Fall-out from comprehensive smoking bans

[Loonman]

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html


Interesting....

[beyurslf]

1. How does he "prove" that the

smoking ban caused them to close? If all businesses in town are required to ban smkoing, then where do those patrons who stop coming go? Do they just eat at home all of a sudden or stop bowling or never go to a bar anymore?

[Loonman]

5. Uhhh, yes...

n/t

[SlavesandBulldozers]

6. well

in a way he's proven it by not having a single quote saying "Ever since this smoking ban my business is booming!" Here in Florida, where they just passed a similar law, all of the restaranteurs are saying the exact same thing those people quoted are saying - that the law is buthering their restaraunts.

[KAZ]

7. To answer your questions...

Yes. On most Saturday afternoons, the wife and I bowl a few games, then pop into a local bar to shoot a few games of pool (I know, degenerates). We both smoke, and there is no way in heck we would continue this little "hobby" if smoking were prohibited.

In fact, we took a trip to Hawaii last summer, where smoking is universally banned in restaurants. Mostly, we ate appetizer-like dishes in semi-outdoor bar areas, where smoking is allowed.

It's a hard addiction man.

[sangh0]

102. For every smoker like you

there's a non-smoker who used to keep away in order to avoid the smoke.

[Scairp]

50. This is such crap

Bars and restaurants come and go and smoking bans make no difference. They bitched and whined when the California ban was passed (by the voters) and people did not stop going out to bars and restaurants. Right now the battle is in Ireland, and if you think American smokers are pissed you should go over there and mention the imminent smoking ban. Those people smoke us under the table. Not much of an anti-smoking campaign going on either, at least that I took notice of. But I, for one, will be glad because I literally became physically ill the first time I went into an Irish pub filled with cigarette smoke. I got somewhat used to it, but I did not enjoy having everything I wore and my hair reeking of smoke.

[LeahMira]

61. We go home...

If all businesses in town are required to ban smkoing, then where do those patrons who stop coming go?

... with take-out.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. As a smoking Californian

I could have told New York this. I know too many bartenders, servers, cooks and other workers who were thrown out of work due their places of employment closing their doors. It's too easy and cheaper for smokers/drinkers to congregate in private homes where they are WELCOME.

In my house, the non-smokers have to step outside. B-)

[Tempest]

29. CA restaurant business when up after smoking ban

After a 6 month dip in business when the smoking ban was put into place in California, business revenues started going up and climbed higher than pre-smoking ban levels.

I'll look for the study on this.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. great link

It's not so much that people's freedoms were taken away, hell that's the government's job. But when people start losing a shitload of money, look out!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. I suppose a poor economy

and massive job losses might contribute to bars & restaurants losing business.

I certainly don't eat out as much as I used too. But when i do, it's nice that there is no smoke!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

9. lol

"I certainly don't eat out as much as I used too. But when i do, it's nice that there is no smoke!"

It's pleasant, too, to know that the government forced them to become non-smoking, isn't it? I bet every time you eat out its nice that there'no smoke, in fact, I'm sure the atmosphere is pleasant, what with no customers, nobody at the bar, and fewer employees. Hell you practically have the place to yourself, eh?

[Bandit]

15. Sounds like you think the 25% who smoke should be allowed to dictate

to the vast majority who do not smoke that they must endure foul, harmful air just to satisfy your disgusting habit. The human being needs three things to sustain life, Food, Water, and Air. If you let me piss in your water and shit on your food, I'll let you fill my air with equally foul substance.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

19. so they forced you in a smoky restaurant

and locked you in, did they? or did you go there by choice?

[pnb]

21. "Must" endure?!?

You don't have to endure anything. You have absolutely NO right to have everything exactly as you want it in a private establishment.

[Bandit]

30. But they aren't "Private establishments" They are Public

If you wish to smoke in private fine..go far it ..it is your life. But when you want to smoke in Public you are infringing on others rights. I have a right to somewhat clean air just like I do clean food and clean water. You should have no more right to foul my air than you would to foul my water or food. Are you saying you should be allowed to drive out customers because of your habit just because you want to. Clean air doesn't drive anyone away but filth does.

[3CardMonte]

92. Private establishments

They are private establishments. They are private property, and the onwers can deny you service if they so choose.

Also, the NY ban even bans smoking in PRIVATE CLUBS!!! Yes, PRIVATE!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

105. don't forget NYC has made an exception for very wealthy establishments

Go to a hotel club that caters to the wealthiest people and you will find smoking allowed. Bloomberg allowed smoking at Guiliani's wedding. The rich do whatever they want.

Now if the neighborhood bar lets you light up, they get fined and maybe shut down. They even covered this in the papers, but it's expected so it didn't surprise anyone.

[Bandit]

106. So can they ban Blacks?

:shrug:

[pnb]

134. They are private though

They are owned by private individuals.

And regarding my right to drive people out, the right is up to the owner to allow that happen or not because he/she/they want to...not necessarily a good business decision all the time but still their perogative. In other words, if the owner is cool with it, I do have the right...at least as much right as you would have to do the opposite.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Wrong

The clear air is for workers and we make that decision just like we make other decisions (like getting rid of asbestos) for worker safety.

[pnb]

135. If that's the case...

...tell it to the person I responded to, not me. That person was the one complaining that he/she personally did not want to put up with smoke and I responded to that.

[Valarauko]

36. Absolutely

The whims of the majority's are not all-powerful. They limited by the RIGHTS of the minority. As a non-smoker, I oppose public smoking bans. :-)

[djg21]

48. Can you please show me . . .

the source of your supposed "RIGHT" to smoke in places of public accomodation. Excuse me, but I must have missed that Amendment when I studied the Constitution in law school.

The fact is that you have just as much of a right to smoke in places of public accomodation as you do to slug someone over the head with a baseball bat. You may wish to do it, but that doesn't give you a "right" to.

If our elected officials decided to criminalize tobacco, they probably could.

[3CardMonte]

98. No one is arguing

that smokers have a right to smoke wherever they want. What I, and others argue is that the OWNERS of the business and property have the right to determine if smoking is allowed or not.

Tell me, regarding private property rights, what is the difference between the government banning smoking on my property and forcing me to allow smoking?

If government has the right to ban smoking in private establishments, does it then not rightly follow that it has the authority to ban smoking in private residences? If not, why not?

[djg21]

99. It does have the authority

Marijuana use is illegal -- even on private property. Alcohol was also illegal for a time (albeit by virtue of a Constitutional Amendment) even on private property. Of course, I'm referring to the Prohibition.

Because the Government (meaning the States and/or the Federal Government) opts not to do something does not necessarily mean that it is without the power to do so.

[3CardMonte]

101. Those are/were illegal

MJ is illegal. Alcohol was at the time you are talking about.

But tobacco is a LEGAL substance. As alcohol is now. So, I ask again. It is within the governments rightful power to ban my use of these substances in my home?

And in regardes to private property and government control. I can drive 100 MPH drunk out of my mind on my own property and the government can not ticket or arrest me.

[djg21]

116. Your argument doesn't make sense

Marijuana possession and use is only illegal because the various state legislatures and the Congress passed laws making it so. Prior to the enactment of those laws, MJ possession and use was legal. Similarly. before Prohibition, Alcohol was legal. After the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, alcohol became legal again.

