<g> what about the ocean? Mountain! William Wheatley writes:
> err Ocean > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? > > > > yeah and you have to cross the chesapeake bay bridge to get there :P > > > > Actually I am talking about the DC suburbs; western MD is also stunningly > > beautiful and quite cheap once you are out of commuting distance to DC. I > > liked the WV panhandle quite a bit and it was similar country. > > > > Dana > > > > William Wheatley writes: > > > > > LOL you're talking about the WEST coast of maryland, come out to the > eastern > > > shore sometime its life at its best. > > > Nice slow and beautiful, nice people lower costs awesome roads, its my > home > > > i gotta miss it :) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:17 PM > > > Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? > > > > > > > > > > mmm ok there was clean indoor air but what else is to miss? The > traffic? > > > > Driving up and down 270 at rush hour had me talking, quite seriously, > > > about > > > > arming photon torpedos.... Wait there are the housing prices.. who can > > > > resist paying $1000 a month for a studio? Then there is the ozone... > who > > > > needs to smoke when the air quality index spends so much time on red? > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > William Wheatley writes: > > > > > > > > > hehe yea MD was i think the 1st or 2nd state to have a statewide > smoking > > > > > ban. I think it was first > > > > > with CA being second with a FAR stricker rule but it was defiantly > sweet > > > > > living in such a great state. > > > > > > > > > > I miss my old maryland *sniff* > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:05 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly. And bars and restaurants are different cases; bars > probably > > > do > > > > > > have a higher percentage of smoker patrons. > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems to me that Montgomery County MD was non-smoking ten years > ago > > > and it > > > > > > certainly has a healthy population of restaurants. I will grant > that > > > the > > > > > > overall affluent demographic there may be a factor in this but > > > > > demographics > > > > > > in general play into this a lot. Smoking it less common among the > > > > > educated, > > > > > > I seem to remember reading; assuming that is true a blue-collar > bar > > > > > > conceivably could lose business if all its mechanic/tow truck > driver > > > > > > customers decide to get a six pack and hang out at each other's > houses > > > > > > instead of going out.... I know that's a stereotype but I am just > > > giving > > > > > an > > > > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Skinner writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The other way that "up too" could be misleading is of only one > > > > > establishment > > > > > > > lost that much business for this or any other fact, they are > then > > > held > > > > > up as > > > > > > > both the example and the reason you can say up too... even if > all > > > the > > > > > other > > > > > > > places are not suffering like this..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > Ian Skinner > > > > > > > Web Programmer > > > > > > > BloodSource > > > > > > > Sacramento, CA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:51 AM > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I question whethet this is in fact the case. Somebody somewhere > has > > > > > > > probably studied it but I don't have any statistics to hand. > Still, > > > that > > > > > > > link wasnproof of anything either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matthew Small writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I don't ever think there was a message that > non-smokers > > > did > > > > > not > > > > > > > > frequent bars & restaurants because of smoking. the ban was > to > > > > > > > non-smokers > > > > > > > > that work in those places, and to protect non-smoking > customers > > > from > > > > > being > > > > > > > > exposed to smoker's air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That being said, and the fact that I have fully supported the > > > smoking > > > > > ban > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > a restaurant, if the facts are true that banning smoking is > > > causing > > > > > > > > restaurants to lose that much (30% - 50%) of their business, > then > > > I > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > repealing the ban in favor of very stringent rules for > separating > > > the > > > > > > > > smoking section from a non-smoking section - e.g. completely > > > enclosed > > > > > > > > smoking areas, different ventilation systems, etc. Of course, > > > that > > > > > does > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > protect the non-smoking workers. I don't know what to do about > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Matt Small > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "Angel Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 10:54 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Where are the non-smokers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It does say something about Non Smokers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ban smoking...and you lose 20% to 50% of your > sales... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then that means you have lost smoking customers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also means that those smoking customers whom you have > lost, > > > have > > > > > > > > > *not* been replaced with non-smoking customers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of the reasoning for the ban was that there were > thousands > > > of > > > > > > > > > non-smokers that do not frequent bars and restaurants > because of > > > the > > > > > > > > > smoke,ergo if there was no smoking these people would > patronise > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > institutions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Gel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't say anything about non smokers it simply says > the > > > > > smokers > > > > > > > > > are going where they can still pollute the air thats all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
