Smoking ban costing millions

[mtwallet]

Interesting little article in today's Gazette about the cost of the smoking ban in Qc. It states that Lotto Quebec stands to lose $150 million from lost VLT revenues alone. That does not include an additional $50 million loss from the removal of 500 machines. Expectedly, they also stand to lose $75 million from lost tobacco revenues. Bar owners, who say that their revenues are down 25-30% because of the ban, are going to court to fight against the new law. The article goes on to say that studies in Ontario and the US show that the numbers have rebounded after a year or so. Not so in Newfoundland however.
Smokers represent 85% of bar patrons in Quebec so I personally don't share their optimism for a "quick" recovery.

So, forgetting the $50m hit from the removal of VLTs, the government stands to lose an already calculated $225 million. Now factor in the lost tax revenue from slower sales at bars and restaurants, the income tax from laid off employees of those establishments, and the revenue lost to online gambling and the total loss will, I'm sure, be staggering.

Smokers and non smokers alike stand to feel the effects of this ban. There is no way that the province will take the hit alone. I wouldn't be surprised to see another tax grab come about in the new year.

 

[wilko26]

Yeah but if someone today would 'invent' the cigarette the product would be probably declared illegal... What this doesnt say is that people spend their money elsewhere or on differents things...

Go into bar on crescent street, still full pack... Loto Quebec loosing millions? Poor them... maybe less people gonna suicide for gambling issue if less people goes to casinos...

About a new tax I would bet on it but..... eh is it what appening with hydro-quebec raise?

The non-smoker law is not about money... and if it's take 2-3-4 year to recover from it too bad for people who cant handle it... but I'm sure on a long term basis it's gonna be a good idea.

Wilko

 

[Esco!]

I seriously question these numbers, sounds like tobacco industry propaganda.
What they fear most is eventually cigs becoming illegal.

 

[mtlman2005]

No way cigarettes will become illegal... that would make no sense for the government and for the population. Even if smoking is illegal in public places, the government makes so much money with taxes and also the fines for smoking in bars/clubs. And do you really think that if cigarettes become illegal everyone will stop smoking? Highly doubtful! Which means the only way of getting cigarettes will be from the black market! And that means 0$ for the government!!!
On the subject of the smoking ban, I fully support it, as long as they don't push it. If one day, god forbid, they make it illegal to smoke on the street, in your car... that would be retarded... But just the fact of not letting people smoke in bar and clubs make the air, and the place in general so much cleaner, more enjoyable, more fun! And if you can't control yourself, and REALLY need a cigarette, go outside and come back in after.
What they are doing if trying to make them stop without actually telling them to stop! Wait till this winter, it will be the first winter with the ban, and u can be sure that a lot of people will, at least, consider stopping smoking because they don't want to have to go get their coats, go outside where i'ts cold and snowy...

 

[Esco!]

the government makes so much money with taxes

But those "profits" are offset by smoking related health care costs.

 

[Ben Dover]

wait until winter

you'll see the real effects when it's -20 outside... And yes, it's just a question of "re-allocation"... Less money spent in bars = more money spent at the SAQ. People who smoke are not going to stop drinking, but they will spend more time at home, at parties etc... But if you think the economy will benefit overall -- you're wrong. Most people will save a little, pay off some debt.. fill their cars will expensive gas (same gas that cost half as much the year before)...I would not open a bar in Montreal unless it had a big terasse.... And boo-hoo for lotto quebec. I'm really crying for them. That's one overblown bureaucracy whose actions defy all logic. I would not set foot ever again in their depressing joke of a casino. What idiots!! It's only a matter of time before the next tax grab. There is a new one every year, no matter what, in this province. Luckily we are all swimming in money thanks to the .5% reduction in GST!! Where should I spend it all!!!

BD

 

[JustBob]

Revenue down 25-30% sounds a bit high. Worldwide, where smoking bans are in effect, the figure hovers around 15% which is still not a negligible figure. That said, I'm absolutely opposed to smoking ban laws. Bars and restaurants are private property. Owners should be deciding whether they allow smoking in their establishment or not, not the government.

 

[Ben Dover]

amazing...

Bars and restaurants are private property. Owners should be deciding whether they allow smoking in their establishment or not, not the government.

... we agree on something

If owners decided their own smoking policy then employees could decide where to work and customers could decide where to do business. It would be like one of those "democracy" type things...

You have to remember this is the same Quebec government that doesn't even trust its citizens to look and decide if it's clear before turning right at a red light. Thank god we have such a wise and all-knowing government to decide everything for us!

BD

 

[wilko26]

guys common.... if they let bar owner choose if they are smoking or not they all gonna choose to be smoker bar.... why they gonna private themself of some clients when the bar at 1 street corner gonna take them?

 

[Esco!]

......this is the same Quebec government that doesn't even trust its citizens to look and decide if it's clear before turning right at a red light.

OOOpppssss..................I didnt know that!!!
I made many a right turn on reds when I was in Montreal last month

 

[Techman]

guys common.... if they let bar owner choose if they are smoking or not they all gonna choose to be smoker bar.... why they gonna private themself of some clients when the bar at 1 street corner gonna take them?

I thought that all the people that supported the ban were saying that there were more non-smoking clients than smokers? In that case a non-smoking bar should do better business, no? No one has ever been forced to work in a bar that allows smoking, or to go to that bar as a client. Now because of the law, some people will have to close their businesses because the non-smokers can't make up for the losses they are suffering.

But what do you expect here in Quebec...grocery stores can't have more than 4 employees working after 5 o'clock to allow depaneur's to survive which they think buys immigrant votes, we have gov't mandated minimum prices for gasoline and milk, and we can't even buy yellow margarine because the gov't thinks we may be fooled into believing it's butter! Yup, we certainly are a distinct society!

