My wife and I recently visited Florida on holiday from the United Kingdom to find that, being smokers, we were unwelcome at restaurants unless such establishments had outside dining.
Have the nonsmokers who voted in your referendum actually thought through the result of this vote? Probably not!
I understand that the vote on the smoking decision was about 70 percent to 30 percent in favor of the ban. This would probably mean that the 70 percent would still go to a restaurant, but the 30 percent would not. A drop in revenue?
Let us put this into figures that can be more easily understood. Last year there were approximately 38-million visitors to Florida. Assuming that the 30 percent who voted NO to the ban were smokers and this figure is reflected in the visitor numbers, this would mean approximately 11.4-million visitors were smokers. If only 50 percent of those felt unwelcome, as we did, this would mean 5.7-million fewer visitors.
Bearing in mind that for a 14-day holiday each visitor would spend approximately $1,800 (air fares, hotels, meals and car rentals) this would mean a loss in revenue of $1,026,000,000 just on the basic vacation cost, let alone everything else that goes to make an enjoyable holiday.
All we smokers ask is that after a good meal we can sit and enjoy a cigarette rather than virtually being shown the door as soon as the last mouthful of food has been taken.
My wife and I have been visiting Treasure Island twice a year for the past 11 years and have enjoyed every visit except this November. We will in the future probably spend our hard-earned cash elsewhere.
-- Len Holliday, Kent, England
Some things are better left unsod
Re: United to disperse scum, Nov. 23.
Scott Little, Katherine Ritter and the other residents around Dogleg Pond deserve a round of applause for taking the initiative to keep it an attractive and healthy watering hole for people and wildlife.
If they want it to stay nice - and for other bodies of water in the same area to be equally algae-free - they should drastically reduce the amount of fertilizer they use in their yards, which is the source of the problem. Replacing lawn with less maintenance- and nutrient-demanding ground covers is a better and environmentally positive choice that benefits everyone in the neighborhood. And it is the responsibility of everyone in the watershed to do so, not just the caring and industrious residents who live around the pond.
-- Jan Allyn, Largo
[Last modified December 3, 2003, 01:34:24]
