Province Admits Smoking Bans Hurt Bar, Restuarant Business

[k***@rocketmail.com]

http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=48878&sc=89

Quote from the article:
"Sales growth to licensees such as restaurants, pubs and bars has
fallen 2.1 per cent, which Perkins attributes to smoking bans and
reduced VLTs."


It's refreshing to finally have a govt spokesperson admit what
everyone knew would happen all along -- that the smoking ban at bars
and restaurants would hurt those businesses. It proves, based on hard
numbers, that the stories told by the Dept of Health Promotion and the
anti-smoking crowd that sales in those establishments would actually
increase as legions of nonsmokers rushed in were nothing more than a
smokescreen of deceit. Shame on them for trying to deliberately
mislead us, and kudos to Perkins for telling the truth.

[Troy Jollimore]

Well, it's sales GROWTH that has fallen, not total sales, and ONLY by 2.1%?
This tells me that the effect of this 'punch' is far less than anyone
probably expected.

It's too bad they have to lie to the public in order to get these things
rolling and counteract the 'sky is falling' stories, but the general public
is usually pretty dense.

Post by k***@rocketmail.com
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=48878&sc=89
"Sales growth to licensees such as restaurants, pubs and bars has
fallen 2.1 per cent, which Perkins attributes to smoking bans and
reduced VLTs."
It's refreshing to finally have a govt spokesperson admit what
everyone knew would happen all along -- that the smoking ban at bars
and restaurants would hurt those businesses. It proves, based on hard
numbers, that the stories told by the Dept of Health Promotion and the
anti-smoking crowd that sales in those establishments would actually
increase as legions of nonsmokers rushed in were nothing more than a
smokescreen of deceit. Shame on them for trying to deliberately
mislead us, and kudos to Perkins for telling the truth.

[k***@rocketmail.com]

Post by Troy Jollimore
Well, it's sales GROWTH that has fallen, not total sales, and ONLY by 2.1%?
This tells me that the effect of this 'punch' is far less than anyone
probably expected.
It's too bad they have to lie to the public in order to get these things
rolling and counteract the 'sky is falling' stories, but the general public
is usually pretty dense.

"The year-end results showed sales to licensees - restaurants, pubs,
and bars - dropped 2.1 per cent."

Not GROWTH, but total sales.

Yes, it's a shame the health nannies are forced to lie in order to
enact their social engineering agenda.

[a]

Post by k***@rocketmail.com

Post by Troy Jollimore
Well, it's sales GROWTH that has fallen, not total sales, and ONLY by 2.1%?
This tells me that the effect of this 'punch' is far less than anyone
probably expected.
It's too bad they have to lie to the public in order to get these things
rolling and counteract the 'sky is falling' stories, but the general public
is usually pretty dense.

"The year-end results showed sales to licensees - restaurants, pubs,
and bars - dropped 2.1 per cent."
Not GROWTH, but total sales.
Yes, it's a shame the health nannies are forced to lie in order to
enact their social engineering agenda.

Don't get all up his ass because you passed on a Daily News misquote.

RTFA again: *NSLC sales to licensees* is off by 2.1% according to the
Herald (sales growth is off by 2.1% according to the Daily News) -
*neither* of which say that bars and restaurants are loosing any money or
even making less money than they did before the ban. "Licensees" are the
bars themselves - NSLC's Sales are off - not the Bars' and restaurants' sales.

BTW - the Official news release says SALES GROWTH is off by 2.1% to
restaurants, pubs and bars:
http://nslcweb.thenslc.com/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/WEBSITE/ABOUT_NSLC/NEWS/2006%20YEAR-END%20RESULTS%20-%20FINAL.PDF

In light of this - your comments in here and on the Daily News website look
pretty silly.

a

[k***@rocketmail.com]

Post by a
RTFA again: *NSLC sales to licensees* is off by 2.1% according to the
Herald (sales growth is off by 2.1% according to the Daily News) -
*neither* of which say that bars and restaurants are loosing any money or
even making less money than they did before the ban. "Licensees" are the
bars themselves - NSLC's Sales are off - not the Bars' and restaurants' sales.

What it says is that they are buying less product from the NSLC than
they used to. What that in turn says is that they have fewer customers
buying that product from them. The conclusion is that the restuarant
and bar business is therefore down. Are they losing money? Who knows?
Some may be. All we can conclude is that if you are in the bar
business you are doing less business than you used to.

Post by a
BTW - the Official news release says SALES GROWTH is off by 2.1% to
restaurants, pubs and bars:http://nslcweb.thenslc.com/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/WEBSITE/ABOUT_NSLC/NE...
In light of this - your comments in here and on the Daily News website look
pretty silly.

Not at all. That seems a very awkwardly worded statement. If growth is
off, does that mean sales are shrinking? I read it that way.

[Troy Jollimore]

You can get anything you want to from statistics, let alone from articles...
;)

A drop in sales growth could mean anything. First of all, it means they sold
more in total than they did last year. Second, a mere 2% difference could
equal the drop in population turning legal drinking age (fewer births 19
years ago, and more people moving away). Who knows? Like I said, *I*
expected it to fall by a lot more than that, then come back slowly as people
realize they need social drinking more than constant smoking. ;)

As for 'social engineering', this is something that was hurting other
people. So am I against it? Nope. It sounds like a good idea all-around. A
good number of people are too stupid to know when they're hurting
themselves, or others...

