It's official, smoking bans are bad for business

I was just listening to NPR this morning, and Michael Pacco, head of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Board has just come out with a study that shows that smoking bans in bars and restaurants trims four to sixteen percent off the bottom line, especially in bars.

So much for the argument that non-smokers will make up the difference, apparently they won't. And all of you anti-smoking folks who've been poo-pooing the idea that bars and restaurants have been going out of business due to smoking bans, well it looks like you were wrong all along.

This is just one more reason to lift smoking bans and allow businesses decide for themselves whether or not they want smoking in their establishment. Smoking bans are bad for business, and indeed are forcing businesses to shut their doors. Are you willing to sacrifice small businesses on the alter of your Puritan like zeal? Shame on you!

I would post a link to the story, but NPR hasn't put it on their website yet. It is supposed to be up at 8:30 eastern time, thus you can check for yourself.

Thanks for the post.

We can all talk till we're blue in the face about the evils of smoking, but the fact remains that it's a legal product that adults have the right to indulge in if they so choose. Treating smokers like criminals or social lepers isn't the way to go.

If you smoke, you should have a place to go where you can smoke without being hassled. If you hate smoking, you should have the right to a smoke-free bar, for instance. There should be room for both, and people can vote with their feet.

Whatever happened to freedom of choice? This is America, people!

and people who don't smoke are perhaps more health conscious which would also include less drinking or partying? as far as restaurants--maybe people who don't like to throw their money away on cigarettes don't like to throw their money away on eating in restaurants as much as people who don't mind throwing their money away on various things, including cigarettes.

i don't know. i'm just wondering if there is a correlation with smoking/non-smoking and personality and spending habits.

I could eat at home, but I enjoyed chatting with people at the counter after being alone all day. The waitresses would argue over who got the smoking section. Not that they didn't want it but that they did. I always assumed that it was because the smoking section was closer to the kitchen, but when asked, the response was that smokers were easier to please and tipped better.

I'm guessing that the smokers didn't mind as much if the service was slow because they had something to occupy them and consequently were less likely to punish the waitress either verbally or financially. Just my guess, but I can't think of any other reason for the difference.

I don't go to the restaurant much anymore, there's nobody there to chat with. The owner is talking about cutting hours because business is down so much. I had never stopped to think about it, but there were numerous couples of which only one smoked who came to the restaurant on a regular basis. Now neither come, one doesn't come without the other.

The irony of the whole thing is that there were only a couple of the evening employees that didn't smoke. They're not making any money now so they're looking for different jobs, but not finding any because all of the restaurants are slow. You can pretty much guess what they have to say about the non-smoking zealots.

Sales taxes for restaurants and taverns are about 50% higher than most other businesses. With that revenue down, this week the city council decided to raise the other sales and added a new gasoline tax for good measure.

Regards, Mugu

it was a ritual with a lot of people--a relaxed atmosphere--no rush to hurry and get the hell out so you could have a cigarette. ah, those were the good old days.

(btw--years ago my mother would ask for tickets in the smoking section of airplanes because she thought the people were friendlier, less serious, not a bunch of tight asses, more social, more interesting. and my mother never smoked.)

The City of Austin has a citywide smoking ban in all restaurants and bars (not an easy trick to pull off in the Live Music Capitol of the World, a city with hundreds of music venues) - and the ban has definitely taken a bite out of bar business.

By contrast, the nearby suburb of Pflugerville (if you think spelling it is fun, try pronouncing it!) has no such citywide ban. It is up to individual business owners whether or not to allow smoking on their property. Here's a case in point I observed in Pflugerville:

Restaurant/bar #1 does not allow smoking indoors or even outdoors on the patio. About 30% of the tables sit empty during peak dining hours.

Restaurant/bar #2 (directly next door to restaurant/bar #1) DOES allow smoking on an outdoor patio, which is also heated for the comfort of customers in the winter months. While this establishment serves a food and drink menu that is nearly identical to restaurant/bar #1 next door at comparable prices, restaurant/bar #2 is PACKED WITH A LINE WAITING OUT THE DOOR during peak dining hours. Guess where everyone wants to sit?

Yep, the patio.


Freedom of Choice. It's the American way, whether you smoke or not.

http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/samples/a/u/Austin_Lounge_Lizards_-_Pflugerville.mp3



I'd post the whole thing, but my CDs are packed away. :(

One of my favorite Austin Lounge Lizards tunes, wafting up again from the smoke-filled saloons of the Texas prairie pre-smoking ban:

"I know you smoke, I know you drink that brew
I just can't abide a sinner like you
God can't either, that's why I know it to be true that
Jesus loves me--but he can't stand you

I'm going to heaven, boys, when I die
'Cause I've crossed every "t" and I've dotted every "i'
My preacher tell me that I'm God's kind of guy; that's why
Jesus loves me--but you're gonna fry

God loves all his children, by gum
That don't mean he won't incinerate some
Can't you feel those hot flames licking you
Woo woo woo

I'm raising my kids in a righteous way
So don't be sending your kids over to my house to play
Yours'll grow up stoned, left-leaning, and gay; I know
Jesus told me on the phone today

Jesus loves me, this I know
And he told me where you're gonna go
There's lots of room for your kind down below
Whoa whoa whoa

Jesus loves me but he can't stand you . . ." :)

Seen 'em eight times, did interviews with Tom Pittman and Richard Bowden. :)



It's been five years since we had a raise in pay
And they disallowed my business lunches today
Somebody must have changed the rules of the game
So we've found a convenient scapegoat we can blame

It's those teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
(They're too lazy to work)
Teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
(They're stealing our jobs)

Somebody ran this country deep into debt
I called up Congress, but nobody's called back yet
Sometimes I get so mad I can't think straight
We're looking for relief and it feels so great to hate

All those teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
(They're on the Dole)
Teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
(They're speaking espanol)

Who's to blame for the things we're so angry about?
Who's to blame for uprisings, downsizings, and the drought?
Who's to blame for the end of the good old days?
Who's to blame for that backwards-cap-wearing craze?

It's those teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
(Let's build a thousand-mile fence)
Teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
(It's just common sense)
Teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
(Like the Berlin Wall)
Teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
(Land mines and all!)
Teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs




I really love the early stuff, though — all the references to Kafka and Orwell... and Anahuac. :thumbsup:

:beer::popcorn:

Too early for the beer, however the popcorn:shrug:

I think that this one is going to be slow to heat up, since it is so early in the day.

But hey, enjoy yourself:hi:

And you call yourself a smoker. No self-respecting smoking bar patron would make such a statement. Who are you working for?