In short, tobacco is legal merely because neither the States (putting aside supremacy/commerce clause issues) nor Congress have enacted legislation restricting it's possession/sale/use.
There is nothing in the Constitution, or elsewhere for that matter, that would disallow Congress or the States from regulating, prohibiting, or criminalizing tobacco.

Indeed, you can in fact be arrested for possessing black-market, tax free cigarettes (assuming saleable quantities) on your "private property." It happens all the time!

[3CardMonte]

123. You are correct

There is nothing in the Constitution, or elsewhere for that matter, that would disallow Congress or the States from regulating, prohibiting, or criminalizing tobacco.


You are correct, but again, your answer to my post had nothing to do with the question asked.

[djg21]

130. I was addressing your other question.

I think we agree that the government likely "has the authority to ban smoking in private residences." That was the question ti which ?I was responding.

Your other question was:

" regarding private property rights, what is the difference between the government banning smoking on my property and forcing me to allow smoking?"

I don't know if there is a logical distinction that can be made.
The Government can both proscribe conduct, and require conduct, on private property. For instance, many businesses are required to make themselves handicap accessable. This would be an example of the government affirmatively requiring a private property owner to engage in conduct that he/she otherwise would not want to.

I would suggest that the government has a right and obligation to exercise it's police powers to advance the health, safety and welfare of the general population. Of course, any exercise in police power will result in a diminution of someone's liberties, at least to some extent. This is a cost that is incurred when we elect to live in society.

[SoCalDem]

107. THAT is the real issue.. Owners should be able

to offer what the customers want.. In California, they had to disallow this because most bars had owners and staff who are smokers.. They wanted to be able to decide for themselves.. It would have been a simple thing too.. Employees (who mostly were smokers anyway) could have signed a paper stating that they knew smoking was dangerous)..

The owner could have added signage out front that stated that this was an establishment that allowed smoking.. The non smokers would have had the option to go to a different place, but the smokers would have had a place to hang out as well..

The "do-gooders" would not accept this policy, because they knew full well that the "non smoking" bars would suffer, and the smoking allowed places would boom..

There has been study after study, that pointed out the fact that people who smoke have "tended" to be MORE likely to go to bars and socialize..

Liquor and tobacco have always been a twosome.:)

Californians are a bit luckier than some places, since a lot of restaurants and bars just added large outdoor areas.. So we can have it both ways.. Our "Don Jose's" has a much nicer patio than the inside of the restaurant.. We prefer eating out there.. Every time we have eaten inside, we have been annoyed to death by screaming babies, rambunctious kids who refuse to stay seated, and uncomfortable booths..

But over all, we just have saved money on our eating out habit.. We did manage to break that one.. We used to eat out 3or 4 times a week, now it's about once every other week..

Even back in the smoking/non-smoking days, we always had to wait for a table, while nonsmoking tables sat there ..empty..

Another reason we loved Tahiti.. French people are very liberal thinkers.. smokers and non smokers coexist very nicely there..

[LeahMira]

65. Not dictating...

sounds like you think the 25% who smoke should be allowed to dictate

I agree that it's unpleasant not only for you non-smokers, but also for the non-smokers who are waitstaff and cooks. At the same time, I think the decision should be with the individual restaurant owner who can decide which group in the general population s/he wants to target for business. Non-smokers are the majority now anyhow, so restaurant owners would probably choose to have a smoke-free facility if the choice were put to them. Many had already a non-smoking area. What's wrong with letting them decide? Then you decide where you prefer to eat.

[Scairp]

54. We don't eat out as much either

But it's because we can't afford it. I suppose you think it's okay to take perfectly good, clean air and fill it with your cigarette smoke for others to gag on? Where is OUR freedom to breathe clean air while we are paying the same price as you for our food and drinks? Smokers are addicts and are just as unreasonable as anyone addicted to any other sustance. I'm sick of being told your rights are being taken away. I say non-smokers rights are finally being enforced, and high time too.

[LincolnMcGrath]

10. Amen

The Marlboro Militia is trying to spread lies. Eateries open and close all the time in theis country. Just like any other small business. Time will tell whether the amount of closures is actually on the rise.

[Brian Sweat]

12. I think people should be allowed to smoke in restaurants if they want to.

I also think I should be allowed to sprinkle anthrax spores in the air like fairy dust in restaurants if I want to. I mean, who is the government to take away my freedom to spread anthrax?

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. lol

:yourock:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

18. stunning logic

so, let's go one further. Do you know what carbon-monoxide from car exhaust does to your lungs? Do you know how many cars there are on the road, even a road near you and your precious lungs? What will we do to stop this EVIL dead in it's tracks Brian? Surely we need to ban driving immediately.

[Brian Sweat]

28. What does carbon monixide to to your lungs?

Please post proof?



on edit: Tranportation is a necessity. If the exhause from the internal combustian engine is creating a serious health risk, then we should work to create solutions. Since transportation is a necessity, we will have to live with the risks that it creates. Smoking and sprinkling antrax around like fairy dust are not necessities, so I don't have a problem banning them. Also, I don't want people driving their cars in the restaurants either.

[Valarauko]

38. are not necessities

And who exactly defines necessities?

[Brian Sweat]

67. Most people would consider transportation a necessity.

Few people would consider smoking or sprinkling antrax a necessity.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

42. gladly

-snip-

In the lungs, CO competes with oxygen to bind with the hemoglobin molecule. Hemoglobin prefers CO to oxygen and accepts it more than 200 times more readily than it accepts oxygen. Not only does the hemoglobin prefer CO, it holds on to the CO much more tightly, forming a complex called carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). As a person breathes CO contaminated air, more and more oxygen transportation sites on the hemoglobin molecules become blocked by CO. Gradually, there are fewer and fewer sites available for oxygen. All cells need oxygen to live. When they don't get enough oxygen, cellular metabolism is disrupted and eventually cells begin to die.

-snip

http://www.ehendrick.org/healthy/000263.htm

actually, Brian, driving is a privilege. We are not guaranteed the right to drive, and if vehicles are causing A)smoke and more importantly B)carbon monoxide, and EVERYBODY DRIVES, why not a big push to ban vehicles? I'm aware that you don't drive your vehicle inside, Brian, thanks. You drive your vehicle outside, right, where the rain and trees magically clean the air and make it safe to breathe.

[Brian Sweat]

71. This is not an example of what carbon monixide does to your lungs

It is an example of what carbon monixide does to your blood.

There is no question that if you get to much CO in your system, that it will kill you, but is there any evidence that everyday exposure to CO emmisions from cars poses any significant healther risks?

Driving is a privilege, but most people would agree that transportation is far more important than smoking.

[Bake]

96. You're kidding, right???

Please post proof that carbon monoxide is harmful??? Well, let's see. Exposure to CO causes a Parkinson-like syndrome, for one. If you breathe enough of it, you die -- that's why people who WANT to die sit in their car with the motor running and the garage door closed. No, I don't have a LINK to it (as if a link proves anything...), but it is common knowledge; hell, it says it right here on the warning label of my cigarette pack ("WARNING: Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide.").

I don't know if CO is harmful to your LUNGS, but it'll definitely f**k up your brain and other body parts!

Bake

[Brian Sweat]

132. No, I wasn't kidding.

I asked specifically about lungs. You specifically said you don't know about the lungs. So why do you respond to my post if you don't know what you are talking about.

I am well aware of how dangerous CO is and I know exactly how it works chemically.

Since you replied anyway anyway, how much exposure does it take to cause these problems? Are people dropping dead in the streets from automobile CO emisions. Is there any evidence that exposure to normal levels of CO emisions from automobiles causes any problems?

