Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 34 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Smoking ban, economy blamed for decrease in gambling revenue
Local programs may suffer as a result
Published 12:00 p.m., February 26, 2008
Charlie Lindstrom
Charitable gambling revenue — much of which comes from pull-tabs — is down in many areas of Otter Tail County and Minnesota in general since the smoking ban went into effect this past Oct. 1.
In Fergus Falls, the American Legion and VFW pump thousands of dollars into youth programs each year. Any drop in pull-tab revenue and a decrease in other revenue coming from bingo, meat raffles and similar charitable operations, could have adverse effects.
Fergus Falls American Legion, which provides more than $10,000 annually to the local American Legion baseball program, is seeing revenues from pull-tabs and bingo down roughly 25 percent since the smoking ban went into effect.
Charlie Lindstrom, gambling manager and adjutant for the Fergus Falls American Legion cautions, however, that it’s not just the smoking ban that’s affecting pull-tab revenues. He sees revenue drops at both the Legion club on the south side of Fergus Falls and also at Five Star Bingo which the Legion operates on the north side of downtown.
“Certainly, we’re losing some pull-tab revenue at both locations, with the smoking ban a major factor,” Lindstrom said. “At the same time, however, I’m convinced that some people are simply spending less money on gambling. People have less disposable income.”
One thing that hasn’t taken place, Lindstrom said, is an influx of nonsmokers into Five Star Bingo. Fewer people also hurts net profits since expenses are pretty much the same, no matter how many people are in attendance, he said.
American Legion baseball will continue to be the club’s top priority, and that program will not be cut, Lindstrom said. The Legion contributes an additional $15,000 per year to other youth programs such as Babe Ruth baseball teams and girls fastpitch softball.
But in order to sustain the current level of financial support for the Legion baseball team, cuts may have to be made elsewhere.
An ace in the hole for the Fergus Falls VFW, which also contributes generously to various youth programs in the community, is that the pull-tab machine is located close to the door to the new smoking room.
The number of outdoor patios — as seen at the VFW and at other establishments in Fergus Falls and throughout Otter Tail County — has bloomed in response to the smoking ban. Several bars and restaurants are investing thousands of dollars to build them since the smoking ban went into effect last fall.
Nonetheless, VFW Bar Manager Dale Svendsgaard and Eagles Manager Jim Stras both see less revenue from pull-tabs. Svendsgaard said there’s an especially noticeable decrease during hall bingo night when people come to play bingo in the south section of the VFW that’s not connected to the bar area. Bingo players cannot smoke nor can they have alcoholic beverages.
“With bar bingo itself we’re holding our own,” Svendsgaard said, “even though the bar area is a nonsmoking section.”
Statewide, revenues from pull-tabs and Bingo were down about 11 percent in November 2007 and close to 20 percent in January 2008. Those figures are compiled by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board based in Roseville.
"Officially, the board is neutral on the (smoking ban) policy, but we’re definitely seeing an impact statewide," Compliance Officer Gary Danger told The Daily Journal.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post. To post a comment you will need to register. Or, if you're already registered but have not included your true, verifiable identity with your registration, you will need to update your account to include your identity. Effective Dec. 1, 2009, all posts appear with the commenter's true identity, which must be verified by site staff. Those who registered prior to Dec. 1, 2009, should be aware that once you update your information with your true identity, all prior posts under your user name will also indicate your true identity. If you do not wish to link yourself to prior comments, you should register again with a different user name.Posted by silversaloon (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's good to see some statistics on the ban's negative impact. I'd like to see statewide statistics on the loss of state sales tax collected since the ban. I know of one place that has had decreased sales and is now contributing thousands less in taxes
per month, and donating less to local causes. No doubt smoking is bad for your health, but what an ignorant way to try to eliminate smoking. If we want to truly promote public health, we should be educating on negative impact and banning the drug.
not all the smokers were going out to bars or restaurants, they were also in semi cabs, tractors, and working outdoors. There has been no increase for many businesses of non-smokers suddenly coming out to bars due to the fresh air. Don't get me wrong, the clean air is nice. But even the evil bars are small businesses whom pay 9% sales tax and employ many. Thank you for the financial headaches, and thank you to the lobbyists or whoever for putting in those "exceptions" which make the statewide ban a joke. Ban smoke everywhere, outdoors even and we'll get somewhere. Better yet ban the drug who has taken so many lives. There is a marked increase in people looking to quit and that's great. But the state needs to get off their butts and help those businesses who have lost revenues. Otter Tail county now has two less bars, not 100% the bans fault, but sure didn't help and sounds like a few more could be on the way. Some of us will be okay, but others have already fallen. Fergus Journal.......how about a article on something important that impacts the community, the Tribune really hasn't investigated yet. Think about it. (sorry to ramble on)
PS Drive Safe
Posted by lenny (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Silversaloon, you are missing the point and fail to see the big picture. It’s not important that you lose business or several employees lose their job or even that little boys and girls fail to get what they need from local charities. What is important is that non-smoker have a smoke free environment waiting for them should they ever decide to patronize a particular bar or restaurant.