:smoke:

:smoke: :popcorn:

What about the workers who don't have a choice?

And as far as I am concerned smokers can finance their own medical care through increased taxes on cigarettes...

If everybody stopped smoking overnight, our state and local governments would collapse. Smoking is a vital part of funding various state and local programs, many of which a smoker doesn't even get to take advantage of.

Oh, and would you apply this same criteria to over eaters? Those who take part in risky pastimes? Drinkers?

The hypocrisy is appalling.

"If everybody stopped smoking overnight, our state and local governments would collapse."

:rofl: What multi-verse are you living on?

My guess is that you'll find that tobacco taxes are the third or fourth highest revenue generators. Take that money out of the budget and see what happens to your local government. I would say it would crash.

Government is increasingly finding it to be in their best (financial) interest to keep smokers smoking. And gamblers gambling.

You tax the poor on their misfortunes by giving them false hopes like you can be a millionaire. I will never play the lottery.

so much self control!

Why don't do the same and go outside for a smoke. Try it's not that hard, come on you can do it....

How long have programs been in placed to wean smokers off of smoking?
How many local and state governments have placed restrictions in government locations?
How long has it been since restrictions have expanded to other areas?

To use the idea that if everybody were to stop smoking overnight is ridiculous. It could never happen. Therefore, state and local governments will not collapse due to that situation. However, increasing taxes to discourage smoking without totally replacing all lost revenue from past smokers will allow for a gradual reliance on the taxes. Revenue lost from smokers will be offset by various expenses caused by smoking.

How about you just finance the healthcare for those of us who get sick from having to breathe in your second hand smoke? That'll do.

:nopity:

What I was asking for is for you to consider just how much the taxes smokers pay funds your city's economy, most of those programs don't even benefit smokers.

Just looking for a little logic and reasoning, but apparently they're in short supply.

weren't already going to programs wholly unrelated to smoking, some of which you or your family almost certainly benefit from. So spare me the self-righteousness and disdain.

...but can smokers also get a rebate on social security taxes?

Since smokers don't live as long as non-smokers, they are financing YOUR retirement.

Smokers have more health problems than nonsmokers, so it's a wash.

So, you are telling me that non-smokers don't get expensive end-of-life conditions?

That's nonsense. Non-smokers don't just drop dead healthy at the end of their lives.

Their lives ARE longer, though, so they do consume more social security payments.

I'd really like to see the numbers on this.

we're at it.

That should cover some of the costs involving alcohol related deaths and illnesses.

Fair is fair.

as the line shows,

not the OP, as shown in the post.

:shrug:

Just raised the tax by $1/pack.

-Hoot

They can work someplace else.

:nuke:

:hide:

i'd get a fucking job at walmart.

if i didn't care then i could work at a bar as well

as it is--for me--i don't want to wear a uniform
so restaurants, post offices, dental offices, ups are all out for me.
MAYBE THEY SHOULD CHANGE THEIR POLICY SO I WILL CONSIDER WORKING THERE. eh?

you were afraid of heights, why would you become a watress/waiter if you are afraid of second hand smoke.

:shrug:

It is the non-smoker that has to work at these estabilishments that don't enjoy the same priveleges as myself in an office. And no I don't buy this republican arguement if you don't like it go elsewhere. It's the kinda stuff that would turn back all the OSHA regulations that have brought us so much in the past.

Good to know.

Did you know that air quality testing conducted by PRO-SMOKING BAN groups proves secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations.

....the justification for the workplace bans continues to be proven unnecessary by sound scientific air quality testing:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

Sorry, but that is a tired and disproven argument. In most towns and cities there are establishments that allow smoking, there are those that don't allow smoking, and the labor force is free to choose where they work, even if that means going outside the food industry completely.

But hey, let's continue to impose blanket smoking bans, driving businesses into the ground. What happens to those workers then? Oh, yeah, they're unemployed in a bad economy. Not the brightest of ideas now is it.

Listen I enjoy a smoke free work place thanks to all the laws, and as far as I am concerned the staff at these establishments are entitled to the same privelegs....

I can't imagine some coming and making my workplace a smoking enviroment and then tell me to "Go find another job if you don't like it"......

On Edit: Don't use the Rush Limbaugh arguement on me, that stuff does not fly.

But around here there are still many businesses that allow smoking in the workplace. If you realize that going into the job, you indeed have the right to find another job.

What, you think that the government has the right to dictate to bars and restaurants that they must lose money? What other sector of the business world has that kind of governmental onus hanging over them.

And as I said earlier, in most towns and cities today where there aren't smoking bans there are establishments that allow smoking, and those that don't, and the workers can choose where they want to go.

But hey, let's impose a smoking, drive small businesses into the ground, then what will the workers do? Oh yeah, starve:eyes:

And since I don't listen to Rush, I have no clue as to what you're talking about.

It used to be one of the few jobs where you could grab a cig any time it got slow. Not anymore.

waitstaff/bartenders would far prefer to work in the smoking permitted establishments, because according to them, smokers are way better tippers. This spoken from a point of view of a former restaurant cook.

If you don't want to work in an establishment that allows smoking, don't work there.

Shall we abloish OSHA while we are at it? Shall we do it the Republican way? You know free enterprise knows what's best.

Now we go after all the assholes that think they can wear perfumed products in public. I'm sick and tired of being assaulted by these rude pricks. No more perfume, colognes, smelly shampoos, stinky soaps, scented deodorants, rancid candles, those god awful dryer sheets, or anything that Pier I sells. There is no place in a civilized society for that shit, take a fucking bath occasionally (with non-scented soap.) Now that we have a template for getting shit outlawed, I have a whole list of things that bother me. This is just the beginning.

Regards, Mugu

Show me the scientific studies and I will back you up.

And if we can stop the pain of even one child it's not too much to pay. There's no reason for public places to have the stench of a cheap bordello because some people like it and most people can tolerate it.

I once received a free sample of Irish Spring soap in the mail. I got up in the middle of the night and threw it out in the parking lot because I couldn't sleep with it in my apartment. Everybody else's rights end where my nose begins (and I intend to stick it in everywhere.)

Regards, Mugu

what about the workers that lost their jobs because the place they worked had to reduce staff or went out of business?

...People that get hired at jobs and then bitch about the working environment remind me of folks that buy houses by ariports and then complain about the noise...

You knew what you were getting into when you hired on board.

Deal with it.

While we are at it, let's get rid of that pesky OSHA and their regulations. Poor guy gets his fingers chopped off at the meat plant well let him deal with it also I mean he is working at the meat packing plant.