[djg21]

41. A question of utility:

We, as a society, have undertaken the cost/benefit analysis, and we agree (right or wrong) that the benefits of automobiles outweigh the harm to our environment, health etc.


We, as a society, have also weighed the costs and benefits associated with smoking in public, and we, through our elected representatives, have decided that the benefits of allowing smoking in places of public accomodation do not justify the harm caused to non-smokers and employees.

We, as a society, make these decisions all of the time. It's called living in a democracy (albeit a representative one).

[SammyWinstonJack]

104. LOL

Great reply! :yourock:

[fishnfla]

112. What is the purpose of a car? What is the purpose of a cigarette

Why do they make cars? Are they addictive too?

NRA logic.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brian Sweat]

64. If you don't like my anthrax, leave the premisis and don't come back.

Second hand smoke can kill. Anthrax can kill. In that way they are the same.

[betio]

49. dupe post

.

[Tempest]

33. 80% of all eating establishment fail

The web site is a joke.

There's no indication of why the establishments closed. Bad location, bad menu, poor service, poor food, economic conditions all play a part.

To blame it on smoking is just picking a scapegoat.

[3CardMonte]

43. The smoking ban in NY

has caused many a restaurant/bar to close. I know of several owned by friends who had to shut the door, and I know employees of others who had to be let go because of the step decline in business.

The fact that the smoking ban has caused the failure of some businesses is not deniable, nor it is deniable that it has caused a severe drop in business at others.

[LincolnMcGrath]

47. Proof? Facts? Links?

Or just your hearsay. I started going to a local bar for their wings after they banned smoking. "Wing" night is still packed, with the smokers out in the lot puffing their life away.

[3CardMonte]

51. Hearsay?

Seeing friends close their businesses is not hearsay. Nor is seeing friends let go from their bartending and waitress jobs because of declines in business.

You can live in fantasy land all you want. But reality is that some businesses have been so adversly affected by this ban that they have gone out of business or had to lay off employees.

[newyawker99]

60. Hi 3CardMonte!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[djg21]

8. Pure CRAP!!!!

"Most of this information comes directly from businesses that have contacted me or my colleagues."

In other words, those restaurants and taverns that had increases in business are unrepresented, and these reports are purely anecdotal.

By contrast, empirical studies have demonstrated a general increase in business within the sector.

See, for instance http://www.gaspforair.org/gedc/gedcecca.htm

"California --In stark contrast to predictions of economic ruin, bars around the state appear to have enjoyed a healthy increase in business during the first year of a controversial smoking ban, fresh sales data show.

Two retail categories that cover bars and taverns posted sales growth of 6.1 percent and 5.1 percent during 1998, according to a year-end report compiled by the state Board of Equalization, which collects sales taxes.

Those figures straddle a 5.6 percent overall increase in retail sales statewide during the year."


http://www.gasp.org/nyrest.html

"Since the city banned smoking in restaurants in 1995, restauranteurs have complained that the prohibition is bad for business. On Monday, a group of academic researchers, admittedly anti-smoking ones, released a series of six analyses suggesting that the ban has not hurt.

The studies indicated that the anti-smoking law, which took effect on April 10, 1995, has had no effect on local sales, job growth or income. The studies, which were financed by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program, which receives money from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, showed that restaurant industry jobs rose 18 percent from 1993 to 1997, to 19,347."

http://www.cleanlungs.com/education/features/tourism2.html

"The report by two UC San Francisco researchers, to be published today in The Journal of the American Medical Assn., found that hotel revenue in about half the states and cities actually jumped after strict smoking laws were enacted.

The study also concluded that tourism from foreign lands--where smoking often is more accepted than in the United States--was not curtailed by restaurant restrictions."

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030929/flm007_1.html

"Findings from a recent poll conducted by the New York City Coalition for a Smoke-Free City indicate that 83 percent of New Yorkers say they are going to bars and clubs just as frequently as before the smoking ban went into effect and 35 percent say they attend bars and clubs more frequently because of the ban."

And for a list of studies,

http://directory.google.com/Top/Health/Addictions/Substance_Abuse/Tobacco/Secondhand_Smoke/Public_Places/Restaurants/

The fact is that some small taverns that cater to the hard-drinking, smoking set will be/have been harmed. But, the majority of business in the hospitality industry have seen a spike in business as a result of smoking bans.

[LincolnMcGrath]

11. Nice work

:yourock:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

13. great sources

wow, great studies of the smashing success of the smoking ban. Great sources too, THe Journal of the AMerican Medical Association, a poll from the New York City Coalition for a Smoke-Free City and www.gasp.org. One could hardly come up with a more independant inquiry, im sure.

It comes down to personal freedoms. Should a business owner be able to decide whether or not he will allow smoking?

[djg21]

32. A dare!!

Why don't you post some legitimate and defensible economic studies (not anecdotal whining of supposedly harmed tavern owners) that support your arguments?

The fact is that you cannot, BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST!!!!!!

Personal freedoms? Are you "personally free" to assault someone with a baseball bat? Why should you be able to subject people to your toxic second-hand smoke in places of public accomodation?

BTW, you remain free to smoke -- in your home, in your own car, outside, etc. It's a matter of personal choice, and the simple fact is that most people (and most people who go to restaurants and bars) DON'T SMOKE and have chosen, through their elected representatives, not to be subjected to second-hand smoke in places of public accomodation.

Keep in mind that in a democracy(even a representative one)the minority at time may be inconvenienced to serve the needs, and greater good of the majority, and the society as a whole. .

[3CardMonte]

53. Not for long

BTW, you remain free to smoke -- in your home, in your own car, outside, etc.

NY has under consideration a law banning smoking in your car. And there have been attempts by some towns to ban smoking in homes. Luckily those have not passed. Yet.

And why do you find it impossible to believe that some businesses have been so adversly affected by smoking bans that they have gone out of business or had to reduce their staff?

[djg21]

56. Response

"And why do you find it impossible to believe that some businesses have been so adversly affected by smoking bans that they have gone out of business or had to reduce their staff?"

I'm sure that there are some isolated businesses that have been adversely impacted. I can think of a few bars up here in upstate NY that cater solely to the "blue-collar" after-work crowd. I'm sure that those establishments will suffer when "joe sixpack" decides to drink a case of beer at home where he can smoke, rather than getting tanked at the local tavern. But despite the fact that some establishments may suffer, overall, restaurant and bar patronage has, and will continue, to rise as a result of the smoking bans. This has been the experience in EVERY municipality that has enacted smoking bans!

And by the way, if I'm not mistaken, the legislation regarding smoking in cars to which you refer pertains only to smoking while minors are also in the car.

[3CardMonte]

58. You are correct

on the matter of smoking in cars. Either way it is an out of control governmental infringement.

The biggest beneficiary of the smoking ban has been grocery stores and other retailers of adult beverages as their business has gone way up because people are drinking at home and not at bars.

And being a betting man, I would wager that total bar/restaurant sales for the year prior to the ban will be higher than for the year following the ban for NY State.

[djg21]

70. I'd take your bet . . .

but for the faltering economy overall. How can you measure the impact of the tobacco ban in a vacuum, especially give the rampant unemployment in the upstate regions? Eating in restaurants requires disposable income, and there is simply less of that these days!