While you are waiting for those non-smokers to show up perhaps you should get a second job to earn some money to give to those charities that are suffering while they wait on the non-smokers.
This is all about entitlements and privilege for some and job loss for others, you just happen to be in the loss category. Now quit complaining, and step up to the plate and see what you can do to make the life of a non-smoker more comfortable. It’s your duty. It’s for the children.
Posted by yepUbetchya (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lenny that is way too funny. What I do not see in any of this is the sad fact that our country's economy is tanked, in a recession, gone, slow, whatever you want to call it. Neither the smokers or non-smokers have the money to freely give away at a pull tab counter. But do not blame this exclusively on the smoking ban, because there is more invovled. Or, in Silver's way of argument, we can blame the smoking ban for closing down Pizza Heaven, the movie rental place, Big Harvet Buffet, the Family Dollar, and well you get my point. Or we can thank the smoking ban for bringing Walgreens to town, the new wine bar at the Spot (opening soon), and so on. the word is economy.
Posted by lenny (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When this issue was up for debate, the non-smokers promised that they would make up any difference in business lost when a particular business went smoke free. Many of us said at the time that argument was phony because non-smokers (as a group are cheap) and that the ban would hurt business. We have been proved right on both counts. Even now the smoke Nazis will not admit the truth, now when business fails it’s because of the economy or always some other factor but never the lack of business because of the ban and that non smokers fail to step up to the plate. It just goes to show that they just wanted to force others to live their lifestyle and never really desired a smoke free atmosphere in the first place.
Posted by upeoplernuts (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lenny, the last sentence says it all. Well put.
Posted by thethinker (Todd Leucuta) on February 26, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with upeoplernuts....well put lenny. Smoking is the first ban. The war on alcohol rages on (and lowering the BAC from .1 to .08 has NOT stopped drunks from driving - but it has given good people who were not impaired a DUI on their record...nice touch). Fatty foods? Oh yes, we shall see various bans in that area too. They want to tax auto emissions (the bill is being considered in MN - it has not been brought forth yet). The antiseptic society wars on in its' misguided attempt to protect everyone from everything.
Posted by goingfishing (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The loss of business and closing of businesses is no surprise to me. I predicted it. But, what happened to those that predicted no loss of business because the non smokers would flock out to spend their money? I'm a smoker - and to be honest, I've not set foot in a bar or restraunt since the ban went into effect. But, I do occassionally like a drink so the solution was simple. The Municipal Liquor store gets more of my money. I do like to gamble a bit and did buy pull tabs. Since the ban I've not bought one pull tab. However, the Indians sure have gotten some. They let me gamble, drink and smoke. Nice of them.
Just last weekend myself and 2 of my friends decided it would be nice to go out for dinner. Well, on the way to Applebee's we were talking about the no smoking thing. We changed our mind and went to Papa Murphy's, bought a Pizza and went home to bake it.
My elimination of going to bars and restraunts is not a protest of the ban. It's simply that I want to do what I want, and when I can't do it where I want, I do not go there.
Posted by walleye29 (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some of you are missing the bigger problem here. The smoking ban is another freedom taken away from us. I am a non-smoker, but I don't feel that government should have the write to prohibit an otherwise legal activity in a privatly owned busines. This should be a decision of the business owner. I do feel a requirement that smoking establishments must post a warning that smoking is permited is a resonable request. then those who do not want to patronise such a place will be warned before they enter.
Our government continus to reduce our personal freedoms and this is dangerous to all of us. When is it going to stop!
Posted by lenny (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jerry, come in out of the sun, it has baked your brain. The other 26 states have had the very same problems that Minnesota has had. You just can’t admit it. You non-smokers are still in a state of denial.
Posted by drjfkwilson (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In Breck there were 2 bars which were smoke free before the ban and 3 which allowed smoking. The 3 which allowed smoking are loosing a lot of buisness. I have 1 question.
Who goes to a bar for there health?
