Sunday, May 29, 2005
Sports funding
As a liberal type, I tended to view the smokefree legislation as draconian. Yet, I did manage to see both sides of the argument. I don't smoke, but feel I should have been allowed to (if I did) when having a Killkenny. The bar managers can make the rules banning me if they like.
In today's SST (can't link it) there is a story on sports trusts funding being considerably reduced as a result of a fall in revenue from pokie machines. The reason there has been a fall in revenue is because there has been less smokers hanging out in the pokie bars, cos they can't.
Now I find this very ironic. Presumably the government wanted a fit and healthy society so it bans smoking in bars. Yet the causative effect of this, as just discovered, is that there is reduced funding available to amateur sport clubs. I know that an active and fit New Zealand means a lower health budget. And if there is less money for sports teams there will be fewer members, less sport and more health worries. So I am actually wondering what the point of this legislation is/was?
In today's SST (can't link it) there is a story on sports trusts funding being considerably reduced as a result of a fall in revenue from pokie machines. The reason there has been a fall in revenue is because there has been less smokers hanging out in the pokie bars, cos they can't.
Now I find this very ironic. Presumably the government wanted a fit and healthy society so it bans smoking in bars. Yet the causative effect of this, as just discovered, is that there is reduced funding available to amateur sport clubs. I know that an active and fit New Zealand means a lower health budget. And if there is less money for sports teams there will be fewer members, less sport and more health worries. So I am actually wondering what the point of this legislation is/was?
I'd rather have the smokers money in sports clubs coffers than not.