Don;t you know that our economy is doing great? There are plenty of jobs out there..

</snark>


to be serious for a minute though..

bar owners should be allowed to allow smoking or to ban it.. Their employees often are smokers too, anyway.

If they smoke and their employees smoke and their customers smoke, why should they be forced to dis-allow it?

All that's needed is for emploers to have their employees sign statements that they know it is not a smoke-free environment.

Three separate air quality test results prove the answer is NO

Three pro-smoking ban advocate groups tested bar and restaurant air quality across the country to determine secondhand smoke concentrations. They all measured for the trace chemical nicotine, which in turn indicates the concentration level of secondhand smoke present in the air.

Why measure for nicotine?

* (As per air quality researchers nationwide) Nicotine is the only unique or "trace" chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air. And then our comparison to OSHA guidelines is the logical manner in which to determine if secondhand smoke levels pose a health hazard, as you can see, according to OSHA, the authority on workplace safety, they do not. If you wanted you could measure every airborne chemical in secondhand smoke and then compare them to OSHA guidelines for each specific chemical, the results would be the same, if not more dramatic.

Much more at link...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html

Listen I know the effects of second hand smoke, and I don't need to read any studies on the topic. It makes my clothes stink, gives me a cough, and makes my eyes run. Now I don't go to these bars but I am certainly gland that people are not allowed to smoke it the office. People who wish to do so may do so in a designated patio which is fine by me.

And that this is a Federal Reserve study that we're talking about, I would say that the data is credible, and that it is steady over time.

Got anything credible that says differently?

Besides, no one has the right to make people sick--even if it makes them more money.

Thus, making people sick. People choose where they want to work. I no longer work at a nuclear facility, because I didn't feel like dosing for dollars anymore. Nobody forced me to take the job, nobody forced me to stay on the job. Stop talking like this is some sort of slave economy, workers have the right to change jobs for any number of reasons, and many of them do, on a regular basis. Your argument holds no water.

Maybe that's part of your grand vision for America, too?

many jobs have inherent health hazards and compensate for them. You make more fishing in alaska than Florida. You make more as a miner than in a quarry, even though they are roughly the same jobs, right? So if, through education, you add a health premium to working in a bar with smoking, you can even it out. If bars that allow smoking have higher labour costs, they will have to decide if they want to retain smoking and pay more, or ban smoking and pay less. If nonsmoking bars can compete, they will take the staff from smoking bars, raising the premium even more.

is an inherent health hazard for the occupation, or an unnecessary hazard which should be removed via government mandate. It's generally accepted outside of Republican circles that the market can often fail when it comes to adequately controlling unnecessary workplace hazards. (Think 19th century factories.) Hence the state steps in with things like OSHA and other agencies and regulations.

In an office environment, it's generally considered an unnecessary risk and in most places in the U.S., the state has intervened to protect workers by restricting smoking in such workplaces. We don't let the market establish a hazard premium, because as a society we dictate that workers shouldn't have to put up with second-hand smoke in an office, period.

I think that one can make a pretty decent case that according to prevailing social norms, folks ought to be able to cut a butt in a pub, so second-hand smoke is an inherent occupational risk for wait-staff, but this stance lies in the middle of a pretty big grey area. Libertarians who pull the black and white 'get a job elsewhere' line do the issue a disservice.

In my city, starting January 2, they are forcing bars to close at 1am instead of 2am. Bars are reporting declining sales and customers. One bar has a Sunday night Latino night. The crowds would average over 200 people. Since January, they average 30.

Oh yeah, with the decrease in business revenue, property taxes go up to make up the difference.

If you're going to be drunk at 2, you're well on your way by 1:shrug: I don't get this, what is their reasoning?

all 4 of them, in a city of 100,000 people. They also bring up 'drugs, prostitution, etc', making it sound like they're all gonna disappear now. Douche bags.

The bar owners are suing the city; the mayor and city council had a public meeting about it, took a break and then just voted right there - it was unanimous, go figure.

The story I heard long ago that when the Unicameral drafted the bill that set the closing time, there was a typographical error that put it at 1 instead of 2. Nobody noticed and it passed with the typo in it. Rather than fix it to the original intent, they left it deciding that it would be too much work. And one state senator proclaimed, "Besides, if you're not drunk by 1 a.m., you're just not trying."

The story may be apocryphal, but I've always liked it.

<http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2008/a/pdf/smoking-ban.pdf>

The decline in business is real and statistically significant. Smoking bans hurt business.

Still shocks me that smoking bans get such strong support on progressive web sites. Everyone hates the Bush administration because of it's hard-core right wing authoritarian ways, but they'll support authoritarian legislation in the form of smoking bans.

authoritarian govt as long as the authority is progressive. Fools.

Because it is so nice to walk into a place that doesn't stink and make my eyes burn. I agree generally that the owner should decide, but they are a regulated business, and are suffering the consequences. I have little pity for those who must stand outside and smoke, having spent much of my "bar years" outside of such,getting fresh air between drinks. I used to hate casinos, but here in CA they have no smoking sections that make it more amenable to non smokers. I admit that I always preferred the smoking section when airplanes allowed it. In time it will generally work itself out to benefit commerce.

"Smoking bans hurt business. "

And smoking hurts people. And people are more imporant than people-- hence the net increase in Absolute Good. This coming from a 20 year, pack a day smoker who realizes it for what it is-- a stupid addiction.



I used to "righteously" defend my habit so that I could justify getting my fix whenever and wherever I wanted-- feeling abused when I couldn't light up a my convenience.

Then I got smart (but not smart enough to quit, obviously) and realized that I was doing nothing more than defending the risk I put other people at whilst enabling heart disease and emphysema.




But, since bar profits are more important...

Since the smoking bans have been in place here in Ohio, I haven't experienced any upper respiratoy sickness. It's literally coming up on a year since I've had a cough, bronchitis, cold, sinus infection, any of that crap. It used to be that I get somthing every 4-6 mos. I'm not a "health nut" or anything, and I don't excercise as often as I probably should. I still frequent bars with the same regularity that I always have. I just haven't been sick. I really think this can be attributed to the smoking ban...

Just sayin.

In my city some bars that have been there for 80 years are closing as a result of the smoking ban that we instituted by our city just to be cool like other cities. I wish my country was free.

"I wish my country was free."

I wish my country was smoke-free. One does not preclude the other...

That doesn't mean I'm completely helpless and have no ability to adapt to my environment. Should we make a law that says to put a coat on when it's cold outside?

but I sure as hell get sick when I walk by someone who is smoking.