Post by k***@rocketmail.com
What it says is that they are buying less product from the NSLC than
they used to. What that in turn says is that they have fewer customers
buying that product from them. The conclusion is that the restuarant
and bar business is therefore down. Are they losing money? Who knows?
Some may be. All we can conclude is that if you are in the bar
business you are doing less business than you used to.

Post by a
BTW - the Official news release says SALES GROWTH is off by 2.1% to
restaurants, pubs and

bars:http://nslcweb.thenslc.com/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/WEBSITE/ABOUT_NSLC/NE..
.

Post by k***@rocketmail.com

Post by a
In light of this - your comments in here and on the Daily News website look
pretty silly.

Not at all. That seems a very awkwardly worded statement. If growth is
off, does that mean sales are shrinking? I read it that way.

[God]

Post by k***@rocketmail.com

Post by a
RTFA again: *NSLC sales to licensees* is off by 2.1% according to the
Herald (sales growth is off by 2.1% according to the Daily News) -
*neither* of which say that bars and restaurants are loosing any money or
even making less money than they did before the ban. "Licensees" are the
bars themselves - NSLC's Sales are off - not the Bars' and restaurants' sales.

What it says is that they are buying less product from the NSLC than
they used to. What that in turn says is that they have fewer customers
buying that product from them. The conclusion is that the restuarant
and bar business is therefore down. Are they losing money? Who knows?
Some may be. All we can conclude is that if you are in the bar
business you are doing less business than you used to.

Post by a
BTW - the Official news release says SALES GROWTH is off by 2.1% to
restaurants, pubs and bars:http://nslcweb.thenslc.com/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/WEBSITE/ABOUT_NSLC/NE...
In light of this - your comments in here and on the Daily News website look
pretty silly.

Not at all. That seems a very awkwardly worded statement. If growth is
off, does that mean sales are shrinking? I read it that way.

Okay...then booze sales are down...any numbers on the food sales ??

[Richard Bonner]

Post by a

Post by k***@rocketmail.com

...it's sales GROWTH that has fallen, not total sales, and ONLY by
2.1%? This tells me that the effect of this 'punch' is far less than
anyone probably expected.
It's too bad they have to lie to the public in order to get these things
rolling and counteract the 'sky is falling' stories, but the general public
is usually pretty dense.

"The year-end results showed sales to licensees - restaurants, pubs,
and bars - dropped 2.1 per cent."
Not GROWTH, but total sales.
Yes, it's a shame the health nannies are forced to lie in order to
enact their social engineering agenda.

Don't get all up his ass because you passed on a Daily News misquote.
RTFA again: *NSLC sales to licensees* is off by 2.1% according to the
Herald (sales growth is off by 2.1% according to the Daily News) -
*neither* of which say that bars and restaurants are loosing any money or
even making less money than they did before the ban. "Licensees" are the
bars themselves - NSLC's Sales are off - not the Bars' and restaurants' sales.
a

*** You may also blame this on stiffer drinking & driving laws and the
fact that recent drunk-driver accidents are finally getting the message
across. Couple that with less disposable income and higher drink costs,
and people simply consume fewer drinks when they do go out.

Richard

[JD]

2.1% is a fair amount of cash! If we had inflation that high consistently,
or income taxes were raised by that much every year, people would be
screaming blue murder.

Post by Troy Jollimore
Well, it's sales GROWTH that has fallen, not total sales, and ONLY by 2.1%?
This tells me that the effect of this 'punch' is far less than anyone
probably expected.
It's too bad they have to lie to the public in order to get these things
rolling and counteract the 'sky is falling' stories, but the general public
is usually pretty dense.

Post by k***@rocketmail.com
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=48878&sc=89
"Sales growth to licensees such as restaurants, pubs and bars has
fallen 2.1 per cent, which Perkins attributes to smoking bans and
reduced VLTs."
It's refreshing to finally have a govt spokesperson admit what
everyone knew would happen all along -- that the smoking ban at bars
and restaurants would hurt those businesses. It proves, based on hard
numbers, that the stories told by the Dept of Health Promotion and the
anti-smoking crowd that sales in those establishments would actually
increase as legions of nonsmokers rushed in were nothing more than a
smokescreen of deceit. Shame on them for trying to deliberately
mislead us, and kudos to Perkins for telling the truth.

[a]

Post by JD
2.1% is a fair amount of cash!

Yes, but 2.1% of what, exactly?

a

[JD]

2.1% dropin sales growth for the bars and eateries according the article.

Post by a

Post by JD
2.1% is a fair amount of cash!

Yes, but 2.1% of what, exactly?
a

[a]

Post by JD
2.1% dropin sales growth for the bars and eateries according the article.

Post by a

Post by JD
2.1% is a fair amount of cash!

Yes, but 2.1% of what, exactly?
a

A 2.1% drop in growth = what? What was the sales growth last year? 10%?
5000%? From 85-90%? So the growth ropped by 2.1%? What's that?

a

[Troy Jollimore]

Actually, the more interesting question was what was the sales growth in
REVENUE last year? $100,000? 2.1% of that would be $2100. And that's just
growth. I'm pretty sure most licensed bars/restaurants enjoy a pretty good
profit margin as it is. It's a small price to pay for better health.

And isn't our inflation going up by around that anyway, followed closely by
taxation? Perhaps not every year, but not far from it.

Post by a

Post by JD
2.1% dropin sales growth for the bars and eateries according the article.

Post by a

Post by JD
2.1% is a fair amount of cash!