[3CardMonte]

81. Here is a way to do it

Compare year to year sales in NY to PA. Year prior to ban, year after ban, not Jan 1 to Dec. 31. Both north east states and would be very good states to compare to each other. If NY had a reduction in bar/restaurant retail activity and PA had an increase, what would suggest would be the reason other than the smoking ban?

[SammyWinstonJack]

109. With regards to smoking in your car

I vaguely recall reading something about that with regards too smoking while children are in the car while someone is smoking. Something alongs the lines of holding the smoker responsible and possibly banning it. Geez, I wish I could remember where I read that.

[betio]

57. See my google search below...

I saw plenty of evidence that contradicts your results.

[Brian Sweat]

16. There has been a smoking ban in place here in Florida for almost a year.

I haven't noticed a drop of in patronage at the restaurants that I frequent.

I used to be opposed to smoking bans, even though I hate going into restaurants where people are smoking. I figured that if you owned a business, that you had the right to decide whehter or not your customers could smoke, but then I realized that this creates a hazardous working environment.

Some people might argue that if people don't want to be exposed to cigerette smoke, then they don't have to work in these restaurants, but that same argument could be used for every other type of work place hazard. Why should the rechargable battery industry have to protect its workers from cadmium poisoning? If the workers don't want to be exposed to cadmium, they should work somewhere else.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

31. easy answer

let the owners of the business decide whether or not they will allow smoking! If they allow smoking then the people who are working there assume the risks. If they are worried about getting cancer from second hand smoke, oh look next door there's a very successful diner that doesn't allow smoking! Oh gee, isn't living in a free country great!

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Not so easy

Let's let the owners of the business decide to operate without any fire extinguishers or sprinkler systems. After all, safety is a personal choice...

Not.

This is being done for worker health.

[spunky]

79. If you don't want to work in a smoking environment

Find another job. Business owners should be allowed to choose whether or not their establishment is non-smoking. Its not the same as unsafe working environments in factories, etc. Smoking is still legal in this country, and therefore the government should not tell business owners what they can and cannot do in their restaurants. If you don't like it, don't eat/work there.

Man, I need a cigarette now. :smoke:

And while we're speaking of fallacious studies, how about those that take six months or a year of smoking bans, point to lower rates of heart attacks and assume there is some sort of correlation between the two. Propaganda is on both sides.

[Brian Sweat]

83. In your opinion smoking is different from other workplace hazards.

I don't agree. If you don't like living in a state that has a smoking ban, move to a different state.

[spunky]

88. Please explain to me why

A free private citizen should not be allowed to run a smoking establishment and employ workers who don't care if they inhale second hand smoke.

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. Asbestos

Please explain to me why a company can't say it won't have an unsafe working environment where all employees inhale asbestos every day.

It is not a choice for some people. Some people are poor and they take the jobs they can find. It is up to government to protect them.

[spunky]

125. So the government should protect us from ourselves?

There is a difference between asbestos and cigarette smoke.

There are plenty of waiters/waitresses/bartenders who smoke. Asbestos is illegal everywhere in the US. Cigarettes aren't.

If smokers want to work in smoking environments to serve fellow smokers, that's their business. If the government is going to protect us from cigarettes, make them illegal.

If a person wants a job badly enough to be exposed to a LEGAL carcinogen, that is his/her choice.

Until smoking is illegal, those who want to cater their services to smokers should be allowed to.

[Brian Sweat]

39. Then we can allow every other worker to decide if they want to

assume the risk. We can do away with OSHA.

If working 100 feet above the ground poses risks, so what? There is no reason to require that the employer supply reasonable safety precautions. If people don't want to be exposed to the danger, they don't have to work for the contractor.

If you use deadly chemicals in your manufacturing process, don't worry about implementing expensive safety measure to eliminate the chance that your workers will be exposed. If they don't want to be exposed, they don't have to take the job.


Convenience store clerks get robbed and murdered all the time? No problem. You don't need to removed advertisements form you windows so cops can see in and have more than one person on duty at all times. If people don't want to get shot, they just don't have to work for you.

[betio]

55. This is like global warming...

I just did a google search on "smoking+ban business impact" and got about an equal number of negative impact results versus "no impact" or "results challenged" or "positive impact" results.

I didn't read all of them, theres too many. And I am not going to post them, you can use my search parameters and see what I saw for yourself.

The bottom line is that folks are split on this issue right now. Personally, I think that there is more business harm being done than business good, but that's just me.

[djg21]

63. You are wrong ---

Virtually every empirical study undertaken to date supports the conclusion that bars and restaurant patronage overall has gone up where smoking bans have been adopted. While there are certainly anecdotal accounts of harm to the hospitality industry wherever smoking bans were enacted, I have seen no real-world evidence of decreases in restaurant/bar patronage as a result of those bans. Of course, this is not to say that some business will not be disadvantaged.

[betio]

80. How can you say I am wrong?

Did you do the google search and look at the results?

[3CardMonte]

82. Could business increase

at some bar/restaurants because there are fewer of them left because of the ban and thus those who go out have fewer options?

[pnb]

136. There is one other simple part

Quite a few of the studies I've seen saying that people like the smoking bans are done by interviewing people at bars and restaurants...in other words, some of these polls do not take into consideration those who have stopped going in the first place.

This obviously is not a good cross sample of people to base a meaningful study on.

[rucky]

14. If it's owner-operated

There should be no ban on smoking.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. Ten bucks says this guy is getting money from the tobacco companies

Let's not forget that big tobacco is master of astro-turfing. Hell, I was on their mailing list since I was 18, getting regular notices that anti-smoking radicals were faking studies that smoking causes cancer, and quotes from scientists saying that the proof was "inconclusive" that smoking damages your health. "It's an adult choice!"

Here in NYC they have been organizing to overturn the smoking ban, but the city has started a preemptive support campaign so to speak.

I doubt the bar and restaraunt business is losing any money due to this - bars and restaraunts are packed in my neighborhood still. However crowds of smokers out on the sidewalks are sort of a pain.

[Selwynn]

22. Government can't have it both ways....

The can't rigorously defend tobacco and keep it legal, and then let states ban its use all around the country.

A business should be able to decide FOR ITSELF whether or not it wants to allow a LEGAL PRACTICE to take place in its establishment or not.

Don't like it? Make ciggarettes illegal.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

52. totally false choice

Smoking is banned at public places due to the health risk to employees and non-smokers. If you want to smoke in your house or a private place, no one is going to stop you.

Don't pretend it's either "smoke everywhere" or "outlaw tobacco" because no one wants either of those choices.

[Malva Zebrina]

23. ban perfume

If there is one thing that makes me ill in a restaurtant is the nauseating smell of a heavy perfume wafting over to me from the table next to me. Or as I pass each table on my way to being seated. It truly does make me sick--so should wearing perfume be banned in restaurants?

[Selwynn]

25. No kidding - ban bad hair cuts too....

I hate seeing those while I'm at a bar...

Give me a break - I do not support smoking bans, period. I do not support the government telling businesses what LEGAL THINGS they can and can't do.

Don't like it - either make smoking illegal or shut up about it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

74. There's a Chicago restaurant

that allows NO perfume...no men's cologne and no ladies perfume. NONE. The owner is allergic. I "think" it's Charlie Trotter's.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Can I Posit A Philosophical Question?

I have some issues with the anti-smoking movement, but not for the usual reasons, i would think. I smoke cigars, but never in a closed place and never where people are. (Except on a golf course.) I don't even smoke in my own house, because i know it stinks.