But I can take care of myself...I can adapt to the situation. I don't need the government to make my decisions for me.

Some problems require only the attention of the individual. Other problems require our collective attention. I doubt that there are many people here who have both the wit and the wisdom to illustrate the precise and relevant difference of the which is the the more valid and the better course.



"I don't need the government to make my decisions for me.
But as smokers-- we seem to be making the choice for other unwilling people.

Be considerate of others who do not wish to participate in what you do. I can't be that complicated.

Try doing that on an airplane, at the airport, or in the office. I am actually old enough to remember when it was permitted to smoke on an airplane.

Or make a law that lowers emissions? Or a law that lowers pollution?

You can wish all you want. But, it is never going away. Even prohibition doesn't work. We know that for sure.
The Professor

it is, perhaps, even a greater health risk!

:sarcasm:

After all, if you see a drunk driver, just drive around them.

Or better yet, if you don't want to get hit by a drunk driver, just don't drive.

Sounds fair right? Why we need all those stupid laws? :bounce:

I'm sure they'd be more profitable too.

Sid

Here in Maryland all of the statistics I have seen, indicate that has been no decrease in the business for restaurants and bars due to the smoking ban. I will work on some links for you.

There is no statistical evidence that their business will be effected.

However, the Bar Owner Did Say This:

"People aren't coming out," he said. "I've got numbers from last year to this year, and you can see it. It's unreal. It's gross."

in bars. There is no statistical evidence that smoking effects business in bars..

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

.snip
No decline in total restaurant or bar revenues occurred in El Paso, Texas, after the city's smoking ban was implemented on January 2, 2002. These findings are consistent with the results of studies in other municipalities that determined smoke-free indoor air ordinances had no effect on restaurant revenues (2,5--8). Despite claims that these laws especially might reduce alcoholic beverage revenues (2), the mixed-beverage revenue analyses indicate that sales of alcoholic beverages were not affected by the El Paso smoking ban.
.snip

I would trust a scientific study over an anecdotal comment by a bar owner who smokes.

Since they are actually in the business of determining revenue losses and gains, unlike the CDC which is in the business of keeping us healthy. Going outside your specialty, especially when you have a vested interest in doing so, usually makes for bad numbers, bad reports and bad conclusions.

So far, someone has provided anecdotal evidence from a single bar owner, and you have provided absolutely nothing to back up this claim. If you have this federal study, show me.

See my other posts.

I would indeed say that those are the Fed's numbers:shrug:

They specifically take no responsibility for Mr. Pakko's report.

Isn't it interesting how a bag of money from Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson / ALZA turns the CDC into their marketing puppet.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdc-study-which-claimed-3000-people.html

the Adams Morgan business improvement district reported business in bars and taverns was down about 14% in2007 from 2006. Northern Virginia did not see an equivalent decline. The major variable was the smoking ban. And i can say, anecdotally as a bar worker, business is down, and the worse the weather is, the fewer smokers come out (we don't have a covered, heated patio) you cannot successfully run a new bar in dc now that doesnt have a patio, they don't last.

151+ bars and restaurants closed here in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota after 2 years of bans......only 14 closed all year before the bans.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html

Nationawide records show 2000+ closes with 10,000 - 20,000 unemployed

http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm

.....yeah bans are good for business, if your business is selling Nicoderm patches.....why else would they RWJF / J & J provide $200+ million funding to the smoking ban lobbyists:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/smoking-bans-good-public-policy-or.html

The list of paid for lobbyists include the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Non-Smoker's Rights, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, etc. making their claims of "hazard" rather dubious wouldn't you say?

Sanitary and safety regulations are bad for business too. That's why they are requirements and not merely suggestions.

While i understand the public health concern, we're really talking about people who choose to go into an establishment. Except, of course, for the workers.

When a company that deals with dangerous material (radiation, chemical, welding fumes, etc.) has the potential to expose workers, the regs don't require they stop working with those products.

The regs require that they provide for the safety of workers by making protective equipment available. If someone works in a bar with smoking, why doesn't the law simply state that the establishment must provide either particulate filtering masks or a respirator to remove the organic matter in the smoke?

I don't understand why there is such a differenc in the way workplace safety is addresesd in these two situations.
The Professor

I'm sure the American Lung Association is a better source of information than I am. I'm only saying that the opposition to public smoking has nothing to do with puritan morality.

I asked a simple question in hopes that someone had a perspective that made sense. To me the distinction between a restaurant and any other business with regard to employee safety doesn't make sense.

And that snippy reply is all you've got.

Sheesh! What a grouch.
The Professor

Same thing. Just as snippy. Besides, there was no statement of fact in your first post that had anything to do with my question.

If you don't want to have a discussion, why bother being on a discussion board?
The Professor

The statement fact was that I do not want to reargue the issue. I'm done with this pointless exchange. Besides, my side won the election in this state, so I don't think I have any reason to persuade you.

I'm NOT ARGUING ANYTHING! I'm asking a question. Obviously you don't know the difference.

You also don't read for comprehension. I said there was no statement of fact apropos my question. So, you contradicted something i didn't even say.

And, you keep using the word argue, reargue. Since i'm not arguing, it appears that you're simply running away from a simple question.

Have a good day. I think.
The Professor

Or the ability to make other people do what you think is best for them. Face it, many posters on this board just loathe smoking (and some of them loathe smokers) and want to see it stamped out as a public health threat. I suspect many of the complaints about smoking in bars are from people who never go there anyway, but can't stand the idea that someone--even a worker!--might choose to be in a smoke-filled room.

There is no need for smoking bans. All those non-smoking bar patrons should be able to find bars that accomodate them. Right?

Johnson & Johnson's private foundation RWJF provided $99 million to the ALA to promote the secondhand smoke hoax. J & J manufactures Nicoderm thru their subsidiary ALZA.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/smoking-bans-good-public-policy-or.html

http://www.rwjf.org/research/researchdetail.jsp?id=2002&ia=143

Yep. People have such an enormous concern for their own health due to all kinds of pollutants like ETS, vehicle exhaust, coal-fired generators, and such that they've saturated the market for such masks. After all, EVERYONE knows that they can IMMEDIATELY take action to protect their own health while awaiting the prohibition of such pollutants. And that's what's REALLY important. After all, it has NOTHING to do with self-righteousness and any "find any excuse" to impose one's will on others. Naww. All one need do is see how people take responsibility on themselves for the health dangers they see. Yup.

Hey Nut!

