Tiny sidetrack....Does anyone know about the agreement between Starbucks and Kraft? Someone earlier challenged us to look at the Philip Morris website, so I did. The company has changed its name to Altria (marketing genius there!) which has two holdings: Philip Morris Tobacco and Kraft Foods. Kraft makes a lot of my favorite things and apparently has agreements with companies like Starbucks to market products in groceries. In the Starbucks case it's coffee and some new teas. I should confess I smoke so you all hate me on principle, but look up the Altria financials. Philip Morris's really big profit is coming from international markets.
----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: Stpaul Digest, Vol 5, Issue 66 Send Stpaul mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Stpaul digest..." ------------------------------------------------- Please - Take the St. Paul Job Shadow Survey Just 15 Questions: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=70658501784 ------------------------------------------------- Today's Topics: 1. Re: Stpaul Digest, Vol 5, Issue 65 (Out of Office) (Ellen Biales) 2. FW: WONDERFUL CHANCE TO MEET/HEAR CAROLYN RAFFENSPERGER IN ST. PAUL (Elizabeth Dickinson) 3. Simple analysis of entertainment spending. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 4. Re: Simple analysis of entertainment spending. (John Harris) 5. Re: FW: NYTimes.com Article: U.S. Lengthens the List of Diseases Linked to Smoking (John Harris) 6. Re: Simple analysis of entertainment spending. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 12:01:27 -0500 From: "Ellen Biales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [StPaul] Re: Stpaul Digest, Vol 5, Issue 65 (Out of Office) To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I am out of the office until June 7. I'll return your message when I get back. If you need assistance, call 266-8670. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 13:58:47 -0500 From: Elizabeth Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [StPaul] FW: WONDERFUL CHANCE TO MEET/HEAR CAROLYN RAFFENSPERGER IN ST. PAUL To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" FYI There is a long statement from Carolyn Raffensperger accompanying this announcement--if you'd like me to send the whole email on, just let me know. Elizabeth Dickinson West Side THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: A MENU FOR GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION June 15, 2004 (Tues.), 2:00 - 4:00 pm, St. Paul, MN * Sponsor: OEA. * "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof." Environmental lawyer Carolyn Raffensperger of the Science & Environmental Health Network in Ames, IA (see http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html) will elaborate on how to apply this international principle in Minnesota cities, counties and school districts. Greg Pratt, MPCA research scientist, will briefly overview existing precautionary language in Minnesota statutes. Free. Register by sending an e-mail to Sally Peterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or by calling her at 651/215- 0286. Carolyn Raffensperger Medicine and Agriculture: From Self-Sufficiency to Community Sufficiency <http://www.bioneers.org/voices/raffensperger.html#top> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 13:59:21 -0600 (MDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [StPaul] Simple analysis of entertainment spending. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 I took out my Excel spreadsheet and created a simple scenario. Here are my assumptions: Of 1000 people: 750 of them avoid smoky environments to some extent 250 of them seek out smoke-tolerant places Lets assume that if this seeking/avoidance behavior did NOT exist, that all 1000 people would spend an average of $40 in each of 8 different outings each month, and there wouldn't be any difference between the two groups. This means that the Smoke Seekers would spend $80,000 per month, and the Avoiders would spend $240,000 per month. Now, lets say that a certain percentage of the people in these groups start reducing their spending because they can't find a place to go and spend their money. If the Seekers reduce their spending by 20%, the industry loses $16,000 If the Avoiders reduce their spending by the same amount, the industry loses $48,000 If the smoke seekers reduced their spending by 90%, the industry would lose 72,000 dollars. But, the Avoiders only need to reduce their spending by 30% to do the same amount of damage to the industry. I don't know any way to verify it, but I would not be at all surprised if nonsmokers reduce their spending by at least 30% than they otherwise would if they could get clean air. Moreover, I really doubt that spending by smokers would DROP by 90 percent if we had a smoking ban. The numbers seem to be on the side of the smoke-avoiders, because there are lots more of us. The numbers are easy to play with, but I can't see any way to make the case that a smoking ban would cost the industry money, unless you want to argue that the smoke avoiders don't really care that much, and I think the popularity of the ban proves that that is not so. Come on bars! Take my money! Give me some clean air! -- Bob Treumann, Saint Paul Please Note: Replies to this email address all go to the trash except where the subject line contains a recognized mailing list identifier, such as [TCMETRO] -- Bob Treumann, Saint Paul Please Note: Replies to this email address all go to the trash except where the subject line contains a recognized mailing list identifier, such as [TCMETRO] ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT) From: John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [StPaul] Simple analysis of entertainment spending. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii You had me on board until I read this > The numbers seem to be on the side of the > smoke-avoiders, because there > are lots more of us... Still, granting you the latitude that your numbers are true, why on Earth would a bar/restaurant owner ever allow smoking in their establishments? From the sounds of it businesses are throwing away money but not self enforcing the proposed ban. John Harris webber-camden __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 14:39:07 -0700 (PDT) From: John Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [StPaul] FW: NYTimes.com Article: U.S. Lengthens the List of Diseases Linked to Smoking To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This report, if it is the same I saw on ABC news yesterday, is concerned with the effects of smoking. The proposed ban on smoking in bars and restaurants is trying to justify itself on the effects of 2nd hand smoke. Now one could make a leap and connect any and all smoking related illnesses with illnesses that can be had by 2nd hand smoke but I would elect to let the scientists who get paid to do that, do that. This sounds like an article better suited for a cigarette ban or tobacco ban than a ban on where you can smoke. John Harris webber-camden __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 16:37:10 -0600 (MDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [StPaul] Simple analysis of entertainment spending. To: "John Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 There are a number of reasons why a particular bar wouldn't go smoke free to grab all this potential business. 1. Bars have a reputation of being smokey places, and just going smoke free would not draw the smoke-avoiders to your bar. The bar would have to spend a fortune in advertising, on a continuous basis, just to get the word out. Because of this cost, for a single bar to go smoke free would be an almost guarenteed losing proposition. A general ban makes the advertising cost unnecessary, because the smoke avoiders would know all the bars were smoke free. 2. Despite all the proud promotion about the virtues of "free" enterprise, bars are regulated and licensed businesses. You just can't open a storefront and start selling beer, or even sponsor live music. Because there are a limited number of licenses, being in the Bar business is very profitable. You don't need to be much of an innovator. People can't go next door to drink, because the place next door doesn't have a liquor license. If the bar/liquor industry wants to see where a lot of their potential revenue from non-smokers goes, they should look at the money flowing into coffee shops like starbucks and caribou. We smoke-avoiders have gotten used to the idea that we can stop at one of these places, or schedule a meeting there, and we will have clean air. And don't try to tell me coffee and cigarettes don't go together like beer and cigs do! I know from experience that they go together just as well! John Harris said: > > > You had me on board until I read this > >> The numbers seem to be on the side of the >> smoke-avoiders, because there >> are lots more of us... > > Still, granting you the latitude that your numbers are > true, why on Earth would a bar/restaurant owner ever > allow smoking in their establishments? From the > sounds of it businesses are throwing away money but > not self enforcing the proposed ban. > > John Harris > webber-camden > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > http://messenger.yahoo.com/ > _____________________________________________ > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > Archive Address: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ > > -- Bob Treumann, Saint Paul Please Note: Replies to this email address all go to the trash except where the subject line contains a recognized mailing list identifier, such as [TCMETRO] ------------------------------ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ _____________________________________________ For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract End of Stpaul Digest, Vol 5, Issue 66 ************************************* _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
