February 9, 2010

- Billings, Montana

Smoking Survey

Tools

By Sarah Gravlee

Story Published: Nov 22, 2009 at 7:18 PM MST

Story Updated: Nov 23, 2009 at 9:52 AM MST

Multimedia

Watch The Video

BILLINGS - A recent survey conducted by students and Montana State University Billings shows the smoking ban may have a slightly positive affect on Montana's economy.

Students called about 400 Montana residents at random. Results show about 20% of residents plan to go out more often since the smoking ban, while only about 10% plan to go out less often. MSU-B economist Scott Rickard said the people who said they'd go out more are in a higher income bracket.

"Net affect, it would appear that the smoking ban, at least based on these results, should have a small positive affect on revenues to these types of establishments," Rickard said.

To see complete results of the survey, click here, and then on the MUS-B Poll Results.

Next article Triple Murder Jury Selection

View Oldest Comments First

Tuesday, Dec 1 at 2:31 PM KMS wrote ...

Truth, your contuince of your pompous position is annoying at best. I doubt you are perfect in every way is you claim- if your slightly overweight, I demand you quit eating unhealthy food because your obesity offends me. Does that make my point clear enough? If your a business owner, you should be allowed to decide whether your establishment is smoking or not- and then your employees and customers can choose whether or not to give you business. Not the government- firstthe banks,then cars,now...

Wednesday, Nov 25 at 3:35 AM TRUTH wrote ...

Yes, the freedom to krap on your fellow man and treat him with total disregard, what a shame.

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 11:52 PM S R H wrote ...

just another peice of freedom we are giveing up to the govertment state and fed.

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 3:41 PM TRUTH wrote ...

My apologies for the double post this posting system doesn't work very well.

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 3:31 PM TRUTH wrote ...

I'm sorry that should have been "KMS" What I described in that other post is called "personal responsibility", you rights and freedom types aught to look into it sometime that way big, bad government won't have to force you to do the right thing you'll just do it yourself!

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 3:25 PM TRUTH wrote ...

Sorry that should have been KMS. What I described in the last post is called "personal responsibility"- you "rights and freedoms" clowns should check into it then big, bad government wouldn't be necessary.

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 3:22 PM TRUTH wrote ...

Sorry KS, I started smoking when I was ten just kicked it (again) last spring. I never assumed that I had a right to force my stink on anyone else though. Doing so is selfish and indecent and I never wanted to be selfish and indecent. I didn't need big brother to force me to do the right thing I just did it.

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 12:30 PM K M S wrote ...

The other issue I have with Truth and Anonymous' pompous position is this- "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I HIGHLY doubt that you have a vice that, if not me, then someone else would find HIGHLY offensive. Yet I guarantee you would get uppity if they told you you can't do it.That's all this really is- a group had a problem with something just because they didn't do it, and decided to ram their will down every one elses throats.Next is no twinkies because obese people are gross

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 12:25 PM KMS wrote ...

@ Truth- I'm glad you think so highly of yourself. Unfortunately, even "private clubs" are not allowed to having smoking in the building- unless there's a loophole in the law that no business I've seen haven't taken advantage of. It didn't work in CO, and it isn't likely to stay around if it is actually law and not an unfounded rumor. This same group of children that pushed their agenda as the "Clean Air Act" started in CA and spread their disease from there. (Go figure)

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 9:21 AM TRUTH wrote ...

Here's a simple truth with no data required; your addiction smells bad and you have no right to force your stink on the public. Just like I have no right to smear excrement on you no matter how swell I might think excrement is, you have no right to stink up anyone else with your addiction. See, it really is that easy with no statistics or data required. The responsibility to “go somewhere else” falls squarely on the person making the stink not on those who should not have to endure the stink.

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 9:00 AM Anonymous wrote ...

KMS- business owners do have a "right" to allow smoking all they have to do is go from being open to the public to being a "private club". Business owners "choose" not to do this in order to maximize profits. The problem is that the if the "private" businessman wants to profit off of the "public" sector then he must consider the health, well-being needs of the general "public". As a smoker I "chose" to go outside because I didn't want to be a selfish idiot imposing my filth on others.

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 8:42 AM KMS wrote ...