Lets recind this stupid law.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Last thing I want is for a State telling me how I should live my life and what's good for me and bad for me. That's what the wife is for. Since cig tax has went through the roof, I roll my own cigs and avoid that tax too and do not cater to nonsmoking eating establishments avoiding even more taxes. Haven't been in a nonsmoking establishment for years and don't ever plan to drop a single dime on one. I live three miles from a casino. They have great food and hospitality, no taxes, and they don't tell me what I can do and can't do. I can drink, gamble, and smoke all at the same time and go home knowing the State just got screwed once again.
Posted by KB56537 (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I work at one of the above establishments that Mr. Linstrom was talking about. True there had been some drop off of people before hand but now that the ban has gone into effect it has plumited. I cannot go and find another job and then donate to the charity or participate in the gambling. By law part of my job prevents me from participating in the gambling that help support the activities.
Bafore the ban I had talked to several people and they said they would come to the establishment I work at and I have yet to see them. I am all for not smoking but on your terms and not because they government says so. This is dirrectly affecting my ability to provide for myself.
Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I fail to see any logical connection in this article between the smoking ban and decline in revenues.
I do see a circular argument - there's a smoking ban. We're losing revenues in this particular area. The smoking ban is the cause of that. No mention of whether the bars themselves are losing revenues, etc, little mention that the economy is in the tank. Just the smoking ban.
Posted by ajohnsonx (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The smoking ban in public establishments in not to try to get people to quit smoking, it is set up to allow those who do not smoke to have the chance to not be around it when inside. The "gov't" has not taken away a right, if you want to smoke, smoke.......you just can't do it inside. But if you really feel the need to smoke inside, or even roll your own cig, (mgdbottled) I was a bit suprised your username was not highlife22, (champagne of beers).......take your wellfare check, buy some tobacco and go smoke in your doublewide.
Posted by lenny (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to go into the forest to find my old lost buddy chipmunk. But there are too many bugs in the forest, I want my own bug free forest, and I’m going to cry and pitch a hissy fit until I get my own bug free forest. If the forest was bug free more people would visit the forest. You buggers can still have all the bugs you want just not in my forest. I deserve a bug free forest because they get in my lungs and in my food.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ajohnsonx; Unfortunately, they don't let us attorneys draw welfare. Something about making too much money, I guess. I have switched from MGD bottled to Miller Highlife. The MGD was giving me heartburn. Also, never lived in a double-wide anything. Will a large Cedar home on a hill overlooking Lake Michigan do? Still smoking my homemade cigs and drinking my beer every danged day, sleeping in anytime I want, and generally enjoying my self employed life without the need for government dictating what I can do and what I can't do.
Posted by silversaloon (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jerry, the robins came back early to chill OUTSIDE with the smokers.
People, try not to over-read things and jump into personal attacks. Any personal attacks or smart-mouth commentary that shows up on these pages always strays from the point and makes the way for ignorant, poorly based commentary (unless it's funny of course). I do have a second job, I work in the health care field among other things. And I do like the clean air. I just don't like the way it was handled. (exemptions, level playing field, break-in period, etc.) And I understand non-smokers wanting to not be around second hand smoke. My two small children still don't come to the bar, but do go out to eat with mom and dad and not be around smoke. It has been a top ten complaint 2 of the ten years I have been in the bar business. But sometimes we have to realize that if the majority of the customers smoke, as do the employees, it's obvious to anyone who does not want to be around that atmosphere, to not spend there money there. I have friends that do not want to be around the "bar" atmosphere at all, so they don't come see me. At some point, with the magic of societal change, maybe we would've had to go smoke free just to stay in business. And I have no idea about pizza heaven or any of the others in Fergus that closed, I imagine that didn't have anything to do with the smoking ban. The video store?, ok never been there. If anyone might know the two bars I mentioned that closed post ban I'll buy you a beer. Now don't forget that the ban was not 100% to blame.... poor economy, previous struggles, etc. are always a factor. I'm just saying that there aren't any articles out there about the negs and positives of the ban, except for the one I read today in relation to gambling. Our gaming is down also, how much I don't know at this point. I smoke, not at my home or around my kids, and didn't so much at work. But when I went out to an adult establishment for a beer, I had a smoke, as did some non-smokers. How about selling a smoking license to bars that wish to not allow any minors? Or a whole host of other Ideas I suppose may have worked..... I really don't know. Just wanted to share that some of us don't agree with the way it was handled. An article , survey, etc. would be interesting and helpful information. It sucks to be stuck in the middle of something like this. I see both sides, and pay for my position.