But, many folks rightly believe that addictions are a medical issues and drug addicted folks don't belong in jail. I agree with that.

Many people are concerned that the 25% who smoke are trying to dictate to the others.

So, the philosophical construct: Is it not a form of tyranny of the majority to ostracize people with a medically valid addiction by use of the legislative process?

No flames, please. Just asking an honest question that's been bugging me for quite a while.
The Professor

[PVnRT]

35. I would agree

Unfortunately, people involved in such tyranny refuse to admit it, hiding behind whatever reasons they can think of to justify it. And no, I'm not equating this to things like slavery, or misogyny, or other things far worse than ostracizing smokers.

If the government actually wanted people to quit smoking, they would subsidize the costs of stop-smoking aids rather than just provide some shit hotline to call. They are too dependant on the taxes they jack up on cigarettes to ever do that, though.

[ProfessorGAC]

46. It's The Dichotomy That Bugs Me

I think the tyranny of the majority is clearly a matter of degrees, but once the concept of preventing it is violated, the genie's out of the bottle. It's not as bad as slavery, as you said. But, speeding's not as bad as murder, and they're both against the law. Know what i mean?

It just seems there is a philosophical disconnect when it comes to banning a legal behavior that folks just don't want to address.
The Professor

[shimmergal]

85. If the govt. (or anyone) really wanted to stop smoking,

they'd support research into other ways to get the good effects of smoking , or rather nicotine use (like sharpened mental acuity) while eliminating the bad effects of smoke. In other words, look at other "delivery systems." The patches and gum, etc., obviously aren't it, nor do they aim to be, longterm.

[Nadienne]

119. It wouldn't surprise me

if they want smokers to keep smoking. A lot of politicians get a lot of under the table money from the tobacco industry.

And many quit-smoking programs don't work for the majority of those who try it. Actually, I'm a little suspicious of them because if you don't succeed with one program, you go on to the next one, spend your fortunes there. It has been proven that a nicotine addict only physically needs four cigarettes a day. So, how does that explain nic-fits for those who already have smoked more? It's all in their head. All kinds of crooks are making a fortune with smokers as their pawns.

[markses]

26. I smoke

And I approve of all smoking bans except the following two:

1) No smoking in bars
2) No smoking on public streets

I agree with no smoking in restaurants and other public places. However, bars constitute a special case because of the close linkage of smoking and drinking as a practice. Even many who do not smoke regularly smoke when they've had a few drinks. It is a burden to the customers of bars, and frankly, these are not folks you want congregating outside in the street at 2 in the morning! I would make an exception for restaurant/bars. I'm talking only of bars that are bars and nothing else. Smoking bans there are past the limit for me. As for the employees, smoke is an occupational hazard, like the sea for sailors. It's part of the game in a bar. However, I do think bar owners should be required to install effective ventilation machines, as it would cut down on concentration.

Public streets. There is no health risk from passing somebody who is smoking.

I do not smoke in my house. I step out on to the street to smoke. This is a newish (last 2 years) development for me, and I'm comfortable with it. Now, when I'm at the house of people that do smoke indoors, I feel uncomfortable with doing so myself. Just doesn't feel right. I understand that I'm the one with the problem and that others are burdened by it. Just lemme keep the friggin bars, huh? Going into the diviest bars in Hell's Kitchen and seeing a smoking ban is like watching the death of a culture. It's sad and unnecessary.

[Nadienne]

95. I also smoke

...and am in the process of quitting.

(yeah, right, you say. good luck. No, seriously: check it out: http://www.presmark.com/home.htm Quit smoking without willpower or struggle... though it takes a little mental discipline.)

Smokers don't realize how disgusting smoking really is.

And non-smokers don't realize that smokers are numbed to the disgustingness.

For many restaurants, I would say it's pretty pathetic to not be able to go an hour without having one. When you sleep, you go more than an hour, so what's the big deal?

But there are restaurants where college kids hang out for hours. They sit, talk, smoke, and drink soda refills, for hours and hours and hours. And if restaurants make money off of that kind of customer, their menu prices must be way higher than their costs.

[kimchi]

27. There is no tobacco company agenda, people.

It should be up to the owners of the establishment. Here in NVA we have "Joes Pizza" which is non-smoking, and it does excellent business, because people take their kids there. It does not have a bar.

Some people only smoke when they drink. Now, you'd think adults (you know, over 21) should be able to decide if they want to hang out at a smokey bar. It doesn't bother me, because I don't drink anymore. But if I wanted a coffee and a chat, I would not go to a non-smoking establishment. For dinner, fine, I can smoke when I finish, outside. But I won't be hanging out somewhere for hours without smoking.

It is much cheaper to cook a fine dinner myself, anyway. And yes, I do believe that the smoking ban hurts bars. Maybe not pure restaurants, but I guarantee bars are taking a beating.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[3CardMonte]

59. Financing

Who do you think is financing all the litigation challenging the smoking bans?

Bar and Restaurant associations for one.

[djg21]

66. And where do they get the money?

After all -- business is so bad due to the smoking bans?

[3CardMonte]

84. from its members

Where does the AFL-CIO gets its money? FROM MEMBERSHIP DUES! Same palce restuarant associations get their money.

[beyurslf]

62. I have never understood

why people who smoke think they should have the right to in public places. If you don't like it just don't come arguement is not valid. Why should anyone be forced to choose between a meal and cancer? I choose not to smoke for my health. I shouldn't have to avoid places where people might go just because they choose to ignore the dangerous addiction.

Why not legalize drinking and driving? After all, if I am not willing to assume the risk, maybe I should stay off the roads.

Weapons on airplanes? I don't have to fly if that frightens me.

[Character Assassin]

69. No, you damn well should

I shouldn't have to avoid places where people might go just because they choose to ignore the dangerous addiction.

You could ignore patronizing such establishments instead of whining about about going somewhere that you know in advance won't present an atmosphere you feel comfortable in.


Why not legalize drinking and driving?

Why not make another completely specious comparison?

[OldSoldier]

68. Dave Hitt is a cigar smoker

Which side of the equation do you expect him to be on?

I found this humorous: Last year I went to the fall Winston Cup race at Rockingham--the same race that will run this weekend. While the field was on its parade laps, I got out a very nice Punch Punch lonsdale cigar, clipped it and lit it. Almost immediately, the woman in the row above mine tapped me on the shoulder.

"Put out that cigar, it will damage my young child's health." In her other hand was a cigarette. In her husband's hand was a half-smoked cigarette, and her two adult children were also smoking. I smiled and went back to my cigar.

A couple of minutes later, she tapped me on the shoulder again. "If you do not quit endangering my child's health with that cigar, I will have to speak to security about you." There was a fresh cigarette in her hand. Said I, "I'm not endangering your child's health with my cigar, because I refuse to share it with him." And went back to smoking my cigar. (Word to the wise: Row 150 at North Carolina Speedway calls for much stronger cigars than the Punch Punch. I should have brought that Cohiba I was saving.)

About five minutes later, the woman stormed out of the stands, apparently to go speak to security about my damaging her child's health by smoking cigars in open-air grandstands. I don't think the kid wanted any; he looked to be about four. Yup, you guessed it: she had finished her cigarette and had started a fresh one. Five minutes after that, she came back in an especial huff and gave me a dirty look. Apparently, complaining to the management of a race sponsored by a tobacco company about someone smoking in open air doesn't work so well when you're a chain smoker. And yes, she was smoking another cigarette.