I don't smoke anymore, but I still think this bill is ridiculous. If you are a private business owner, it should be your RIGHT to decide whether or not you allow smoking in your establishment, just like it's a non smokers RIGHT not to go into places that do allow smoking. The Clintons heading up this whole "Clean Air Act" BS just shows why they will NEVER get any of my money- they always had the RIGHT to refuse to play a gig because it was a smoking establishment, and they CHOSE otherwise.

Tuesday, Nov 24 at 5:54 AM harleyrider1978 wrote ...

Poor gene, still doing damage control I see for tobacco control...Gene the only talking points required is the TRUTH. If tobacco control had used truth to start with,well there wouldnt be any smoking prohibitions or even any tobacco control. I could just read the headline'' second hand smoke is 94% water vapor and it will kill you''. That line woulda got you a quick trip to the menat ward where all you anti-smoking nazis belong.

Monday, Nov 23 at 10:06 PM Michael J. McFadden wrote ...

Gene likes to imply that folks posting against smoking bans are some sort of conspiracy funded by Big Tobacco. He never mentions how much money his Tobacco.org group gets from the NicoGummyPatchy folks for pushing bans though. To see the sort of lies the Antismokers use to push these bans visit www.TheTruthIsALie.com and you'll be surprised at what you find. . . . . . Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Monday, Nov 23 at 9:31 PM snowbird wrote ...

Surveys around the world says non-smokers will go out more often. That never happens. The anti-smoking cartel always uses that 'trick' to justify smoking bans

Monday, Nov 23 at 1:53 PM Dear Anonymous wrote ...

The word "I'm" has an apostrophe in it. If you are going to pretend that you are smarter than anyone else (or less “unintelligent”) then you should at least work on your grammar, spelling and sentence structure. Cutting down on the hypocrisy wouldn't hurt either. (Hypocrisy is when you say one thing and do the opposite like complaining about "name calling" and then engaging in name calling. You don’t exactly come across as the poster boy for intelligent conservatism.

Monday, Nov 23 at 11:52 AM Anonymous wrote ...

Im glad it went down, got tired of hearing non-smokers constant complaining. what a bunch of crying babys. the whole group is like liberals. cry cry cry till you get what you want, then turn around and call names. Liberals are unintelligent losers!

Monday, Nov 23 at 7:24 AM steelman wrote ...

you can smoke in bars anymore, get over it smokers and stop crying.its a great law.blame bush and the no change "pres"for the closing of these places,or why no one goes out more often.

Monday, Nov 23 at 7:18 AM gene wrote ...

Let me assure you that I believe that every anonymous poster on the internet is telling the absolute truth. Especially when they spam message boards the way youvebeenhad does. Don't be fooled. Don't be foolish. Where do these viral marketers get their talking points from?

Monday, Nov 23 at 6:36 AM peavy49 wrote ...

The smoking ban is just another step in taking more of our rights away, and guess what, were letting them do it.

Sunday, Nov 22 at 10:29 PM smokedbacon wrote ...

First of all I clicked to see the survey, WHAT SURVEY? Even if one was done who paid for it?

Sunday, Nov 22 at 9:13 PM mark wrote ...

Non-smoker's in MN also claimed they would go out more.....but tea-totaling non-smokers don't make up for the revenue losses from smoker's and their late night alcohol sales. 1/3 of the Twin Cities establishments closed since smoking bans went into effect: http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html Don't be fooled Montana

Sunday, Nov 22 at 8:43 PM binky wrote ...

A group in Ohio has uncovered anti smoking fraud, be aware, you cannot trust the anti smoking organizations and non profits, What a bunch of liars

Sunday, Nov 22 at 8:34 PM Youvebeenhad wrote ...

Let me assure you that a small positive effect will not happen. In the first year of Ohio's smoking ban, 313 bars closed and 5,400 people lost their jobs. Now 360 bars have closed plus bowling alleys, veterans clubs, bingo halls, vending operators, etc. Don't be foolish.

Add a comment

Your Weather Authority

Current Temp -5.0 °F

Fog/Mist

Wind : Southwest at

10.4 mph

Humidity : 87 %

Pressure : 30.02 in

More Weather

State Farm Sky Cam