And where is Chipmunk?
thanks for listening.... The Silver Dollar silversaloon@prtel.com
PS. poor hygiene and bad taste in perfumes is much more prevalent post-ban. So much for eliminating "stinky". Can't even strike a match.
Posted by BaddaBing (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Smoke pot and forget about tobacco. Let's be creative. I don't smoke either of them, but am leery of trying to legislate morality.
Posted by lenny (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, anybody seen my johnsonx?
Posted by lenny (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey silver, chipmunk is at Bobs site.
Posted by john (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at midnight (Suggest removal)
Just killing the goose that lays the golden egg....statisically, those that smoke have more discretionary income, they frequent eating and drinking establishments more...the ban just drives them away..i would not want to be a bar or restaurant or resort owner now...when u discriminate.....the state gets licquor, food
AND tobacco tax...now face less of at least 2 ....what a farce!!!!
Posted by orbit (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 1:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
they are now saying that obesity is causing almost as many cancer deaths as smoking, when we all stop smoking and eat instead of smoking, we'll get fat and then they will ban food in Minnesota, wonder what the farmers will do if no one can eat food and the grocery stores, and right on up the line. Ahcohol is causing lots of deaths from cancer also so why do you healthy non-smokers want to spend time in a bar anyway, to drink water, its cheap, (could be I guess) Alcohol also causes lots of deaths to people that dont even go in a bar, why did they pick smoking to eliminate? and not food or alcohol. I work in a bar and hear all these people come in and say isn't it nice now that there's no smoke in here, then they sit and drink and then leave in their fancy car which is a lethal weapon after drinking. Maybe we should put a luxury tax on non smoking bars now that they are so nice to make up for the lost revenue from Smokers. or better yet raise the taxes for non smokers they are going to live longer anyway, would help increase revenue for a long time.
Posted by thebarrat (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 2:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My eating and drinking habits cannot affect others immediately surrounding me within an establishment. However if I were to light up a cigarette I would then pollute all the air in the establishment, perhaps this is why they chose smoking as a ban. Need I mention to whom I' am replying, I think not you Ja%4&@#!
Posted by Kloob (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Smoking is such a dirty habit. The whole concept is for lack of a better word, gross. Hmmm, I’m bored so I’m going to light up this little tube of tobacco and choke it down into my lungs. That should kill some time (no pun intended). What’s not to like about smoking? The yellow film that it leaves on your fingers, not to mention lungs, the wonderful aroma it leaves on your clothes, hair, and breath, or even better the heaviness it places in your lungs, and chunky green buggers that will inevitably result the next day are all major reasons to smoke. What is not to love about this habit?
Smoking plays a part in our economy. Beyond the fact that many people smoke because they are nervous by nature, and it calms them, smoking does have its purpose. It produces much income in the form of tax dollars that is being put to use for certain measures that do benefit society as a whole. So it’s not a total loss. As for the smoking ban, I am firmly against it. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for clean air, I will not, and never have been able to eat a meal in a smoking establishment because the odor overwhelms the taste of your food. I just think there was better ways to go about this ban. Could we not have designated certain places that do not serve food the right to choose? Would that really have been such a bad thing? You say “what about the employees in those places?” My answer is that there will not be very many of these places, so the effect if these nonsmoking employees choose not to work there will be at best minimal. Besides nearly all of these employees smoke anyways.
The main reason I am against this ban is that we are starting to get WAY too much government control. It is now slowly undercutting our 1st and 9th amendment rights, and the US people, just like sheep, are ignorantly letting it happen. Too much government is a very bad thing for many reasons. It cuts down our freedom of choice, the main attribute of our country, but even more importantly it slowly erodes away at our capitalistic machine. Small changes like this may not seem apparent now, but over time they start to culminate, and the very backbone of our economy will take a major hit. Bottom line, who are the ones that pay for that hit? You my friend. You can only blame yourself for supporting these measures when it is all said and done. Even though the smoking ban may seem like a trivial thing in the grand scheme of things, it is small victories like it that empower the evil leftists even more, and drive us closer and closer to the Socialist brink. The health of a few anal people is not always the best thing for the economy, as crass as that may sound.
Posted by yepUbetchya (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hey barret, from reading this blog through to your comment, I think your comment is either too intellectual or too vague for the smoking crowd. I say that because the smokers do not, and have not figured out that those standing around them while they smoke have to deal with second-hand smoke. Mostly I think this is the case because smokers tend to have their heads up their own ass, and cannot understand that second hand smoke is not really referring to someone holding and smoking their cigarettes. Why else do you think the smoking group has gotten so paranoid sense this phrase has come out. The smokers actually believe some second hand is stealing their stuff.
