|
Province loses $350 Million a Year in Gaming Revenues from Smoking Ban
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
yet they insist that these laws arent hurting ma and pa businesses. Well the writing is on the wall. Big brother laws are even hurting big brother itself.
| quote: | September 28, 2005: The Ontario government stands to lose $250 million-$350 million a year in gaming revenues as a result of its new province-wide smoking ban, according to official government documents obtained by mychoice.ca under the Freedom of Information Act.
The government was also told last year that existing municipal smoking bans in cities with gaming facilities had already cost the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp (OLGC) $131 million, and a second report indicated those existing losses might be as high as $165 million.
“While it was rushing Bill 164 into law this spring, the government steadfastly insisted there would be no serious impacts, but mychoice.ca has been saying from the beginning that smokers will not go where they are not welcome,” said mychoice.ca president Nancy Daigneault, whose association has almost 23,000 members, nearly two thirds of whom are from Ontario.
“This is a government that is still running a big annual deficit, despite having imposed new taxes on Ontarians, and it is about to impose big energy hikes on us – did it really think losing $250 million to $350 million year wasn’t worth mentioning?”
To put this dollar figure in perspective, it is two to three times the amount the government allocated in extra funding this year to cut classroom sizes.
Ms. Daigneault noted the documents state revenues will be lost because smokers will stay away, or seek alternative venues, or spend less time and money when they do go out.
“Our members have tried to make it clear to the government that as smokers they stay away from the venues that do not welcome them,” Ms. Daigneault said. “Charity bingos, bar owners and others have tried to make the government look at revenue losses in jurisdictions that already have total smoking bans, which prove smokers do stay away and that non-smokers do not take their place.
“Now we learn that all this time the government has been sitting on clear evidence from its own experts that shows there is a very big problem indeed,” Ms. Daigneault said.
Ms. Daigneault said that given the evidence on gaming revenue losses, the government can no longer pretend its punitive measures against smokers will not seriously impact those charity bingos, Legions and other establishments that depend heavily on adult smoking clienteles.
The documents, all prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, were produced before the government tabled its smoking ban legislation, Bill 164, last December.
Mychoice.ca’s initial FOI request was made last December, but these documents have only just been released – more than three months after the government passed Bill 164. The new law is scheduled to come into force May 31. 2006.
The most recent document is dated last Nov. 18 – just a month before Bill 164 was introduced. It states a preliminary spring 2004 assessment by the OLGC “determined that a Province-wide smoking ban could result in an impact of $250M-$350M in lost gaming revenues.”
A note dated Nov. 9 states that preliminary estimates of the impact on casinos alone would be at least $165 million and as much as $240 million.
A document dated Sept.8, 2004, states that existing municipal smoking bans had already cost the OLGC $131 million in lost revenues, although another undated page indicates this figure is in the $140-$165 million range.
Yet another document says the OLGC’s experience showed gaming facility revenues drop by 15%-20% after smoking bans are introduced and that any recovery experienced has been slow. Examples cited include a 20% loss experienced at the Ottawa-Carleton Racetrack Slots and an 18% loss at the Brantford Charity Casino.
There is also a “conservative” estimate that lottery ticket sales could drop by 5% as the result of “reduced convenience store traffic combined with less spare change for impulse purchases.” The government’s new tobacco control strategy has included tax hikes, and its new province-wide law includes a ban on in-store displays of tobacco products, as well as prohibiting smoking in all work or public places, and even bans separately enclosed and ventilated smoking rooms and private clubs.
Meanwhile, preliminary and final assessment reports by the OLGC on the impacts of the new province-wide smoking ban are still being withheld.
“This is all information that should have been available for public debate when this law was being considered,” Ms. Daigneault said.
|
|
|
|
| Skipper |
| What paper do you read, Jay? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
everything from the sun, the star, the globe.
and often yahoo online as well. |
|
|
| TCB |
| the goverment shouldnt have to rely on gambling to fund things. i think the world is probably better off without it. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| Where is this article from? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
but the point is that the government has been telling us that the smoking ban isnt going to hurt business yet it's own documents show that it has and will hurt their businesses.
So the government yet again has been lying to us. And meanwhile bars, clubs, restaurants, chairty casinos, and bingo halls suffer for it. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Where is this article from? |
globe and mail...
whats the difference? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
i just checked out "mychoice.ca"
they even have the actual government documents scanned and available for everyone to see on there! No denying the hard proof! |
|
|
| psychosomatica |
| Okay.. I used to think you were going somewhere with your posts.. but honestly I'm just lost now. I really think you've driven home your point about the government... and I agree.. I think most people do. |
|
|
| MarkT |
how about putting some of the burden where it belongs...on the shoulders of smokers.
If you don't go out, simply because you can't smoke, then obviously your addiction is more important than your social life.
(playing devil's advocate here...easy on the flames people!) |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
how about putting some of the burden where it belongs...on the shoulders of smokers.
If you don't go out, simply because you can't smoke, then obviously your addiction is more important than your social life.
(playing devil's advocate here...easy on the flames people!) |
Even as a smoker I agree with you. That being said.....the government has to realize that banning certain things is going to have a negative affect on the economy....and I am sure this is taken into account before final decisions are made. Between the lawyers and accountants the government will use to make sure everything is dotted and crossed they made sure the economical affect is not drastic.
Jayx1 I think you have a hate on for the government :D |
|
|
| SurrJRS |
Yes but how much money is saved in health care costs from those who have quit/not started smoking as a result of the governments efforts?
| quote: | | “reduced convenience store traffic combined with less spare change for impulse purchases.” |
If they wana increase convenience store traffic, they should start selling cocaine. :p |
|
|
|
|
