Wade... What's the Deal

[blessednxs65]

I know you work in a local B&M, what gives?

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080306/0371555.html

[tedski]

It's the same path Calif took and many other states are emulating. Tax the daylights out of tobacco ... then progressively ban smoking in more and more places. Now the politicians :scratchhe their head and wonder why they suddenly have so much less revenue to pay for all these wonderful services.

Maybe the anti-smoking groups will belly up and help fill the state's empty coffers .... :rofl:

[Volusianator]

It's a f'ed up government we have man, what else can I say?

[vorra65]

It's a f'ed up government we have man, what else can I say?


word, well said

[Coolhand]

Colorado banned smoking in bars (there are exemptions but they are rare) ... within six months four of the five bars I know of within two miles of my house have gone tits-up.

A friend of mine owns a BIG casino in Cripple Creek - says his revenue is down 35% since the ban went into effect.

[RigilKent]

wade said it just right

[Asher]

I know you work in a local B&M, what gives?

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080306/0371555.html

Here in Madison, there is one cigar bar left with a (very narrow) exemption to allow smoking (pipes and cigars only, cigarette smokers have to go outside). What I don't understand is why the state doesn't just issue separate smoking and non-smoking liquor licenses. (Actually, if there were *really* an overwhelming demand for smoke-free bars, then the market would have met the demand . . . )

If the state let some percentage of bars purchase a (presumably more expensive) smoking liquor license and banned smoking in the rest of the bars, then all of these non-smokers who claim they would go to smoke-free bars could do so without forcing their will on us. Furthermore, since the majority of voters apparently want smoke-free bars, the bars with smoke-free licenses would surely be filled with grateful non-smoking patrons, right? :sarcastic