Posted by mikeb on March 31, 2009
Originally posted: 12/10/2008 | 0942 CST
Yes you heard right, Dallas city council passed a new ordinance! On April 10th smokers, you are banned from the establishments you chose to go to in which you enjoy a smoke.
Why is it that we can infringe on others rights? Even when I was a non-smoker, yes I smoke now, I didn’t get it.
So if you smoke, you are in a bar/pool hall/entertainment venue, and I don’t like it would I go to that establishment? Nope. Would you?
Let’s try and put this in a different light; forget the smoking part. I have stores, restaurants, venues, etc. that I chose not to go to. Yup, imagine that, places that do a type of business or provide services or just DO something I don’t like. I chose not to go there and spend my hard earned money. Do you go to places that you don’t like the atmosphere, that you don’t agree with their type of business, that you just don’t like something about it? Please, if you answered yes you are an idiot – stop reading now.
Come April 10th your Dallas City Council elected officials (let’s exclude “council members Vonciel Jones Hill, Steve Salazar, Tennell Atkins, Sheffie Kadane and Mitchell Rasansky opposed the measure”1) have decided, citing health reasons, that they need to ban smoking. Taking it in their own hands to lose revenue from their businesses not only for the city in overall budgetary revenue garnered from those businesses but in effect several businesses will be adversely affected and will close. Businesses that chose the Dallas venue based on type of clientele. Now that clientele will be forced elsewhere. Go ahead, raise the “Sin Tax”. You know, that tax you won’t be seeing much revenue from because they won’t be needing that in your area any longer. Proven fact, the bar industry in Dallas will drastically decline. “Sin Tax” sales will decline. Where do you think that “ecosystem” is made up? Property owners watch your taxes in the coming years. It may take a full year or two but the impact will be felt. Where else do you get revenue for the city from? Sales tax, property tax?
If a city such as Plano can negatively feel the impact of a single bar with large revenue being shuttered how much more do you think the city of Dallas will feel multiple bar closings, venues closing, lower sales in tobacco products, etc? If Martini Park’s closing in Plano has that big an effect as to change a “dry county” policy for the city… I’m just saying.
Guess the next question is, will Dallas residents remember this when the time comes for elections next round?
This message is brought to you for your health and well being; if you are worried about your health and well being please do not frequent establishments where people are smoking. We promise not to come to your health shake establishment and order a soy, extra protein, extra creatine and light up a smoke beside you at the military press. Do us a favor and stop infringing on our rights.
April 6, 2009
You know, I’ve had several people contact me about referencing my post here at this blog and at my old blog (of course I advise them to link here as the old is not a test site primarily). However, it also prompted me to go look for some REALLY OLD news on the subject of tobacco taxes. Here is a write up I found extremely interesting, perhaps you will too.: http://www.forces.org/articles/files/ncp2.htm
If that link becomes broken it is a link to the arcticle by Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, and dated April 28, 1997. Yup, that’s right, over a decade old research. Still being kicked around today.
What are your thoughts? I think Mr. Bartlett sums mine up in an even easier manner. By all means, let us not attach important items such as child programs to such turbulent forms of funding. The more taxes=less smokers but … eventually where does the needed revenue for those programs then come from? Odd huh, so many federal, state, and local taxes rely on “Sin Tax” but yet isn’t the intent of the higher taxes to stop the choice of those selected individuals? lol, we shall live longer, with less funding for the programs intended to help us live longer healthier lives that will undoubtably be impacted and unable to support us. Irony isn’t it?
Question, didn’t we try prohabition once before; didn’t we come here to be free from oppression?