However, taking a serious note, companies are REQUIRED to make sure that employees use that PPE when working in hazardous situations. If left to their own devices, i'm sure there would be people with with methyl cyanide and forget to wear a mask!

So, if a law required that the employer provide said PPE and the workers were free to use them at their demand, then bars and restaurants would be treated like every other business where potential irritants and toxins are present.

That would prevent the entire population from being liberated from their choices and still protect the workers.

If the workers are what we're really worried about (not just an excuse to impose a POV), then the workers are protected. And that'd be ok by me. If someone doesn't want to get sick just because of exposures on the job, they should be protected. But, draconian measures don't provide any more protection than standard OSHA regs.

Right? And, the whole self-righteous indignation is defused.
The Professor

The taxes paid by smokers exceeded their "cost to society" over a decade ago, and many tax increases ago, as determined by a very reputable study by Rand, but folks continue to make the false claims about 'cost.' The 'concerns' raised about the poor employees are exploitative, not honest concerns. Otherwise, as you've noted, far less draconian options exist. The claims of materially severe ETS 'hazards' are sheer pseudo-science, yet they're repeated like religious doctrine. Ridiculous.

It's an 'issue' that spawns zealots ... and reason gets trampled to death in the stampedes.

Cigarettes are not necessary for the bar/restaurant business.

Don't worry about all the laws and rules and bars going out of business and second-hand whatever.

Just quit. Today.

:thumbsup:

and it pisses me off all the people that tell me i would feel better...... lied. i felt fine, mighty fine when i smoked. dont feel fine , or mighty now.

...I was a professional smoker...I mean I absolutely lOVED it....I miss it something fierce..but I sleep better, I smell better, I breathe better, food and booze taste better...

It's hell at first...but stick with it...You'll thank yourself in the long run...

and you will feel better. Been there. :hug:

Took me about 2 or 3 weeks, and suddenly I'm like "Hey, this fucking RAWKS!"

:thumbsup:

Been almost 10 years for me now, and I *still* get the occasional craving, but they are mild and pass quickly.

Both locally and nationally, right. Hey, if we all took that attitude our economy would be further in the tank that it is:shrug: But I do worry, I've got friends who own bars, one of my favorite places to shoot pool went under after thirty plus years due to a smoking ban. My other favorite pool hall, a historical establishment over one hundred years old, is facing hard times and could go under due to a smoking ban.

Yeah, just don't worry about these things, whatever:eyes:

so the smoking addiction is so bad that smokers will just stay home and drink alone instead of going to a bar and having to step outside every now and then for a smoke?

Since the crowd I run with is very much into the bar scene, I'm speaking for experience here. Those in our group who are smokers generally stay home when we go to bars in DC now. They'll still come out to Virginia bars (where there is no smoking ban yet), won't go to DC bars. I think it's a little sad that their addiction has made them less social, but it's a fact. Last summer was a big indicator...the smokers were busy planning cook-outs at their places so they could still hang out with us and do it in an environment where they didn't have to worry about smoking bans...yet.

And because I don't go my ladyfriend (who doesn't smoke) doesn't go because she doesn't want to go alone.

Regards, Mugu

Trust me, You *will* find other uses for your money.

In my case, I started adding up what I would save daily from not smoking (about 1.5 to 2 packs a day) and applied the "savings" to my other vice, guitars.

I now have about 15 guitars, 2 ukuleles, a bass, 4 harmonicas, etc. etc. etc.

:thumbsup:

that guy is saying....

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

This is based on a study done in Texas..

..snip
No decline in total restaurant or bar revenues occurred in El Paso, Texas, after the city's smoking ban was implemented on January 2, 2002. These findings are consistent with the results of studies in other municipalities that determined smoke-free indoor air ordinances had no effect on restaurant revenues (2,5--8). Despite claims that these laws especially might reduce alcoholic beverage revenues (2), the mixed-beverage revenue analyses indicate that sales of alcoholic beverages were not affected by the El Paso smoking ban.
..snip

So what if it is bad for business? It certainly isn't catastrophically bad.

Is the business of bars more important than the health of the public?

There is no positive benefit to smoking. None. You should quit, Madhound, it will be the best thing you ever do for yourself.

will do better than the ones that don't. Car companies don't want fuel regulations. Power companies don't want greenhouse gas regulations. Logging companies don't want forestry regulations.

What's the difference with smoking bans? Is anything that hurts a business bad?

:eyes:

I really like how everything is non-smoking in CT.

All I do is go outside at a bar or club. Hasn't stopped me from going out.

I don't see what the problem is. Just go outside to smoke. Jeez, people are lazy fucking whiners.

Smoking in bars = dumbest libertarian argument around. Except for the numbskulls who want to smoke in cars with their kids.

So many threads here center on how business is the cause of all misfortune for people, but when a law is passed that causes a business to say no to YOU, that suddenly changes to, "What happened to the right of the business to make it's own decision?"

Let me get this straight: As long as that choice is to allow you to smoke, you want the business to make the decision. As soon as that decision comes down to how much health care it provides, or whether it pays a living wage, or any other progressive issue, then the business no longer deserves the right to choose, correct?

it nails the hypocrisy right on the head of the pro-smokers.

Just look at this thread.

Bake

The fact that otherwise normal, liberal sensible people want to act out in an authoritarian, dictatorial way just boggles the mind. People who are all for legalizing one weed are now out to ban another. Oh the irony:eyes:

Don't like?

Then stay out, the people in there smoking and drinking will not miss you one bit, because it's too crowded to accommodate someone with a huge stick up their ass.

Going to a bar and not smoking is like going to a strip club and not seeing nudity.


:popcorn:

A separate smoking room (with its own ventilation) and/or an accessible patio would be fine with me.

But here in Tempe, you have to be 50 feet from the doors. Most patios aren't that big. One bar I frequent has a separate door for the patio - you could see people smoking out there and nobody had any reason to go out there unless they wanted to suck in cigarette smoke.

Does this incredibly sensible idea resonate with people here? No, of course not. Smoking's now banned in all bars under any circumstances, which is completely asinine.


I quit smoking 3 years ago. Best decision I ever made.

But these smoking bans are getting way out of hand.