[djg21]

72. Me too!

There's nothing I miss more than going to the local cigar bar and downing a glass of port with a nice Fuente. That being said, It's really nice to be able to go to bars that used to be dense with smoke, and not go him stinking like an ashtray!

I'm all for the ban -- now I just bring my own Port and sit on the couch at my local cigar store. That's just fine by me!

[jmowreader]

129. This cigar smoker hates the smell of cigarette smoke

There are four classes of smokable tobacco: cigarettes, pipes, machine-made cigars and hand-rolled cigars.

I cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke. It is truly odious, because cigarette smokers have no idea of how to store tobacco. It must be kept at a certain temperature and humidity--seventy degrees Fahrenheit, seventy percent relative humidity. (FWIW, that's the normal climate in Cuba.) Some cigarettes come in special humidity-retaining packaging--Salem is one)--and the people who smoke those cigarettes get one decent-smelling cigarette out of the pack. Then the tobacco goes to hell by being kept at 98.6 degrees F (IOW, in a shirt pocket) and low humidity, and the cigarettes smoked thereafter stink.

Machine-made cigars stink worse than cigarettes because their smokers handle them like they were big cigarettes (mainly because they are big cigarettes), they buy them off the shelf in the supermarket or the convenience store, and as a result the tobacco is in pretty rough shape.

Pipe smokers? A lot of pipe tobacco has humectants, moisturizers (like brandy) and other freshness-promoting substances. (The kind that's pure tobacco is sold in tobacco shops to people who know how to handle it.) As a result, pipe tobacco is usually in pretty good shape, which is why pipe smoke smells good.

Fine cigars are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. There is a high art to storing fine cigars if you want to keep them in good condition. My wife continues to be amazed at how fine cigars "don't stink."

I went to the 2000 Carolina Cigar Crawl's stop at JR's of Burlington. (The highlight of the day's activity was the tour of the JR Cigars fulfillment department, which is in a warehouse 1000 feet long, 300 feet wide and 24 feet to the ceiling.) There were fifty other people there, all smoking the kind of cigars that cost real money--many people were smoking one and two-dollar cigars, while others were into the serious sticks that cost upwards of $10 apiece. One of the JR's staff walked into the room where fifty people were smoking cigars and lit a cigarette. You could smell the cigarette over all of that cigar smoke. Someone asked her to put it out, it was that bad.

I would enjoy a ban on cigarette smoking which allowed the smoking of pipes and hand-rolled cigars.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Nice set of right wing sites your site links to

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/links.html

[Character Assassin]

86. Are they factually accurate or not?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

89. No I don't find Overlawyered.com to be factually accurate

since so much of it is anecdotal.

[Character Assassin]

90. Well, OK, you find one link unfactual.

That hardly condemns anything, or has anthing to do with being 'rightwing'.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

94. Hmm how about the Junk Science links about global warming being an

ECO MYTH:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761536604/junksciencecom/002-6527062-5139261

[sangh0]

110. I guess dishonesty isn't enough these days

to discredit a source.

The FACT that they use anecdotal evidence to argue a point makes them lacking in credibility and reasonableness.

The FACT that they link to other sites that lie is just gravy. But then, CA is the kind of person who uses Holocaust denial sites for sources.

[Character Assassin]

128. Time to step up to the plate once and for all

guess dishonesty isn't enough these days to discredit a source.

An empty catch phrase, coming from you.

The FACT that they use anecdotal evidence to argue a point makes them lacking in credibility and reasonableness.

Don't tell me you seriously desire to engage in a debate about GW based on actual data? That would be a first.

The FACT that they link to other sites that lie is just gravy. But then, CA is the kind of person who uses Holocaust denial sites for sources.

This has been explained to you innumberable times, but still you trot it out, bedazzled like a toddler with shiny giftwrapping, at it's presumed importance.

The information that I linked to at the site, whose pernicious nature I was unaware of, was completely, utterly and without exception uninvolved with anything other than the issue of the guilt of OJ Simpson.

If you wish to expose the paucity of your rhetorical skills and actually attempt in your fumbling manner to debate something, here's your chance.

[Character Assassin]

127. I can't respond to material at broken links, but how about this?

Since you have an issue with their sources and/or sites, how about specifically addressing which problem you have with what claim their making.

There are manifold legitimate sources that dispute the nature of GW (if it's anthropomorphic, the extent, etc...) but simply because someone disagrees with the contentions of other sources doesn't mean they're incorrect.

Step on up.

[Caution]

118. the link with the published book

"in defense of smokers" is a total crock. I just browsed through the "scientific sections" and this guy's case seems to quite literally hinge on a surgeon general's report from 1964. I guess scientific studies havent advanced since then, or they are all part of a vast conspiracy to put the tobacco companies out of business.

My favorite bit is when he uses a "hunch" (his word not mine) to show that nicotine might not actually be addictive.

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. I smoke

and my husband and I took a trip to NY. MY first trip there. When I found out there was NO smoking anywhere...I was NOT a happy camper. We had to find an outdoor cafe to eat at. Here's 2 people who will NEVER vacation in NY again, not going to happen. Same goes for Colorado. I went there 20 years ago (Aspen) and you couldn't even smoke on the damn sidewalk. That is beyond ridiculous. If a restaurant doesn't allow smoking, we don't eat there. Period. And BARS?? Come on. If you go into a bar or pub, do you not know there's smoking in there? Find yourself a "non-smoking" bar.

[djg21]

76. We'll miss you!

[Scairp]

78. I see

So, nonsmokers, who don't fill the air with potentially toxic fumes are the ones who must accomodate, is that it? No surprise you have this attitude because addicts are most unreasonable people. You are on the losing end of this war because more people don't smoke now days than do. I suggest you get a patch or some gum or something and save your money and your life.

[3CardMonte]

87. Outdoor Cafe

The NY smoking ban is so strict, that you can not smoke on an outdoor patio if it has an awning, or at tables on a patio of they have an umbrella!!! You have to move away from your table to get out from under the umbrella and smoke in an area that isnt covered by the umbrella. Even if all you have to do is move 3 feet!! What the hell kind of sense does this make?

Private clubs are even not allowed to allow smoking. These are not places open to the public. The only exception to this is if EVERY employee is a volunteer.

[in_cog_ni_to]

120. I remember when we went to the

21 Club in NY....costs a BLOODY fortune and I couldn't eat fast enough to get the hell out of there. That was the FIRST restaurant we had gone to and THAT is where I found out there's no smoking in NY! We wasted 100's of $$ because it was such an unpleasant experience. They don't want our money? FINE! No revenues out of my pocket!

We stayed at the Park Lane Hotel, $400 a night, 7 days. Ate at expensive restaurants. Took a cab wherever we went. Bought a $500 Dunhill lighter and a $200 Dunhill cigarette case...for my NASTY habit. Went to the theatre to see RENT, spent 100's of $$. $1000's of dollars spent on a vacation in NY. Now, multiply THAT times 1000's and 1000's of smokers.

You don't want that money? Great! I will GLADLY take it and spend it elsewhere! I thought NY was hurting for tourism? Well, keep on hurting if you're so hell bent on excluding smokers who spend money. IMCPO THAT is very foolish. NY should AT LEAST have "smokers ONLY" restaurants and bars. Smoking IS still legal, you know. So, I WILL take my money elsewhere and I certainly won't miss NY. You can have it. Chicago is at least reasonable in their restaurants and bars... and only 45 minutes away.