Yes, but 2.1% of what, exactly?
a

A 2.1% drop in growth = what? What was the sales growth last year? 10%?
5000%? From 85-90%? So the growth ropped by 2.1%? What's that?
a

[JD]

Post by Troy Jollimore
I'm pretty sure most licensed bars/restaurants enjoy a pretty good
profit margin as it is. It's a small price to pay for better health.

Easy to say if you're not the one paying the price. They are running
businesses.

Post by Troy Jollimore
And isn't our inflation going up by around that anyway, followed closely by
taxation? Perhaps not every year, but not far from it.

Income taxes went down last year, and the target inflation is below 2%.

[Troy Jollimore]

We'll all pay less in the long run, in terms of health care et al. Oh, who
am I kidding? We'll end up paying the same, the government will just pocket
the surplus. And I'm sure bars can pass some of the cost on to the customer.

As for taxes, it's only temporary. Like winning at the Casino, then you just
go back to pumping money in...

Post by JD
Easy to say if you're not the one paying the price. They are running
businesses.
Income taxes went down last year, and the target inflation is below 2%.

[JD]

I doubt it. Smoking is on the decline and banning it in bars doesn't make
one iota of difference to the smoking rates. And, obesity-related diseases
are rapidly overtaking smoking as the number one preventable cause of death.
No move to ban McD's the last time I looked.

Post by Troy Jollimore
We'll all pay less in the long run, in terms of health care et al. Oh, who
am I kidding? We'll end up paying the same, the government will just pocket
the surplus. And I'm sure bars can pass some of the cost on to the customer.
As for taxes, it's only temporary. Like winning at the Casino, then you just
go back to pumping money in...

Post by JD
Easy to say if you're not the one paying the price. They are running
businesses.
Income taxes went down last year, and the target inflation is below 2%.

[Richard Bonner]

Post by JD
I doubt it. Smoking is on the decline and banning it in bars doesn't make
one iota of difference to the smoking rates. And, obesity-related diseases
are rapidly overtaking smoking as the number one preventable cause of death.
No move to ban McD's the last time I looked.

*** No, but they are looking at taxing high-fat foods.

That will be the start, and eventually one will only be able to consume
a Big Mac a distance of 5 metres or more away from the door.

Richard

[Richard Bonner]

Post by JD
Income taxes went down last year, and the target inflation is below 2%.

*** I believe they went *up* in order to cover the drop in the HST rate.

Richard

[JD]

Post by a

Post by JD
2.1% dropin sales growth for the bars and eateries according the article.

Post by a

Post by JD
2.1% is a fair amount of cash!

Yes, but 2.1% of what, exactly?
a

A 2.1% drop in growth = what? What was the sales growth last year? 10%?
5000%? From 85-90%? So the growth ropped by 2.1%? What's that?
a

No idea what revenue or growth is in Halifax. I would guess you'd have to
ask the writer of the article.

[Z]

X-No-Archive: Yes
What a bunch of pure crap . People go to restaurants to eat a good meal ,
people go to bars to meet people and have a good drink with it . In both
they do not want to suck in smoke from
someone's lungs because of their disgusted habit . If anything the 2.1
percent would most likely was attributed from a change in spending habits .
From anything the no smoking ban cause more people to go out more to
restaurants and bars . Smoking has become less and less acceptable . Even
so drinking to your plastered out of your mind has become less acceptable
behavior as well . Why do people still live in 70,s .

Post by k***@rocketmail.com
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=48878&sc=89
"Sales growth to licensees such as restaurants, pubs and bars has
fallen 2.1 per cent, which Perkins attributes to smoking bans and
reduced VLTs."
It's refreshing to finally have a govt spokesperson admit what
everyone knew would happen all along -- that the smoking ban at bars
and restaurants would hurt those businesses. It proves, based on hard
numbers, that the stories told by the Dept of Health Promotion and the
anti-smoking crowd that sales in those establishments would actually
increase as legions of nonsmokers rushed in were nothing more than a
smokescreen of deceit. Shame on them for trying to deliberately
mislead us, and kudos to Perkins for telling the truth.

[Zoloft]

Agreed. Getting hammered in a bar is not as "Cool" as it used to be.
Even taking a cab home after getting loaded in public is admitting you
drink too much.

The most stupid anti smoking rule so far, is that you can not smoke on
an OUTDOOR deck or patio that is licensed to sell booze. What is with that?

Bill.

Post by Z
X-No-Archive: Yes
What a bunch of pure crap . People go to restaurants to eat a good meal
, people go to bars to meet people and have a good drink with it . In
both they do not want to suck in smoke from
someone's lungs because of their disgusted habit . If anything the 2.1
percent would most likely was attributed from a change in spending
habits . From anything the no smoking ban cause more people to go out
more to restaurants and bars . Smoking has become less and less
acceptable . Even so drinking to your plastered out of your mind has
become less acceptable behavior as well . Why do people still live in
70,s .

[demibee]

The most stupid anti smoking rule so far, is that you can not smoke on an
OUTDOOR deck or patio that is licensed to sell booze. What is with that?

I saw a piece on the news tonight mentioning that corner stores will now
have to place cigarettes completely out of view by one of...

1. placing packages below the counter

2. placing packages above the counter (in an overhead compartment)

3. covering the "power walls" behind the counter... and the covered
compartment has to be limited in size (I think it's a square metre)

One corner store owner said that the money she gets from having a power
wall covers three months' rent.

Another mentioned that it'll be yet another cost for corner store owners
who have to keep up with ever-changing laws. He also questioned the
limited size of the covered compartment; if it's covered, who cares how
big it is? The answer, according to one spokesperson, was, "But people
*know* what's behind the cover!"

