Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling

Dille was one of the Co-Authors on the Senate FTBA. Go ahead and post. Maybe a few others who are in his area will see his reply and that he relies on Bogus science before his constituants.

To: Sen.Steve Dille
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling
Thank you for your reply Sen. Dille.Yes, and the unemployment rate may have gone up because bar owners have cut back and reduced staff. Many bar owners may also be in foreclosure because they levied their houses to put the money into their businesses and are losing it all. If you look at the report from the GCB - it did factor in outside influences. It still showed a decrease which they attribute to the smoking ban. Revenue all around is being affected by many factors. This has been the last nail in the coffin for many small businesses and it is another bullet in the back for others. Why don't you believe these owners when they say it is the smoking ban that affected their business? Why would bars resort to "Theater Nights" and see revenue increase on the nights they allow their Performers to smoke? Rep. Dean Urdahl, who also represents areas that you do, has taken the time to visit with the area bars. Why don't you visit with these businesses who have been affected and ask them first hand? ADULTS can make a choice - whether to patronize a BAR (adult orientated business) that allows smoking or to patronize one that does not. We were told by the Anti-Smokers that this would be good for business. Yes, it sure has. Fresh Air, less employees, less customers and NO NEW BUSINESS from the Anti-smokers. Especially in rural Minnesota. Now the only option being "seriously" pursued is a Smoking Shack outside of businesses. The Anti's are against this option too. How the heck will an outdoor smoking shack affect an Anti-smoker? They again have the choice to stay away, but this isn't about health, it is about control. They want to dictate to people who smoke their health. What they are doing is driving people to smoke in their cars and at home more. Also, people are driving to places where they can smoke. Like Casinos. Sen Dille - If this is really about health, then why are CASINO'S not included as other states have included?? Are those employees Less Worthy of the protection of the Anti-smokers agenda?? No, The casinos are allowed to cater to a group of potential customers that the bars in Minnesota are no longer allowed to cater to. They are able to reap the revenue and profits. Not the bars that are owned by Mom and Pop. My Anti-smoking friend just returned from a trip to Jackpot Junction with a group of over 30 people and complained because of all the smoke at the Casino. No one told her she had to go and she knew there would be smoking. That is where people are going to gamble, drink and enjoy a smoke. Not to their own small town establishments. I don't see the Casinos of Minnesota complaining about the smoking ban - darn right they would if their bottom line was affected like our businesses are. I would hope you would support the businesses you represent and help keep them viable. What will replace these businesses that do not make it? Our small towns are having a tough time keeping the businesses they have. By the way, we do not have ONE franchise restaurant in Meeker County. No Applebees, Perkins, TGI Fridays, IHOP, etc. ALL are small business and privately owned. These are not going to fill the spaces in Dassel, Darwin, Forest City, Watkins, etc. It is the hard work and many years of these Private establishments, the local owners, that is on the line across all of Minnesota. I had voted for you the past couple elections. In the visits with various lobby days, for ABATE, MLBA, and other days that I have been at the Capitol, I thought you would support at least Bars. "the dose is the poison" you told me. Now, I will rethink the next time, if you are up for re-election. I am very disappointed that you bowed to the lies of the Anti-smokers. The bottom line is that it was not good for our businesses. The Anti's have not and will not frequent our establishments to make up for the difference lost from the regular customers that we had who smoked. I should know, I am a non-smoker, not an anti-smoker of course. If I believed what the Anti's said, I would be the perfect Anti. I do not own the bar anymore, but depend on it to make my settlement payments from the divorce. I know business is not good when the payments are late or non-existant. I also talk to the bartenders and they state that "business is down because of the smoking ban." I believe them before I'd believe and Anti smoker who never steps foot in the bar as a regular customer. Thank you for your time.

Lia Nistler241 Cedar Ave SWatkins, MN 55389
320-764-2530

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:47:15 -0500From: Sen.Steve.Dille@senate.mn
Subject: Re: Smoking Ban Impact on Charitable Gambling

Thank you for your email and the information on how the smoking ban has adversely affected charitable gambling. I do not doubt that the smoking ban is a contributing factor to the decrease in charitable gaming but other contributing factors could be higher gas prices, higher unemployment rate and higher rates of home foreclosures.

Another report that was just released showed a decrease in cancer causing chemicals in waiter and waitresses which indicate a positive affect of the smoking ban.

Steve Dille

Senator Steve DilleDistrict 18103 State Office BuildingSt. Paul, MN 55155651-296-4131sen.steve.dille@senate.mnFax: 651-296-9441

My note: I read the summary report on the U of MN study. One of the 24 volunteers forgot to take the initial sample until three days after the ban started. This same person may have been exposed to other second hand smoke before the second test. They included the "flawed" subject in the study. This is generally considered "taboo" in research studies. Also, a Wikipedia page on smoking bans listed other studies that studied "indicator" chemicals after smoking and second hand smoking cessation.

It seems like an alleged "embellishment" to say that this is the "first of it's kind research. Otherwise we would have to believe that with billions already spent of smoking related research no one thought to test the biochemical effects cessation of exposure to second hand smoke had. To give an example, for more than a decade the US military has not allowed any smoking or exposure to second hand smoke during "boot camp". Also, the McMurdo Ice station at the South Pole has not allowed smoking there for several decades and it is strictly enforced (I've met people who have wintered there). In both "boot camp" and the South Pole there is consent for passive medical testing. These would be far more "controlled" study venues. Also, if a chemical is "flushed out" in urine and not replenished the level will drop. Like duhh!

Off subject but the son of the owner/builder of my 1921 house claimed that he had the first short wave "ham" radio conversation with with the South Pole from the Northern hemisphere. I would occasionally get letters from the "old hams" about this addressed to the house. I also knew a pilot who flew C-130's to the South Pole. Also, at least 25 years ago I had a girlfriend who smoked but wanted to winter at the South Pole station. She had several local friends who had wintered at the South Pole. They stressed the "no smoking" and warned her that they had ways to find out. This I assume were passive medical tests since that research is part of it.

The plan sounded fine to me. She would be 18,000 miles away during our summer and when she got back she would be even more acclimated to our Minnesota winters. Good plan but the Antarctic assessment and training center was in a different city so we lost touch. That said, I learned a lot about the Antarctic "culture".

If anti-smoking research can't figure out how to "piggyback" on existing research we might want to wonder about "pork". Greg Lang

Greg Lang