This isn't directed at you 3CardMonte....I got off on a rant, sorry.

[SoCalDem]

121. For the money you spent there, you could have had Tahiti

They are tolerant and lovely people..
Click picture for more :)


Moorea Beachcomber Intercontinental Hotel & Air Tahiti Nui airlines.. check it out for your next vacation.. They are French polynesians and smokers are welcomed there, as are non smokers..:)

[in_cog_ni_to]

131. THAT is beautiful!

Tahiti is now on my list of vacation spots. The pictures you have are gorgeous! Thanks!

The sad thing is, I had always wanted to go to NY. It was "top" on my list of vacation spots and it ended up being the worse vacation I've ever had.

Tahiti sounds great...will definitely go there some day!

[3CardMonte]

124. Direct all you want to me

as I agree with you 100%, and I am a former NYer. I hope their anti-tobacco nonsense from massive tax increases on tobacco to their smoking ban causes a massive decrease in tax revenue and hurts them.

Smokers, a tremendous financial resource to government at all levels can only be pushed so far.

Not a single memember of my family that still lives in NY buys cigarettes in NY. They all buy them from the internet, on the black market, and in PA. And I cheer them on.

My brother in law pays $15 for a carton of Marlboro where he gets them.

[Scairp]

77. So I email this guy

Here's what I wrote:

Here in California, the smoking ban has been a roaring success. No more breathing toxic fumes just so I can have a decent meal or go out for a drink. Previously, I payed the same price as a smoker does in a bar or restaurant, but with the added misery of cigarette smoke. I say nonsmokers rights are at last being protected, and high time too. You cannot impose your literally stinking so-called rights on us any longer. The bar and restaurant business is one of the toughest to make a success in and smoking bans are not going to make a difference in the long run. People will bitch and complain, but they will still go out to eat and drink. Your argument doesn't hold water bud. Get over it.

Signed,
A happy nonsmoker

Here's his reply. Really nice guy dontcha think?


Perhaps you should sign it "A Happy Fascist."

Just remember your delight when the nannies come for something YOU like. And you can be sure they will.

Now, kindly go fuck yourself, and darken my door no more

I of course replied that he was an addict and could do with some professional help to deal with his addiction, and that he was welcome to do to himself what he suggested I do to myself.

[PapaClay]

91. This crusade has hit

here in Huntsville (AL). One councilman, fronting for the anti-smoking zealots is pushing a total and comprehensive ban in all establishments. Says, among other things, that he's doing it "for the children".

The fact that restaurants here are increasingly going smoke-free without the help of local ordinances, shows (to me at least) that market forces do work. Problem is, not fast enough for the social engineers.

I really don't care about restaurants. Dining is not a 4-6 hour experience, and I can have my after-dinner smoke in the car. I also think that non-smoking policies are reasonable in family-oriented establishments where children are present.

What cracks me up is bars issue. Not only are children not allowed in the bars here, but these crusader-types would not be caught dead in my favorite clubs. Not only do we smoke (about 80% of us), but we drink (some to excess); listen to live (90 dB+) rock music; and engage in other assorted non-pc tomfoolery and general wickedness.

Lotsa folks do a 180 at the door: put off by either the smoke, the drunks, or the music. They don't walk in and insist that the mains be turned down because the noise level has exceeded the OSHA-mandated 85 dB action level. And no one has proposed an ordinance to limit sound levels in live music venues. Gee, who woulda thunk it?

So if the crusaders get their ordinance, the bar owners that I have talked to, will just revert back to private club status; I'll pay my dues; and we'll carry on.

Of course this will piss off the zealots to no end, because a private club is not a public establishment.

But hey, they're young...they'll get over it.

:smoke:

[3CardMonte]

93. Private Clubs

So if the crusaders get their ordinance, the bar owners that I have talked to, will just revert back to private club status; I'll pay my dues; and we'll carry on.

Not if the law is written by the nicotine-nazi's that wrote NY's. Smoking is banned in private clubs as well.

[PapaClay]

97. They screwed up here

and exempted private clubs. Prob'ly afraid to piss off the Legion and VFW.

It don't matter. If they ban it in private clubs, the bands can rotate through my private residence (BYOB) and we'll smoke, drink, cuss, holler and party even harder. Plus I won't have to be the damn DD.

The harder they push, the harder I push back.

:smoke:

[djg21]

100. Private Clubs

Smoking is only banned in private clubs to the extent that those clubs have employees who are compensated for their labor (or receive considerations such as free memberships, etc.). Otherwise, you may smoke in private clubs without violating NY's Clean Indoor Air Act.

[3CardMonte]

103. Yes

you can smoke in private clubs if 100% of the "employees" are volunteers. If there is a single paid employee of the establishment, smoking is banned.

[fishnfla]

113. All these things you do

you wont be doing for long. Knock yourself out.

[in_cog_ni_to]

122. Nicotine Nazi's! Hahahaha!

VERY, VERY fitting. I like it!

[fishnfla]

111. I would like to see a study on the reduction of 2nd hand smoke illnesses

as a result of this smoking ban.

That would be real simple. How many fewer people are getting heart/lung diseases in these areas? Epidemiologists will soon tell us.

[spunky]

126. They have told us

Its been a while, but I've seen a couple reports that have cited decreases within SIX MONTHS of smoking bans. This is hardly a reasonable period of time to base such studies. It will be YEARS before we know if there is any real difference to health as a result of these bans.

[LynneSin]

114. That is TOTAL bullshit of a link

I live within walking distance of the Back Street Cafe in Wilmington DE and believe me, they did not go out of business because of the Smoking Ban. But smokers love to clump it in there because they 'PERCEIVE' it to be part of the problem.

FACT: The food was horrible there. I ate there twice. Once when it was first opened and about a year later. Both times the food was horrible (I gave it a second chance thinking it would get better - it didn't)

FACT: Their horrible food was way overpriced. There were dozens of other restaurants in the area where I could get a nice dinner that tasted good and was cheaper

FACT: Their service was horrible. My friend had dinner at Back Street with a large group that had a table on the deck. They ran up a giant size bill to boot. Sometime after 9pm some of them had to go to the bathroom and when they went back inside there was a bouncer at the deck door charging $5 cover charge for them to go inside (since they did have a nightclub inside). My friends paid the charge and then proceed to leave no tip on a bill over $200 in size. They wrote on the bill that the tip was used to pay for covercharge so they could use the bathroom.

FACT: Their nightclub sucked big ones. We went a few times and usually ended up someplace over in the Trolley Stop area. The beer selection was poor (and usually skunked/stale) and overpriced. The music was bad and we just found a better crowd at other bars.

That place was going out of business well before the smoking ban in Delaware. Good bars & restaurants that offer either good meals, good selection of drinks or a fun place to be are thriving in Delaware. Just Mugs and Coach House were crappy little dive bars that hardly got patronage before hand and I've never heard of the Naaman's Cafe even years before the smoking ban came in place.

We still go out to drink in Wilmington and the bars are still crowded. Many of the more popular places have decks with propane heaters so folks can go outside and drink even in the wintertime (some of those decks even have outside bars).

Plus for what business we lose from smokers who go outside our state we get back from non-smokers who drive over the border to enjoy our smoke-free places. They attempted to overturn the law and it failed.

Delaware is smoke free and I LOVE IT!!!