I would say it's possible that they lose money because those people aren't inside buying more drinks. But then, if they're outside smoking on a regular basis, at least they're not getting in their cars then lighting up and getting the smoke-buzz you get and crashing into each other.

weak argument, I know

I have included a link to the research that Michael Pakko who is a senior economist for the St. Louis Federal Reserve. The views of the artical represent the opinions of the author and not those of the St. Louis Federal Reserve.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/op/CRE8OP-2005-002.pdf

What he is saying is that some of the original surveys may not be as accurate as first noted. He is not in any way saying what you are claiming. He says that the surveys need to be done on a larger scale.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Dec/20071218Comm009.asp

"City deserves whole story on smoking ban study"

..snip
Pakko is chairman of the St. Louis County Libertarian Party. The headline of the July 2006 Missouri Libertarian newsletter, Show Me Freedom, read "Libertarians Help Bring Down St. Louis Smoking Ban" and is about the contribution of Pakko and two other Libertarian Party members in that decision. His name appears on nearly every Web page on the Internet that advocates smokers’ rights.

..snip

Perhaps the issue of who funded the Columbia Pakko study is doubly important in that Scollo and Lai in 2006, in an attempt to find all studies on the economic impact of smoking bans, found studies that showed negative economic impact were predominantly funded by the tobacco industry or organizations linked to the tobacco industry and "almost none were published in peer reviewed journals." They categorize Pakko’s 2005 Delaware smoke-free gaming study as among "studies conducted by organizations or consultants with links to the tobacco industry around the time of the study," citing funding links between the Libertarian Party and the Tobacco Institute.

Pakko is also a research fellow at the Show-Me Institute, a St. Louis think tank promoting "free markets and individual liberty" and such things as getting rid of the state income tax. Its annual report does not disclose its funding sources.

..snip

Editors have paid their dues and fortunately in this country have the right to express their opinions. However, readers should expect a front-page article dealing with an important community health and economic issue would inform them of important source information. Conveniently, the front-page headline and article on Dec. 12 supported the editorial that was to come three days later, and neither reported that the study was done by a person who is politically active in opposing smoking bans while stressing his affiliation with the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.

..snip

Attributed to Charles Cowager

I won't laugh too hard, since you don't live in the area, but I'll tell you now to take anything Cowger says with a big grain of salt. Despite the protestations of Mr. Cowger, he isn't and hasn't been a dispassionate observer in this arena, not by a long shot.

bar, restaurant, and club scene must be some sort of aberration. :shrug: Go figure...

it was business as usual and they're doing fine.

As it were.

Right on. Let's just do whatever makes more money (or let people do what makes them more money) without respect to whether there is harm.

That's the American way!

And it's totally fair that servers and bartenders should have to decide whether they can get another job in a non smoking business versus increase their chances of getting lung cancer a couple of decades down the line.

Sounds fair, right? No, not really.

First of all, in the nearby city that imposed a smoking ban last year, even before the ban there were plenty of non-smoking bars and restaurants that people could get jobs in. It was left up to the individual to decide where they wanted to work

Secondly, there are many people who work in restaurants bars who smoke themselves, perhaps a majority who are in the profession. Thus the issue of second hand smoke is a non-issue with them.

Finally, what good is it to go smoke free when six months later your employer goes out of business due to a lack of traffic? Sure, you might have clean lungs but. . .wait for it. . .you have to go find another job, either that or starve:shrug:

There are lots of businesses and industries that have risks built into them, and you know those risks going in. You either accept those risks going in, or you look for another job. That's the way life is(and who ever said life was fair?)

Is that on the table too?

Just following your logic. :hi:

quit patronizing them because the smoke fucking stinks?

Restaurants were actually doing quite well, I would say your point is a moot one.

What do you have against choice? Why not let the business owner decide whether or not to have a smoking establishment? Why not let the patron decide whether or not they want to patronize a particular establishment? I thought part of being liberal and progressive was allowing people the freedom of choice.

and stopped all regulation of pollutants, corporate profits would go up. And people would pay for it with increased disease rates.

I am surprised to see anyone arguing in support of that here. It's a classic case of the profits going to corporations and business owners, while the actual costs are transfered to the private sector. Why would we want that?

Who is saying to get rid of OSHA standards? OSHA has never considered workplace smoking to be a hazard. But I am sure you know better so we should go by your standard.

I did not say OSHA regulates workplace smoking. It does, however, regulate air quality for employees. We can decide that air quality for employees is more important than profit margins, or we can decide that air quality for employees is less important than profit margins.

However, it's hypocritical to decide that employee health is more important than profits - except when tobacco is involved. If the tobacco lobby weren't what it is, it would be covered by OSHA, logically.

No place to play. Which impact the sale of musical instruments. Which impacts companies like Gibson and Fender, who employ a lot of people to make the instruments.

It's a ripple effect. Nothing in the economy happens in a vacuum.

Bake

Musicians are all just drug-addicted losers anyway. Hey, Bake, we're proof, ain't we?
The Professor

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yep, we're just a buncha derelicts.

I'm going downstairs for a smoke (and damn it's COLD down here in Mis'sippi today!!).

Bake

Cold. You don't know what cold is, Bake! You need to learn violin, then you can play yourself a sad song!

Just Kiddin'! I heard that there was a cold snap down there. Seems like it's cold everywhere east of the Mississippi right now.
The Professor

I just don't LIKE the cold! We've got freezing rain down here, fer cryin' out loud!

I'm gonna sit at home tonight with a nice warm drink and my Martin ... I suggest you do likewise! Cheers!

Bake

Have a good weekend. And given that i've been to Cincinatti about 40 times in my life (all times per year), you still don't know what cold is! So there!

Play well, Bake.
The Professor

from the end of January to mid-April, it not only didn't get above FREEZING, it didn't get above ZERO!! That cold enough for ya?????

Sheeeeeeeit, man, it was COLD!!!! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Don't like the cold weather!! Thought I was escaping it! At least I don't have to shovel my driveway anymore!

:rofl:

Bake

...before the no smoking in bars law went into affect, we stopped playing out at bars since half of the band would lose their voice after a night of smoke in our faces.

I can't tell you how great it was to be able to play half the night at a pub, still have my voice the next day, and not have my hair and clothes reeking of ciggies.

That was my original point. Musicians have had to deal with that forever.

Bake

It just wasn't worth it for us to be miserable while we played, and feel lousy and stinky the next day. We made music because it was fun. Playing in a smoke-filled bar was not fun.

rookie.

:eyes:

:smoke:

:thumbsup:

*cough cough*

Not one venue where I perform was hurt by the smoking ban. Now, the ASCAP police...

The problem is a lack of education about the subject. Drugs that are only there to make you happy stupefy you to your own humanity at the same time

Numerous studies have looked at the impact of smoke-free laws on businesses in states and localities that have enacted bans. Those studies, many of which were conducted or funded by public-health groups or agencies, have concluded that bans have little long-term impact on sales or employment.