So?!... If people *know* what's behind the cover, what's the point in
covering anything?

I swear... the way these laws are going, it won't be long before smoking
tobacco at all becomes a criminal offence.

I don't smoke tobacco, but I'm sure that once it's out of the way,
someone'll figure alcohol should be next.


db

[a]

Post by demibee
I swear... the way these laws are going, it won't be long before smoking
tobacco at all becomes a criminal offence.

Yay!

a

[Richard Bonner]

Post by demibee
I saw a piece on the news tonight mentioning that corner stores will now
have to place cigarettes completely out of view by one of...
1. placing packages below the counter
2. placing packages above the counter (in an overhead compartment)
3. covering the "power walls" behind the counter... and the covered
compartment has to be limited in size (I think it's a square metre)
One corner store owner said that the money she gets from having a power
wall covers three months' rent.

*** So they should continue to sell harmful products that cost the
taxpayers millions in health care?

Post by demibee
Another mentioned that it'll be yet another cost for corner store owners
who have to keep up with ever-changing laws. He also questioned the
limited size of the covered compartment; if it's covered, who cares how
big it is? The answer, according to one spokesperson, was, "But people
*know* what's behind the cover!"

*** All this hassle is just another reason to stop selling smokes. The
drugstores did and I don't see them going out of business.

Post by demibee
So?!... If people *know* what's behind the cover, what's the point in
covering anything?

*** Out of site, out of mind to non-smokers and those that might be
influenced to take up the habit.

Post by demibee
I swear... the way these laws are going, it won't be long before smoking
tobacco at all becomes a criminal offence.

*** Yup.

Post by demibee
I don't smoke tobacco, but I'm sure that once it's out of the way,
someone'll figure alcohol should be next.
db

*** Yup.

Richard

[demibee]

Post by Richard Bonner
*** So they should continue to sell harmful products that cost the
taxpayers millions in health care?

They'll sell them in any case... It's a legal product. I'm not sure
what hiding them accomplishes; both kids and adults will know what's
behind the "green door." And that in and of itself may be more
provocative than having the cigarette packages visible...

As an example, growing up, I could divide my friends' parents into
three categories, based on their drinking habits...
1. Those who drank moderately
2. Those who drank heavily or "partied" often
3. Those who abstained completely and tolerated no alcohol inside
the house

Based on my experience with these friends, *in general*, kids in
category-1 families drank socially (moderately) or not at all once
they reached their late teens and early twenties. Category-2 kids
drank as soon as they reached 19 (if not earlier), and they were quite
open and unapologetic about it. Kids in the category-3 families
*also* drank when they reached 19 (if not before), but they were very
secretive about it; IMO, they had the least healthy attitudes toward
drinking overall.

Personally, I think it had something to do with the notion that, in
*their* households, alcohol was a mysterious taboo -- something that
just wasn't talked about; if it *was*, it was always described as
"evil" in one way or another. So these kids, when they *did* take up
the habit (probably out of extreme curiosity), felt themselves in no
position to bring it up with others... If they ever developed
problems (and I don't know that they did), I'm not sure they'd've felt
as comfortable confiding in others as kids in the other two groups
would have.

I can see the same thing with smoking: if we keep the product legal
yet unseen, I have to wonder if some kids wouldn't become more curious
simply because the product is treated almost the way pornography is.

Post by Richard Bonner
*** All this hassle is just another reason to stop selling smokes. The
drugstores did and I don't see them going out of business.

That made sense to me. Drugstores, which are in the business of
selling health, shouldn't have been promoting smoking. Now... how
long will it be before they get all the junk food and pop out of
there? ;)

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by demibee
So?!... If people *know* what's behind the cover, what's the point in
covering anything?

*** Out of site, out of mind to non-smokers and those that might be
influenced to take up the habit.

I'm not convinced that merely seeing cigarette packages -- especially
now that they have all the graphic warnings -- would entice a
non-smoker to become a smoker. I think peer pressure -- i.e., having
friends around who smoke -- is the main influence on people that age.


db

[JD]

Post by demibee

Post by Richard Bonner
*** So they should continue to sell harmful products that cost the
taxpayers millions in health care?

They'll sell them in any case... It's a legal product. I'm not sure
what hiding them accomplishes; both kids and adults will know what's
behind the "green door." And that in and of itself may be more
provocative than having the cigarette packages visible...

Besides. They can legally sell pop, junk food, etc. that are costing
taxpayers milions in health care costs.

<snipped for brevity>

Post by demibee

Post by Richard Bonner
*** All this hassle is just another reason to stop selling smokes. The
drugstores did and I don't see them going out of business.

That made sense to me. Drugstores, which are in the business of
selling health, shouldn't have been promoting smoking. Now... how
long will it be before they get all the junk food and pop out of
there? ;)

I agree. If they don't sell smokes because they should be selling healthy
products, they shouldn't be selling junk food.

Post by demibee

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by demibee
So?!... If people *know* what's behind the cover, what's the point in
covering anything?

*** Out of site, out of mind to non-smokers and those that might be
influenced to take up the habit.

I'm not convinced that merely seeing cigarette packages -- especially
now that they have all the graphic warnings -- would entice a
non-smoker to become a smoker. I think peer pressure -- i.e., having
friends around who smoke -- is the main influence on people that age.

It doesn't. Smoking is on the decline and has been for years. Those who
will want to smoke, will smoke and those who don't are smart. All this
foolishness doesn't change anything. Only education will.

