitively proven to be as detrimental to public health as everyone would be led to believe. Time and again, these studies by the EPA and the WHO have been disproved as false and misleading. In each occasion, it was proved conclusively that the data was manipulated and cherry picked in order to achieve a predetermined result.
Just when it seemed anti-smoking activists finally succeeded in producing scientific reports establishing secondhand smoke as a health risk, a federal judge overturned the EPA report in 1998. He ruled the EPA cheated on the science. Later in 1998, the WHO published the largest study ever done on secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The study reported no statistically significant association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. By Steven Milloy http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html
The EPA even went so far as to not only remove from the study, two thirds of the data which was unfavorable to their desired results, but they also doubled the margin of error to a level of statistical insignificance so that they could maintain the same results which had been published prior to the conclusion of the study.
Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they changed the CI to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error. By Dave Hitt http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
Michael Crichton, an author who knows something about research, was even asked about this matter by a student. His response is included in this YouTube video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoZ-b1OaW4
If more proof of this information is necessary, check out Dominick Armentano’s comments at this link; http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html
Second hand smoke may be an annoyance to some people, but the data is just not there to support the supposed level of health risks we hear so much about nor the scare tactics that go along with them.
2nd Issue
Economic Issues:
Beyond health matters, one of the most important criteria that should be considered by any rule making body, be they local, state, or otherwise, should be the economic impact made by their decisions. Much has been written about the nature and severity of the impact surrounding Smoking Ban ordinances. The truth is however, is that it drives revenue down in businesses such as restaurants, bars and other establishments that cater to crowds where smokers frequent. Restaurant managers have even commented that new ordinances bring about favorable responses from their patrons, but at the end of the day, smokers no longer come in early for a drink, nor do they stay late afterwards to visit. Not only are the restaurants losing revenue, they are losing it in a segment where they realize their strongest profit margins, liquor sales. Smoking bans hurt their businesses in more ways than one.
Bars, whether in restaurants or separate, are dependent on smokers, said Bob Sambol, whose bar business has dropped 20 percent at Bob's Steak & Chop House in Dallas. Although his customers have voiced more praise than complaint about the ban, his dining revenue also has dipped 10 percent, he said. "Smokers are not coming early to have a drink or staying at all after dinner," Mr. Sambol said. "I don't know what's going to happen. It's aggravating." http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_2n...asSmokeLaw.html
Another big concern is, “where are those patrons going?”. In a metroplex area such as ours, customers have plenty of options that cross over city limits. With fast growing cities surrounding Fort Worth like Burleson, Keller, NRH, Hurst and Lake Worth, a smokng ban ordinance will effectively be pushing revenue right out of the city. Dallas has already experienced this even though they are reluctant to admit it. Arlington has successfully run customers from Arlington businesses to neighboring Mansfield with similar ordinances.
Smokers who used to cap their workday with a beer and cigarette on the sidewalk patio at Kelly's are now "just going someplace else," owner Tim Kelly said. Sales are off by as much as $900 on some weeknights, he said. But a block away at Two Brothers Cigars, sales are up at least 20 percent since the ordinance made its debut. The tobacco store and lounge is one of the few places in Plano where smokers can still light up with impunity. In the case of Kelly's and Two Brothers, tighter smoking regulations are having opposite effects on businesses just one block apart.
But he(Gene Street) said his Southlake restaurant (Snookies) is reeling from that city's two-month-old smoking ordinance. Sales plummeted by 80 percent in June as smokers fled to neighboring Grapevine, Keller and Bedford. "Southlake hurt a lot," Mr. Street said. "We're on the verge of closing that store." http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...an.2b9c9be.html
“…you can drive five minutes and the laws change," said Jamee Green, executive director of the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.42caf7d.html
If this ordinance is passed, many Fort Worth businesses will suffer, some will close. Their employees will wind up looking for new work. Those people will then be spending more outside of Fort Worth too. The overall economic impact to the city of Fort Worth would be significant. Voting a stricter smoking ordinance is a bad decision, based on flawed logic.