 

[Voyager]

Outdoor smoking ban!

If one day, god forbid, they make it illegal to smoke on the street, in your car... that would be retarded...

Be careful if you travel to San Francisco or Calabasas, California!!!

I have never been a cigarette smoker, but I realize the problem of allowing the government to ban a legal product in a private place, regardless of the reason. Once it is banned somewhere, it could be banned anywhere.

That being said, it was great to return to my hotel after a night on the town in Montreal and realize that my clothes did not reek of cigarette smoke.

Regards,

a smoke free Voyager

 

[joelcairo]

Suggestion: have the provincial government and the municipal government get together on this one: make smoking legal only on "Robert Bourassa" Avenue!

More serious suggestion: cut all governments in half, cut their salaries in half, cut their power in half and eliminate their pensions and expense accounts. Then we'd all be rich from the savings on tax money that currently goes to support these bloated, unprincipled bastards..

 

[anon_vlad]

Suggestion: have the provincial government and the municipal government get together on this one: make smoking legal only on "Robert Bourassa" Avenue!

Perhaps Rene Levesque Blvd (aka Tobacco Road) would be more appropriate. Its nickname derives from the chain smoking of the person after which it was named.

 

[mtlman2005]

Costing millions to who? Tobacco companies? Fuck them.

Je n’ai jamais fumé et encore aujourd’hui avec le « smoking ban » je dois encore subir les fumeurs dans toutes sortes de situations comme par exemple la file d’attente d’un bus. Si les fumeurs veulent se détruire la santé, c’est leur affaire, mais pourquoi devrait-on subir les conséquences de leur irresponsabilité ?

Ok si tu lis plus haut, tu verras qu'on ne parle pas des compagnies de tabacs... Ca coute de l'argent aussi aux restaurents, aux bars ... puisqu'on ne peut plus fumer dans leurs etablissements, alors on ne boit plus autant dans leurs etablissements...

Et n'exagere pas quand meme... "je dois encore subir les fumeurs dans [...] la file d’attente d’un bus" si t'es pas content, attend pour le bus plus loin! Mais dehors quand meme tu peux pas les interdire de fumer

 

[chef]

Restaurants

A Chinese restaurant I frequent welcomed the smoking ban as during their busy dim sum lunch period they had empty smoking tables while there was a lineup for non-smoking tables.

Some of the top restaurants in Montreal have long been non-smoking, and getting a last-minute reservation has always been difficult.

 

[mtlman2005]

Désolé mais pour moi la cigarette est un fléau, trouvez-moi une seule bonne raison à son existence.

Aucune, et je suis tout a fait d'accord avec toi... mais c'est trop tard pour faire qql chose sans qu'il y ait des repercutions negatives sur notre societe... Mais je suis d'accord que si la cigarette n'avait pas existee, on serait 100 fois mieux!!

 

[JustBob]

Le cancer coûte plus de 14 milliards de dollars aux Canadiens chaque année. De ce total, 2,5 milliards sont consacrés aux coûts directs comme les frais d'hospitalisation et les médicaments, alors que 11,8 milliards sont affectés aux coûts indirects tels que la mortalité précoce ou l'invalidité.

Tu oublies un truc là. Depuis 20 ans, le nombre de fumeurs a diminué de façon considérable alors que le taux de cancers liés à la pollution chimique a augmenté de plus de 20%. Les gouvernements n'ont pas les couilles de s'attaquer au vrai problème, les gros pollueurs, alors ils s'en prennent à la proie la plus facile, les méchants fumeurs. Faciles à vendre à Joe Public ces lois. Les fumeurs sont de vilains citoyens, ils jettent leurs mégots partout, ils empestent tout le monde, bref, on démonise les fumeurs et vlan Joe Public embarque. Les lois anti-tabac, on appelle ça des "feel good legislations". Le gouvernement nous dit "vous voyez, on a à coeur la santé de nos citoyens! on s'attaque au problème!" alors qu'ils refusent de s'attaquer au vrai problème. Si je peux me permettre un petit à côté, c'est exactement le même genre de tactique utilisé par Bush pour vendre la guerre en Iraq. Hummm, faudrait bien qu'on mette le pied au Moyen-Orient, ça nous prend un bouc-émissaire... Hummm Saddam! Le vilain qui a des armes de destruction massive et qui tue ses propres citoyens! On démonise Saddam et bingo, le tour est joué. De plus, ce lois sont complètement hypocrites. Si la cigarette est si domageable qu'on l'interdise tout simplement. Ben non, le gouvernement fait beaucoup trop d'argent avec les taxes sur la cigarettes pour faire ça....

Et puis j'en ai marre du "nanny state". Fume pas, met ton casque pour aller en vélo, attache ta ceinture, etc... L'Etat providence qui fourre son nez partout, mais qui refuse de s'attaquer aux vrais enjeux de société.

 

[Techman]

If I can't consume a legally available product, cigarettes, because it's dangerous to my health, then why don't we ban junk food which is also very dangerous to people's health? I don't see anyone bitching about all the obese people who enjoy gorging themselves on big-macs and other similar garbage. But we can't pick on these people because it would be politically incorrect. It's incredible the number of obscenely fat children I see with matching parents. I guess it must be genetic...

 

[wilko26]

If I can't consume a legally available product, cigarettes, because it's dangerous to my health, then why don't we ban junk food which is also very dangerous to people's health? I don't see anyone bitching about all the obese people who enjoy gorging themselves on big-macs and other similar garbage. But we can't pick on these people because it would be politically incorrect. It's incredible the number of obscenely fat children I see with matching parents. I guess it must be genetic...

You can die if cigarette without smoking.... you CANT die of big mac by looking at it....