[Richard Bonner]

Post by JD
Smoking is on the decline and has been for years. Those who
will want to smoke, will smoke and those who don't are smart. All this
foolishness doesn't change anything. Only education will.

*** Education is a big factor, but so is the fact that smokes are no
longer advertised and have not been since the 1970s. That has to be
accounted for in the decline. Anti-smoking education was handed out long
before the ban but it did not stop a lot of my friends from becoming
smokers. I remember the films in junior high showing the dissected diseased
lungs, I also remember the lectures from health officials. Still, friends
became smokers.

Richard

[lucretia borgia]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:38:55 -0300, demibee <***@post.com> wrote:
X-No-Archive Yes

Post by demibee

Post by Richard Bonner
*** So they should continue to sell harmful products that cost the
taxpayers millions in health care?

They'll sell them in any case... It's a legal product. I'm not sure
what hiding them accomplishes; both kids and adults will know what's
behind the "green door." And that in and of itself may be more
provocative than having the cigarette packages visible...
As an example, growing up, I could divide my friends' parents into
three categories, based on their drinking habits...
1. Those who drank moderately
2. Those who drank heavily or "partied" often
3. Those who abstained completely and tolerated no alcohol inside
the house
Based on my experience with these friends, *in general*, kids in
category-1 families drank socially (moderately) or not at all once
they reached their late teens and early twenties. Category-2 kids
drank as soon as they reached 19 (if not earlier), and they were quite
open and unapologetic about it. Kids in the category-3 families
*also* drank when they reached 19 (if not before), but they were very
secretive about it; IMO, they had the least healthy attitudes toward
drinking overall.
Personally, I think it had something to do with the notion that, in
*their* households, alcohol was a mysterious taboo -- something that
just wasn't talked about; if it *was*, it was always described as
"evil" in one way or another. So these kids, when they *did* take up
the habit (probably out of extreme curiosity), felt themselves in no
position to bring it up with others... If they ever developed
problems (and I don't know that they did), I'm not sure they'd've felt
as comfortable confiding in others as kids in the other two groups
would have.

I agree with you and would say that was pretty much how my friends
split as well.

Personally, I think the government knotting its knickers over whether
kids can see smokes in stores, repeatedly telling them not to smoke,
actually makes them more desirable.

While the government takes tax money on cigarettes it is not entitled
to do very much about them.

[Richard Bonner]

Post by demibee

Post by Richard Bonner
*** So they should continue to sell harmful products that cost the
taxpayers millions in health care?

They'll sell them in any case... It's a legal product. I'm not sure
what hiding them accomplishes; both kids and adults will know what's
behind the "green door." And that in and of itself may be more
provocative than having the cigarette packages visible...

*** For some, I am sure that is true. However, research shows that
marketing works better from a visual basis standpoint. I assume that is
the reason media ads for tobacco were banned years ago.

Post by demibee
As an example, growing up, I could divide my friends' parents into
three categories, based on their drinking habits...
1. Those who drank moderately
2. Those who drank heavily or "partied" often
3. Those who abstained completely and tolerated no alcohol inside
the house
Based on my experience with these friends, *in general*, kids in
category-1 families drank socially (moderately) or not at all once
they reached their late teens and early twenties. Category-2 kids
drank as soon as they reached 19 (if not earlier), and they were quite
open and unapologetic about it. Kids in the category-3 families
*also* drank when they reached 19 (if not before), but they were very
secretive about it; IMO, they had the least healthy attitudes toward
drinking overall.

*** I can see that for at least some. However, I work scores of schools
in a year and smoking is considered very uncool. Peer pressure has to be a
factor, too.

Post by demibee
I can see the same thing with smoking: if we keep the product legal
yet unseen, I have to wonder if some kids wouldn't become more curious
simply because the product is treated almost the way pornography is.

*** I would have to agree with that, but for the majority, sight unseen
would be better.

Post by demibee

Post by Richard Bonner
*** All this hassle is just another reason to stop selling smokes. The
drugstores did and I don't see them going out of business.

That made sense to me. Drugstores, which are in the business of
selling health, shouldn't have been promoting smoking. Now... how
long will it be before they get all the junk food and pop out of
there? ;)

*** Perhaps not as long as we think, given the results of world-wide
studies on obesity and its link to high-fat foods and snacks.

Post by demibee

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by demibee
If people *know* what's behind the cover, what's the point in
covering anything?

*** Out of site, out of mind to non-smokers and those that might be
influenced to take up the habit.

I'm not convinced that merely seeing cigarette packages -- especially
now that they have all the graphic warnings -- would entice a
non-smoker to become a smoker. I think peer pressure -- i.e., having
friends around who smoke -- is the main influence on people that age.
db

*** I agree, but advertisement is also a factor. The fact that smokes
are under the counter gives a hint that they are a no-no, and that will
have an affect.

Richard

[Rick Walker]

Post by Richard Bonner
*** For some, I am sure that is true. However, research shows that
marketing works better from a visual basis standpoint. I assume that is
the reason media ads for tobacco were banned years ago.

I still see advertisements for tobacco in magazines, Richard.
That's pretty visable. And there's no marketing strategy required to
sell smokes to a person already addicted; all the addict requires is a
source to purchase from, and whether that product is "under the counter"
or on a shelf, it's still there legally.

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by Richard Bonner
*** All this hassle is just another reason to stop selling smokes. The
drugstores did and I don't see them going out of business.