Posted by thethinker (Todd Leucuta) on February 27, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's all about freedom - and that it is being eroded gradually. Nobody forced anyone to go to a bar or restaurant. Those establishments were privately owned - that means a private person (or entity) owned the business and paid the bills for the business from the profits gained from the business. No govt ownership - which would necessitate operating funds that would come from taxes. Taxes are paid by everyone. Public buildings already had smoking bans - rightly so as taxpayers $$$ paid for their upkeep. But not privately owned businesses. What right do any of you have to tell a business owner what he/she can or can't do if it is within the law? Don't give me the OSHA or FDA rules nonsense. Those laws/rules apply across the board to all businesses and they don't ban legal things. Smoking is legal. But what would you expect in a nation where illegals can protest being thrown out? And making english the national language is considered discriminatory? And you can successfully sue a restaurant because YOU spilled coffee on yourself? The nation continues to spiral downward......
Posted by Lala (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Walleye29:
Posted by walleye29 (anonymous) on February 26, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some of you are missing the bigger problem here. The smoking ban is another freedom taken away from us. I am a non-smoker, but I don't feel that government should have the write to prohibit an otherwise legal activity in a privatly owned busines. This should be a decision of the business owner. I do feel a requirement that smoking establishments must post a warning that smoking is permited is a resonable request. then those who do not want to patronise such a place will be warned before they enter.
Our government continus to reduce our personal freedoms and this is dangerous to all of us. When is it going to stop!
I am a smoker, and honestly I hardly ever go to the bars anymore at all. If they are going to regulate where we can smoke, because it causes cancer, well then they need to regulate where people can drink (that causes cancer too!). And if we can't smoke in an establishment, then maybe they shouldn't let the drinkers drink there either.
Posted by Lala (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and I also would rather go to the Casino, atleast they appreciate their customers there and let us smoke.
Posted by neb (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 4:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is way more than smokers against non-smokers. The smoking ban not only takes away private establishments' rights, but is a huge burden on everyone in the industry. As a bartender I am aware as is every other bartender/server that there are health risks to my job. The same as when I worked at a plastics plant where I was inhaling smoke from all sorts of different polymers all day every day or when I worked in construction and was exposed to different things that I knew weren't healthy for me. That aside, a bartender/server has a lot of responsibility. Making sure people are not consuming to much, watching for fights, watching for minors, making sure drinks don't go outside. Now we have to be the tabacco police too. We have to make sure no one is smoking in the bar or sneaking in the bathrooms for a smoke, and we get to be responsible for what the people do outside the building when they go out for a smoke. It's unbelievable. By the way I do get comments from customers about how nice it is to come into a smoke free enviorment. Their next comment is usually "slow night huh". That wouldn't even be so bad if I hadn't already heard 30 complaints about people having to go outside in sub-zero temps to smoke. Ah what relief the smoking ban has brought for the employees
Posted by sassica (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think I'm gonna step outside for a smoke!!!!! LOL!
Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm still baffled people still argue that the smoking ban is trying to prevent people from smoking or take away your right to smoke.
It's not. All the smoking ban does is not let you smoke in a restaurant or bar. If you want to light up, go outside. Smoke at home. Smoke in your car. Smoke at your friend's house. See, you have a plethora of other options.
Similar laws are already in place in many aspects of our society that regulate otherwise legal activities. DWI is a crime because of the effect it has on OTHERS. Gun laws are in effect to protect OTHERS. Do I need to go on or is there a hint of understanding now?
Posted by thethinker (Todd Leucuta) on February 28, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Banning people from smoking in bars and restaurants is another freedom taken away from private citizens. That's it. Another freedom gone. Another regulation imposed upon private business owners.
People who willingly give up their freedoms deserve none.
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We have actually gained a freedom - the freedom to breathe clean air in businesses that are open to the public. And if it is such an infringement on rights, why is it that "the ACLU does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace or in locations where non-smokers may be subjected to secondary smoke. We object only to bans on smoking, drinking, diet and hobbies in a person's own home."?
Posted by Lala (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Um, Jerry, I think you need to get your facts straight. Where did you happen to find that it's a fact: (I will quote you here)
"but has anyone ever read the studies that show a direct correlation between education, income, and smoking. The higher the education and income level the lower the percentage of smokers."
Were are these so called 'studies' anyway?
I have a higher education, have good income and I still smoke. I don't think it has anything to do with that, I just made a bad choice when I was young, and now I am paying for it by still smoking today.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)
You may also register to comment in our forums at www.fergusfeedback.com.