After Massachusetts enacted a statewide smoke-free law in July 2004, a study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that the ban had no effect on patronage at bars and restaurants, meals tax collections and employment. The study also found lower levels of pollutant air particles from secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants.

A March 2004 report by several New York City agencies concluded that the city's smoke-free law enacted one year earlier did not hurt sales at restaurants and bars. Business tax receipts for restaurants and bars increased 8.7 percent during the year, compared to the year before the ban, while employment in restaurants and bars increased by 2,800 when adjusted for seasonal factors.

A study by researchers at the University of Kentucky found that restaurant employment increased about 3 percent in the five months after the city of Lexington adopted a public, indoor-smoking ban in April 2004. Bar employment dropped 5 percent, though researchers concluded factors other than the ban may have contributed to that. Payroll withholding taxes remained stable in restaurants, bars and hotels.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics/general_assembly.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-01-25-0087.html

Bars are close to empty. Isn't it possible that some bars can become smoking clubs to get around the law?

I'm from Will County. About 50 miles southwest of Chicago.
The Professor

No smoking. People went outside into the sub-zero weather to smoke. Me too. So what? I don't see the problem.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Smoking in public establishments is going the way of spitoons! Get used to it. I'm betting there were whining saloon owners who swore getting rid of spitoons would cost them business.

It's a friggin' health issue for both the customers and the workers. No way I'd like to go back to smoking allowed in my place of employment. I'm old enough to remember when it was impossible to find work any where that was no smoking short of a fireworks plant. So don't spew this crap about employees finding another job.

I can't wait for my stupid state legislature to finally get around to banning smoking in this ashtray of the Northeast.

IMHO a lot of bar owners are the biggest whiners in the world. Right now in my county they are whining about a 10% drink tax where the county executive had little choice than to either put it on the drinkers or on the property owners to fund mass transit. Yeah there should be a better way on this, but these bar owners were also the ones who got our county smoking ban shotdown last year.

There are businesses and activities I avoid because of smoking. Where's my rights?

Public health is more important than whether or not a business can make money.

:smoke:

A look at ONE city for the first 7 months of a smoking ban, a 5% drop in business?
We've had a smoking ban here in NYC for several years and restaurants are doing better than ever.
This is not "official" because some Chamber of Commerce, Republican appointed Fed guy says so.
Bullshit I say, Bullshit.
A smoking ban in Helana Montana demonstratively reduced heart attacks.
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2003/montana-smoking-ban-credited.html

Since it was done in 2003 I would think they would have had time to make up some by now.

"The group of doctors who conducted the study said that the ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and other public places helped cut the heart-attack rate by more than half this past summer.

"It led to an immediate and dramatic decline in the number of heart attacks we saw," said Dr. Richard Sargent, co-author of the study.

Helena's smoking ban went into effect last June, but lasted for only six months because of a legal challenge.

The study said that heart-attack rates returned to their usual level after the indoor-smoking ban was lifted.

The study is the first to examine the impact of smoking bans on public health. The findings were presented at the annual scientific meeting of the American College of Cardiology, held recently in Chicago."

Fact; heart attack rates cut in half

Fact; rates return when ban is lifted.

You can ignore the facts, but they are there.

If there was a legitimate medical study that said heart attacks would be reduced in half because of a smoking ban it would be on the front page of every newspaper in the country. The Lung Association and Heart Association and everyone else would be throwing this study in everyone's face. This is an article from 2003. Nothing has been heard from it since. Why? Because it is silly on its face. Even the most anti-smoking fanatics don't suggest there would be some dramatic immediate decline in heart disease from a smoking ban. The biology and physiology of humans doesn't support it. How many people were involved? What was the previous heart attack rate? This study is a total fraud and that is why it disappeared.

But a small limited study of one Community makes it "Official", as the OP says, that a smoking ban kills business.
Kettle, meet black.

That really isn't the point as far as I'm concerned. I think a bar owner has the right to make the bar smoking, or non-smoking or something in between as he sees fit. No one is forced to go into a bar or to work for one. Please no one tell me that bars have the only jobs available and people are forced to work there. That is nonsense. Also ask anyone who works in a bar and they will tell you smokers leave the best tips. Non smokers give their money to the owner but generally stiff the employees.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/04/04/restaurants_bars_gain_business_under_smoke_ban/

Restaurants, bars gain business under smoke ban
By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | April 4, 2005

Sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of a statewide smoking ban, disproving predictions that the prohibition would inflict serious damage on the hospitality industry, Harvard researchers are scheduled to report today.


As part of the study, analysts from the Harvard School of Public Health tested the air in 27 bars and restaurants both before and after the ban went into effect last July 5. The result: Dangerous cancer-causing toxins plummeted by 93 percent once cigarettes, cigars, and pipes were banished.

The findings arrive as the campaign to eliminate smoking from its last indoor public havens gains momentum not just nationally but globally, with European nations, led by Ireland, moving to extinguish the tradition of a Scotch and a smoke at pubs, nightclubs, and restaurants.

It is a movement hailed as a signal public health triumph and a sweeping social shift. But an increasing body of evidence also suggests that what's good for the health of workers and patrons may also boost the bottom line of businesses.

more at the link

I personally know of two bars that were killed thanks to NYC's smoking ban. It was Bloomberg's first priority when he got into offic which was a surprize since he never mentioned it during the campaign.

All you non-smokers who think these bans are so great--get your asses off the computer chair and GO OUT AND DRINK AND SOCIALIZE. Now you can. Isn't that what you wanted? The air is clear, right?

So where the hell are you?

If those poor benighted bar workers are so important to you, why aren't you out supporting THEM by supporting this new environment you wanted so much? Why the hell are you posting on DU on a Friday night? (Are you on your laptop in a bar that has WiFi? Oh, how upscale of you!)

Me, I'm posting from home with a glass of wine and an ashtray by my side. I might go out and meet a friend for a drink later because we know a place that, y'know, winknudge. Otherwise I wouldn't. (It's 15 degrees outside).



A LOT of people share my thought process, I suspect.

And not have to breathe in smoke.

And yet, there are no shortages of bars and restaurants that thrive in the county. If some go out of business its because there are SOOO many different places to go. Funny that. And the counties to the north and west don't have the same ban either.

Popular health magazines ... contain warnings against the dangers of smoking. The scientific research into the health effects of smoking goes hand in hand with extensive health promotion activities aimed at reducing the prevalence of the habit.

Transportation, workplaces, and public buildings become targets for smoking reduction campaigns. Smoking is prohibited in many individual workplaces and public buildings, including government bureaus, hospitals, and rest homes. Tobacco manufacturers cannot represent the use of tobacco as a sign of manliness.