Drugstores make the majority of their their money on prescriptions;
superflous products, placed strategically throughout the store catch
your attention begging you to buy and try, and the advertised specials
(like pop or shampoo), bring in enough traffic to keep those products
there.

Losing the ability to sell cigarettes didn't really hurt as much as
drugstores had originally anticipated. Besides, the revenue made on a
package of smokes was pennies anyway, so only the smoking consumer
suffered inconvenience of inavalablity. I also imagine that the staff
was happy to see them go. Not for health reasons, but because of the
time wasted stocking the shelves and selling the product.

Post by Richard Bonner
*** I agree, but advertisement is also a factor. The fact that smokes
are under the counter gives a hint that they are a no-no, and that will
have an affect.

Cause and "affect?" (-:

Smoking is legal and hiding the product doesn't eradicate the
problem of addiction. There are hoards of drug addicts in this world
Richard, and I don't see a lot of Heroin, Crack or Ecstasy advertised
anywhere.

Rick

[Richard Bonner]

Post by Rick Walker

Post by Richard Bonner
*** For some, I am sure that is true. However, research shows that
marketing works better from a visual basis standpoint. I assume that
is the reason media ads for tobacco were banned years ago.

I still see advertisements for tobacco in magazines, Richard.
That's pretty visable.

*** To my knowledge it's illegal advertising. I have placed a call to
Canadian Advertisement Standards to find out for sure. I am awaiting a
call back.

Post by Rick Walker
And there's no marketing strategy required to
sell smokes to a person already addicted; all the addict requires is a
source to purchase from, and whether that product is "under the counter"
or on a shelf, it's still there legally.

*** Yes, that's true. However, if we can reduce the number of new
smokers, than this is all good.

Post by Rick Walker

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by Richard Bonner
*** All this hassle is just another reason to stop selling smokes.
The drugstores did and I don't see them going out of business.

Drugstores make the majority of their their money on prescriptions;
superflous products, placed strategically throughout the store catch
your attention begging you to buy and try, and the advertised specials
(like pop or shampoo), bring in enough traffic to keep those products
there.

*** Sure and convenience stores can do the same with the products they
sell.

Post by Rick Walker

Post by Richard Bonner
*** ...advertisement is also a factor. The fact that
smokes are under the counter gives a hint that they are a no-no, and
that will have an affect.

*** That should have been changed to "effect". I had started to say
"that will affect...", but could not think how to finish that thought and
so I truncated it but forgot to change the verb to a noun.

Post by Rick Walker
Smoking is legal and hiding the product doesn't eradicate the
problem of addiction. There are hoards of drug addicts in this world
Richard, and I don't see a lot of Heroin, Crack or Ecstasy advertised
anywhere.
Rick

*** True, but keeping it lower profile will help to lessen the number of
new addicts.

Richard

[Rick Walker]

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by Rick Walker
I still see advertisements for tobacco in magazines, Richard.
That's pretty visible.

*** To my knowledge it's illegal advertising. I have placed a call to
Canadian Advertisement Standards to find out for sure. I am awaiting a
call back.

I have a copy of "OK Weekly", sold locally that has a full back
cover ad for Pall Mall cigarettes, now packaged in orange, blue, green
and burgundy colours. Eye candy advertising as well, RIB.

Post by Richard Bonner
*** Yes, that's true. However, if we can reduce the number of new
smokers, than this is all good.

I have no problem with the idea of reducing smokers; in fact, recent
surveys do show a drop in sales to minors. But I tend to blame that
more on "reverse peer pressure" from non-smoking friends, who outnumber
the smoking teens nowadays.

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by Rick Walker
Drugstores make the majority of their money on prescriptions;
superfluous products, placed strategically throughout the store catch
your attention begging you to buy and try, and the advertised
specials
(like pop or shampoo), bring in enough traffic to keep those products
there.

*** Sure and convenience stores can do the same with the products they
sell.

A convenience store couldn't afford to advertise any specials,
Richard. Besides, what's so special about a 2L bottle of pop "on sale"
for close to 2 bucks anyway? I can buy the same pop today for under a
buck a bottle, and don't think the convenience stores aren't doing the
same damn thing.

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by Rick Walker

Post by Richard Bonner
that will have an affect.

*** That should have been changed to "effect". I had started to say
"that will affect...", but could not think how to finish that thought and
so I truncated it but forgot to change the verb to a noun.

Uh-huh. (-;

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by Rick Walker
Smoking is legal and hiding the product doesn't eradicate the
problem of addiction. There are hoards of drug addicts in this world
Richard, and I don't see a lot of Heroin, Crack or Ecstasy advertised
anywhere.

*** True, but keeping it lower profile will help to lessen the number of
new addicts.

They're decreasing because of education and restriction of areas to
smoke in, if anything. I can remember smoking in the waiting area of
the old Dartmouth Medical Centre back in the 70s; smoking at work was
acceptable too, but those days are gone. The lower profile of which you
speak (hiding the product) won't make a dent in current sales of
tobacco. It's legal, available and the government makes money on every
sale.

[throwitout]

Post by Zoloft
Agreed. Getting hammered in a bar is not as "Cool" as it used to be.
Even taking a cab home after getting loaded in public is admitting you
drink too much.
The most stupid anti smoking rule so far, is that you can not smoke on
an OUTDOOR deck or patio that is licensed to sell booze. What is with that?

Non-Smokers like outdoor patios too. Think all the smoke blows away?
You've never sat downwind of a smoker.