3rd Issue
Options Available to Businesses:
If it was possible to improve the bottom line of a restaurant or bar by prohibiting smoking, believe me when I tell you, managers and owners would have done it years ago. Instead what they have done is invested in many thousands of dollars worth of equipment and remodeling in an attempt to please as many customers as possible. Some of these changes have been brought about by city ordinance, some were designed up front in the initial plans. Regardless of the motivation, they are all good things because they seek to maximize traffic for the business. Furthermore they have been successful. People will not frequent an establishment if they do not like a particular layout or a poor ventilation system. The customer has many choices and the bar manager is all too well aware of that fact.
There are so many options available to the restaurateur and the bar owner to create a clean enjoyable environment for his customer, smoke handlers, ventilation systems, interior design, and outdoor patios. These businesses have spent a lot of money in these areas to please and to draw in as many patrons to their establishments as possible. It seems impractical, almost shameful, to effectively negate these investments made to address the smoking issue by voting in a new stricter ordinance. Has the city considered the legal contingencies and the cost of defending itself should restaurants and bar owners file lawsuits? If a business has spent thousands of dollars conforming to certain health standards, then suddenly those rules no longer apply, then I think those businesses may have a significant cause of action against the city. Furthermore, any new entrants into the industry would have a distinct advantage. Is the city prepared to try and level that playing field? Would they consider any kind of remediation for obsolete equipment costs and other expenses for a compliance issue that suddenly no longer existed? A more restrictive ordinance would render all those expenses worthless long before those businesses have had time to see a return on their investments. Could the city then be held liable for that? One wonders. Are you prepared to pay to defend it if it does?
The decision of how to handle smoking and non-smoking sections in public place belongs to the owners and managers of those businesses. They are the ones making the investments. They are the ones taking the risks. They are entitled to some say in how their businesses are run.
Last Issue
Political / Governmental Issues:
Implementing a Smoking Ban ordinance seems to be a quick way to garner a lot of attention, both good and bad. Unfortunately it seems many municipalities and other government bodies, make these decisions for all the wrong reasons. This is not a health issue. It might be comfort issue, but it is not a health issue.
Furthermore, it sets a bad precedent for the next moral bandwagon that comes along. What’s next? MP3 players? Research shows loud music is bad for people’s hearing, especially children. Are we going to outlaw MP3 players and car stereos? It’s annoying to me when kids in a restaurant play their headphones too loud or when a car goes down the road playing loud music, does that mean we are going outlaw it? Of course not! This proposed smoking ordinance is equally absurd.
C.S. Lewis once wrote,
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
And it is true. Don’t pass this ordinance and call it a victory for health advocates. I should not have to have your permission to enjoy a legal product in a public place within the city of Fort Worth. Don’t pass this ordinance and tell me everyone can be more comfortable. Let the entrepreneurs take care of that. And don’t pass a smoking ban for the sake of good press. That just cheapens the appearance of city government and diminishes the credibility of the whole process of city management. Decisions made for political reasons over economic reasoning is pure foolishness.
I believe the motivation behind this proposed Smoking Ban ordinance is based more on hype and hysteria than it is based on truth and common sense. Seriously, how many smoky dingy restaurants are there in the city? Not many. Customers have voted with their dollars, and most of them are gone now. In light of all the building Fort Worth is doing in preparation for our future growth as well as upcoming SuperBowl XLV, the convention center, the additional parking, the additional hotel space and all these other efforts aimed to wrest away some of the biggest draws and attractions from Dallas, smoking restrictions will no doubt continue to be a consideration. Don’t mess up that option the way Dallas did. It didn’t work in Dallas. It didn’t work in Arlington. And it won’t work here. The only thing it does do well is drive business away to somewhere outside the city limits. I believe that is counter productive to the desires and goals that Fort Worth’s leaders have set for themselves and for our city.
I have attempted to attach files containing information to support virtually everything I have presented here. Please study this material. Do you own research. But most of all, keep an open mind and consider all the ramifications of what you are proposing.
Thank you for your time.
Gary