Excerpts from Contemporary News?... GUESS AGAIN!!!


http://www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/nazi2.htm

destroying their health because tobacco corporations have succeeded in perpetuating cardio-pulmonary disease causing addictions should consider changing careers.

The reports of his that I found are mostly critical of previous findings based on aggregate effects in a geography rather examining whether distributional ones are different.

I don't have time to read and digest his analysis but a search on "Michael Pakko" + Federal Reserve will point those interested in the right direction.

I will even venture to say that, yes, they would be 'willing to sacrifce small businesses on the alter of their Puritan zeal.'

If non-smoking bars don't hurt business, but if some bar owners want to have smoking in their places...

why not have diversity? If you don't like smoking, don't go to that bar. If I don't want to go to a bar that's the equivalent of the Olive Garden, I won't.

the employee health issue? nearly every bar worker I've ever known smoked. if they have no problem with this, why can't people who like to go out to places that allow smoking be able to do so?

please don't talk to me about public health issues. there are such bigger and more important public health issues that, apparently, govts, local and federal, or anti-smoking crusaders do not address that cause far more public health dangers. PCBs in groundwater. Mercury in fish. god knows what coming from the faucet tap. why is it okay to harass the individual, but ignore the bigger issues of corporate responsibility for the damage they do and govt responsibility to hold corps accountable?

how many of these bars impacted are small businesses or corporate megaliths?

and don't make some smart ass remark about paying for smokers' health care when this nation has the fattest pop on earth who have no problem eating themselves into a diabetic coma. Are they next? Door-to-door sugar police? Their food consumption is a monetary issue. A public health issue. Do I have to pay for their insulin? oh, and exercise addicts. do I have to pay for their surgeries?

I can't stand fundamentalists. They're bad for my health because of their ridiculous beliefs that make my life more difficult, and my govt. more idiotic. Can we make a law that forces them to stay home if they choose to engage in cult activities? They make by blood pressure go up, they believe things intended to hurt me. Why aren't fundies a public health issue? I know a huge amount of people who don't like to be in their presence. Oh yeah, I can choose not to be around them, and they can choose to associate with one another.

smokers that I know go to great lengths to remove themselves from non-smokers. bar owners could have divided sections with air filters for different patrons, and a patio, as someone else noted. in fact, a biz in town had that but they went out of business after the city-wide smoking ban. that's not to make any statement about whether or not the ban is good or bad for biz. it's that this bar owner thought it was reasonable to cater to both smokers and non-smokers. bands do not have to play in bars that allow smoking. or the stage could be in the non-smoking area. but who cares if someone goes out of biz. it's a public health issue, right? the owner of that bar noted that non-smokers didn't make up the difference in patrons. that bar/rest. employed more than three dozen people. at least they don't have to worry about second hand smoke...

You must determine what is good for them. We must do what you determine is good for us.

if we want to be "debauched," what business is it of yours? If, as I noted, diversity would allow for diff. types of places, or diff. sections within bars, how is it your business to determined who may or may not smoke in a bar?

Many waiters like smokers, btw, because they tip more and have larger tabs. you can find this yourself via google. The idea that no public health issue has a foundation if smoking is tolerated BY CHOICE is another straw man. c.f. obese americans. c.f. dui laws, which occur because someone does not have control of his/her facilities operating a vehicle. health standards for restaurants that deal with salmonella, etc. --that's not about a CHOICE to knowingly eat salmonella-infected food or not.

I don't want to step on your rights, but I also don't want you to dictate mine. smoking is legal. prohibition failed. we're all gonna die. if people engage in dangerous behaviors, that's their business. they don't want to hurt you in the process and accommodations are possible.

Fundamentalist in religion -- bad/evil.

Fundamentalist in "no smoking" - they are perfect and not to be questioned.

As for choice -- not when it comes to smoking, owning a gun or school vouchers. Sorry to go off topic.

And read the other posts I've made in this thread, you would find that I'm in your corner on this one, and really don't need to listen to your vitriol for no good reason.

Peace:hi:

I wrote it in response to the many comments here.

so, don't worry, you don't have to listen to my vitriol, because there is none here directed at you. maybe you should read my post in the context of this thread.

so, yeah, peace.

:eyes:

I had a taste for a beer last night and instead of going to one of them I went an got a six-pack and came home and drank my beer in the garage with a cigarette.

Don

Make people pay more to run and participate in smoking establishments.

Health is a good thing, but we're also a nation about freedom.

Here in NYC, you should be able to legally walk into a smoking bar... buy smokes with a high sin tax... spend a bit extra due to the licensing fees and regulatory requirements of operating such an establishment... and freely sit in the mandated wind tunnel with other pretty smokers.

=D

The "smoking bans are bad for business" argument belongs on the same shit-heap as the "CO2 caps are bad for business" shill swill.

Assuming your premise is correct, it can be easily shown that local and state governments limit business activity in very concrete ways already.

I live in a small town and the city only grants a finite number of liquor license to local bars. This is arguably more of an business constraint than any smoking ban, therefore I would expect you to be similarly outraged.


Doesn't money that can't find find an immediate outlet invariably redirect itself towards other purposes? A year of reduced socializing might go towards a small engine repair expenditure or home renovation project. Bars don't strike me as having some innate nobility which elevates them above other business categories.

Here's what I've noticed in Western Massachusetts:

Establishments that used to function only as places to drink, smoke, and pee are falling apart at the seams.

Establishments that have something else to offer, whether it's an extensive beer list, a lot of pool tables, broad access to TV sports, or unique food are proliferating.

The smoking ban is just making bar and restaurant owners try a little harder to attract clientele.

nothing to do with the fact that, because of soaring energy and food prices, people aren't going out to eat or party as often? Seems to me that would be at least as big a factor, especially if the ban/downturn occurred simultaneous with the last year or so of $3/gal gas and $5/gal milk.

From a personal perspective on smoking bans, I stayed home or hung out with non-smoking friends rather than going out to restaurants/bars because the smell of the smoke nauseated me and gave me U/R difficulties within just minutes. I finally was able to go out and enjoy a meal or a drink occasionally when they banned smoking here in CT a few years ago. I had more than a few friends who felt/acted the same way. And I won't go into detail on watching my grandfather die of emphysema after smoking for 60 years, or watching my dad suffer, and I do mean suffer, with the same disease today, after smoking for more than 30 years. They were both wise and kind enough to never smoke inside the house or car when any of us were around.