[Richard Bonner]

Post by Zoloft
The most stupid anti smoking rule so far, is that you can not smoke on
an OUTDOOR deck or patio that is licensed to sell booze. What is with that?
Bill.

*** Dozens of smokers poor their filth back into the club itself and
places next door. The smoke has to go somewhere.

Richard

PS: Please don't top post.

Thanks

R.

[lucretia borgia]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:26:04 +0000 (UTC), ***@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard
Bonner) wrote:
X-No-Archive Yes

Post by Richard Bonner
*** Dozens of smokers poor their filth back into the club itself and
places next door. The smoke has to go somewhere.
Richard

Do you mean they are poor because they smoke ?

[Richard Bonner]

Post by lucretia borgia
X-No-Archive Yes

Post by Richard Bonner
*** Dozens of smokers poor their filth back into the club itself and
places next door. The smoke has to go somewhere.
Richard

Do you mean they are poor because they smoke ?

*** DOH! That should have been "pour".

Thanks for the correction.

Richard

[Richard Bonner]

Post by k***@rocketmail.com
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=48878&sc=89
"Sales growth to licensees such as restaurants, pubs and bars has
fallen 2.1 per cent, which Perkins attributes to smoking bans and
reduced VLTs."
It's refreshing to finally have a govt spokesperson admit what
everyone knew would happen all along -- that the smoking ban at bars
and restaurants would hurt those businesses. It proves, based on hard
numbers, that the stories told by the Dept of Health Promotion and the
anti-smoking crowd that sales in those establishments would actually
increase as legions of nonsmokers rushed in were nothing more than a
smokescreen of deceit. Shame on them for trying to deliberately
mislead us, and kudos to Perkins for telling the truth.

*** Tim Hortons proved that wrong. Yes, business did suffer initially,
but it came back as non-smokers discovered that they don't have yellow
walls anymore.

As for bars and restaurants, the down-turn was already in the wind
before the smoking ban. People have major entertainment at home now and it
is competition for them. Then, too, Canadians have much less disposable
income than they did 25 years ago.

Bars and restaurants are not the only venues suffering. People don't
go out to movies as they once did either.

Richard

[William Robert]

dick dick dick....you are making up facts again.....less disposable
income....not according to the canadian government.

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by k***@rocketmail.com
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=48878&sc=89
"Sales growth to licensees such as restaurants, pubs and bars has
fallen 2.1 per cent, which Perkins attributes to smoking bans and
reduced VLTs."
It's refreshing to finally have a govt spokesperson admit what
everyone knew would happen all along -- that the smoking ban at bars
and restaurants would hurt those businesses. It proves, based on hard
numbers, that the stories told by the Dept of Health Promotion and the
anti-smoking crowd that sales in those establishments would actually
increase as legions of nonsmokers rushed in were nothing more than a
smokescreen of deceit. Shame on them for trying to deliberately
mislead us, and kudos to Perkins for telling the truth.

*** Tim Hortons proved that wrong. Yes, business did suffer initially,
but it came back as non-smokers discovered that they don't have yellow
walls anymore.
As for bars and restaurants, the down-turn was already in the wind
before the smoking ban. People have major entertainment at home now and it
is competition for them. Then, too, Canadians have much less disposable
income than they did 25 years ago.
Bars and restaurants are not the only venues suffering. People don't
go out to movies as they once did either.
Richard

[Richard Bonner]

Post by William Robert
.you are making up facts again.....less disposable
income....not according to the canadian government.

*** it appears to be *they* who make up facts.

Richard

[William Robert]

yeah.....it isn't the consperacy guy....who is always talking about 'predatory
corporations'.....or how retailers are always ripping of their
customers....no....it is stats can....lol....dick dick dick...

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert
.you are making up facts again.....less disposable
income....not according to the canadian government.

*** it appears to be *they* who make up facts.
Richard

[Richard Bonner]

Post by William Robert

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert
.you are making up facts again.....less disposable
income....not according to the canadian government.

*** it appears to be *they* who make up facts.
Richard

yeah.....it isn't the consperacy guy....who is always talking about
'predatory corporations'.....or how retailers are always ripping of
their customers....

*** Examples are easy to find. It was even mentioned this past Saturday
in the A&E "Biography" of Wal-Mart's founder.

Post by William Robert
no....it is stats can.

*** Then they are contradicting the stats released last year that
showed more Canadians slipping below the poverty line. It also
contradicts the fact that retail workers earn the same now as I
did 25 years ago, but yet it costs way more to live now. How can they
have more disposable income than I did then?

Richard

[William Robert]

poverty line and disposable income have nothing to do with each other....are
we all retail workers?....you have a very narrow view of what makes up the
working class.....lol

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert
.you are making up facts again.....less disposable
income....not according to the canadian government.

*** it appears to be *they* who make up facts.
Richard

yeah.....it isn't the consperacy guy....who is always talking about
'predatory corporations'.....or how retailers are always ripping of
their customers....

*** Examples are easy to find. It was even mentioned this past Saturday
in the A&E "Biography" of Wal-Mart's founder.

Post by William Robert
no....it is stats can.

*** Then they are contradicting the stats released last year that
showed more Canadians slipping below the poverty line. It also
contradicts the fact that retail workers earn the same now as I
did 25 years ago, but yet it costs way more to live now. How can they
have more disposable income than I did then?
Richard

[Richard Bonner]

Post by William Robert

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert
yeah.....it isn't the consperacy guy....who is always talking about
'predatory corporations'.....or how retailers are always ripping of
their customers....