[3CardMonte]

115. More like opinion

The four facts you listed are not facts, but personal opinions.

There are several restaurants in the town I live in that are wildly popular, constating getting rave reviews, and friends of mine love going to them.

One in particular, 2nd Empire, is supposed to be one of the best restaurants in town. My wife and I went there for an anniversary dinner after hearing how great it was from friends. Well let me tell you, it was one of the worst experiences of my life in a restaurant.

We had reservations. We arrived 15 minutes early to have a drink at the bar. Checked in to let them know we were there and they said our table would be ready in a few minutes and they would come and get us at the bar. Well, we sit at the bar and I order a beer. I could reach out and touch the tap from my seat. It took 10 minutes! Yes, 10 minutes for them to poor the damn beer and give it to me. Well, 2 beers later, and 45 minutes later my wife goes to the person we checked in with to see about our table. The response... Oh, you havent been seated? Your table was ready when you arrived, and I sent someone to the bar to get you. Well, they never came to get us.

We get seated. Order drinks, apps, and dinner. Food was satisfactory, but nothing approaching great or meeting the reviews and recomendations we had gotten. After dinner they ask if we would like coffee. We order a couple. A few minutes later our waiter asks if we are interested in desert. We order a couple. 15 minutes later our desert arrives, and 5 minutes after we FINISH our deserts our coffees arrive!

Oh, and the left overs from our dinners that we asked to be wrapped. Thrown away.

The bill was over $300 and they will NEVER see another penny of my money. I wrote the owner a letter complaining about the horrible service and the terrible experience we had. I got a letter back that basically said, "Fuck you, my restaurant is the best in town."

Further to my dismay, I later found out that the owner is one of the biggest contributors to the state Democratic party. Well, screw him. I don't care how much he supports our party. I will never support him.

[LynneSin]

117. It could be an opinion......

But it was a general fact that most people I know in the Wilmington Area including the place of business where I work that was mere blocks away from that place pretty much never went there because it was overpriced and horrible food.

Back Street Cafe was going out of business. Even the local newspaper commented about how the guy was have many problems way before the ban. But to the smokers it just 'sounds better' to lump it in as a casuality from the smoking ban.

I remember the first time I went out drinking after the smoking ban went in place. It was about a month or so after the ban and it was the dead of winter. When we got to the bar we couldn't find parking anywhere and the bars in the area were packed.

Plus the area where Back Street Cafe is located, since the ban 3 new restaurants have opened in the area and there is still another one from before the ban. All four are doing well without smoking.

Maybe those 'Facts' are my opinion, but I hardly doubt that anyone in Wilmington DE was suprised to see that place go out of business and very few would actually link it with the smoking ban.

BTW - ironic that none of the bars in the southern part of the state (the more conservative part) are on the list.

In the restaurant/bar industry you either learn to adapt or you go out of business.

[TorchTheWitch]

133. Delaware business...

I know for an absolute fact that the smoking ban in Delaware has really hurt business. I presently work at a club in Delaware, and when the smoking ban took affect, business IMMEDIATELY went down the toilet and has only gotten worse. Delaware has a two-fold difficulty with this law as 1) the PA border is a few minutes drive away, and you can smoke in the PA clubs, and 2) it's damn cold here half of the year, and the smoking patrons simply aren't willing to freeze their asses off while they smoke outside. Granted, things may still be ok in restaurants here, but from personal experience, business in the bars and clubs has been crucified.

The particular club I work at eventually decided they had to bend the law and allow people to smoke in the vestibule and prop the outside door open a bit to let out the smoke. The vestibule is the most crowded area of the entire club. They finally had to make a rule that drinks aren't allowed in the vestibule in order to try to get the smokers crowded in there back into the club itself... some patrons spend their entire time never getting past the vestibule and into the club except when picking up fresh drinks at the bar (waitstaff has been forbidden to take drink orders from the folks in the vestibule as another attempt to get patrons out of the vestibule and into the club).

Oddly enough, the smoking ban didn't just chase out the smokers but the non-smokers as well. This really puzzled the hell out of me at first. After talking to a lot of the non-smoking people who used to be regulars, I discovered that the smoking ban chased out a large portion of the non-smokers because the club became so empty it was no longer fun to go to. The non-smoking regulars that still come in only come in once a month or so for a couple of hours when they used to be there on almost a daily basis for most of the night.

More than half of the workers have long since left. They're driving out to PA and NJ whose business has risen as the result of all the Delaware patrons crossing the boarder to go somewhere where they can smoke. From my friends that work in the PA clubs, I understand that the Delaware folks are also staying and spending money a lot longer per visit since they had to make more of a trip of it to get there in the first place. The PA workers especially have had their income increase, amount of staff has increased and the clubs are now in a position to be a lot more picky about who they hire... there's been some grumbling among the original PA workers that they have to compete harder for the better jobs because of the flood of workers streaming in from Delaware.

The only club in Delaware whose business has boomed because of the smoking ban is the one that refuses to comply with it. They had a jar at the bar with a sign on it requesting donations to pay their fines for not complying with the law. The jar eventually became a big fishbowl as they needed something bigger to hold all the donations. A friend of mine works there and has told me that now only the manager is allowed to take the money out for counting at the end of the night as people have been putting in big bills which would be too tempting for a worker to pocket. She herself found a hundred dollar bill in there before and it's often stuffed with more 5's, 10's and 20's then 1's.

I really like where I work, but I just cannot afford to stay here anymore. My income is mostly based on tips, and since the DAY of the smoking ban, my take has significantly decreased where I am now making less then HALF of what I used to average before the smoking ban. After this weekend, I'm actually going to be calling in to work to break the news that I'll be voting with my feet and going to work in PA again. I had hoped that eventually people would grow accustomed to the smoking ban and business would improve, but with cold weather coming on again (it gets damn cold in the vestibule with the door propped open to let the smoke out), I just have to move on to greener pastures as much as I wish I didn't have to. Personally, I prefer working in a non-smoking environment as cigar smoke makes me gag, and my contact lenses can hardly survive a shift in a smokey establishment. However, I've always considered the irritating aspects of working around smokers as just a downside to the job just like having my ass pinched or asked if my boobs are real by rude customers and customers always badgering me for dates.

Delaware businesses had attempted to have the ban overturned, but it failed, however, a modification to the law that would allow smoking in certain areas without patrons being forced to actually leave the building is in the works. There's no doubt that this law has severely hurt businesses here, especially considering that it was the business owners that have spent thousands of dollars and hours of effort to have the law either overturned or modified. Delaware government would not consider modifying the law without serious evidence being presented that it HAS hurt business. Maybe you have to actually be a worker in the business here to really even recognize the blow we've taken.

[in_cog_ni_to]

137. THAT was a great post!

From a non-smoker who has personally witnessed a financial decline because of the ban. You know, there are ventilation systems that can clean the smoke from rooms. Why can't these states who ban smoking give the businesses the OPTION of spending the money to install a system? Spending money on a ventilation system is a hell of a lot cheaper than losing their businesses. Why can't they have the option of having a completely separate room, closed off to the non-smoking area, ventilated to expel the smoke? In a bar they could easily close off a room. In a bar with entertainment they could put up a glass wall and pipe the sound where the smokers AND non-smokers could enjoy the entertainment. In a restaurant, they can easily have a separate room for smokers. THEN, for employees, hire ONLY smokers to work in the smoking area. What is so damn difficult about that? How would THAT be hurting the non-smokers, I ask you?