*** Examples are easy to find. It was even mentioned this past Saturday
in the A&E "Biography" of Wal-Mart's founder.

Post by William Robert
no....it is stats can.

*** Then they are contradicting the stats released last year that
showed more Canadians slipping below the poverty line. It also
contradicts the fact that retail workers earn the same now as I
did 25 years ago, but yet it costs way more to live now. How can they
have more disposable income than I did then?
Richard

poverty line and disposable income have nothing to do with each other.

*** ? I hardly think those below the poverty line have the disposable
income of those above it.

Post by William Robert
...are we all retail workers?....

*** No, but they represent a large sector of the work force. Regardless,
the $8 - $10 an hour job is common in more than just retail.

Richard

[William Robert]

so you aren't really interested in disposable income....you are interested in
poor people....a totally different topic....

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert
yeah.....it isn't the consperacy guy....who is always talking about
'predatory corporations'.....or how retailers are always ripping of
their customers....

*** Examples are easy to find. It was even mentioned this past Saturday
in the A&E "Biography" of Wal-Mart's founder.

Post by William Robert
no....it is stats can.

*** Then they are contradicting the stats released last year that
showed more Canadians slipping below the poverty line. It also
contradicts the fact that retail workers earn the same now as I
did 25 years ago, but yet it costs way more to live now. How can they
have more disposable income than I did then?
Richard

poverty line and disposable income have nothing to do with each other.

*** ? I hardly think those below the poverty line have the disposable
income of those above it.

Post by William Robert
...are we all retail workers?....

*** No, but they represent a large sector of the work force. Regardless,
the $8 - $10 an hour job is common in more than just retail.
Richard

[Richard Bonner]

Post by William Robert

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert
...it is stats can.

*** Then they are contradicting the stats released last year that
showed more Canadians slipping below the poverty line. It also
contradicts the fact that retail workers earn the same now as I
did 25 years ago, but yet it costs way more to live now. How can they
have more disposable income than I did then?
Richard

poverty line and disposable income have nothing to do with each other.

*** ? I hardly think those below the poverty line have the disposable
income of those above it.

Post by William Robert
...are we all retail workers?....

*** No, but they represent a large sector of the work force. Regardless,
the $8 - $10 an hour job is common in more than just retail.
Richard

so you aren't really interested in disposable income....you are interested in
poor people....a totally different topic....

*** it is a different topic, but I am including those above the poverty
line as well. What used to be able to be maintained with one income now
takes two. The money is just not there as it once was. Wages have not kept
up with inflation.

Richard

PS: Please don't top post.

Thanks

R.

[JD]

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert

Post by Richard Bonner

Post by William Robert
...it is stats can.

*** Then they are contradicting the stats released last year that
showed more Canadians slipping below the poverty line. It also
contradicts the fact that retail workers earn the same now as I
did 25 years ago, but yet it costs way more to live now. How can they
have more disposable income than I did then?
Richard

poverty line and disposable income have nothing to do with each other.

*** ? I hardly think those below the poverty line have the disposable
income of those above it.

Post by William Robert
...are we all retail workers?....

*** No, but they represent a large sector of the work force. Regardless,
the $8 - $10 an hour job is common in more than just retail.
Richard

so you aren't really interested in disposable income....you are interested in
poor people....a totally different topic....

*** it is a different topic, but I am including those above the poverty
line as well. What used to be able to be maintained with one income now
takes two. The money is just not there as it once was. Wages have not kept
up with inflation.

I don't really believe that. We now want houses that are twice the size
they were in the sixties, we generally have two cars in each family when one
was fine back then, we eat out a lot more, we drive kids everywhere rather
than make them walk like we did forty years ago. Wages have not kept up
with our growing appetites for bigger, better, and more. Except for
housing, I think wages have kept up.

[Richard Bonner]

Post by JD

Post by Richard Bonner
What used to be able to be maintained with one income now
takes two. The money is just not there as it once was. Wages have not kept
up with inflation.

I don't really believe that. We now want houses that are twice the size
they were in the sixties, we generally have two cars in each family when one
was fine back then, we eat out a lot more, we drive kids everywhere rather
than make them walk like we did forty years ago.

** I agree with the first item and sort of with the last item, but the
others were true with the 1960s middle class.

Post by JD
Wages have not kept up
with our growing appetites for bigger, better, and more. Except for
housing, I think wages have kept up.

*** I am sorry, but can't agree. Many of those 1960s homes are being
lived in today by young people and they take two incomes to maintain
compared to the one in the 1960s. My family was not rich, but there was
enough to cover a three-bedroom home, two cars and yearly vacations. Those
living around us were pretty much the same.

Richard

[b]

Post by k***@rocketmail.com
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=48878&sc=89
"Sales growth to licensees such as restaurants, pubs and bars has
fallen 2.1 per cent, which Perkins attributes to smoking bans and
reduced VLTs."
It's refreshing to finally have a govt spokesperson admit what
everyone knew would happen all along -- that the smoking ban at bars
and restaurants would hurt those businesses. It proves, based on hard
numbers, that the stories told by the Dept of Health Promotion and the
anti-smoking crowd that sales in those establishments would actually
increase as legions of nonsmokers rushed in were nothing more than a
smokescreen of deceit. Shame on them for trying to deliberately
mislead us, and kudos to Perkins for telling the truth.

He should probably have taken into account $6 draft beers! Also, what
about that tax that was rescinded a year or so ago? Why haven't bar
owners reflected that in prices? They never paid it, the customers
were the ones who paid it and who should benefit.

Cheers,
John