Smoking Bans

[carolyn]

Here in Minnesota a lot of cities are reviewing the idea and passing smoking bans in restaurants and bars. St Paul and Minneapolis are next up to bat. Earlier this week I attended an open public forum on the subject. To my suprise more people attended in support of NOT having the ban. I have to wonder with so many people who support the ban, where were they?

 

Here are some comments/arguments from the forum....

 

*Obviously it could hurt businesses (especially the bars). It would be just as easy for folks to drive to another town and have a drink where they can smoke. The financial aspect could be devestating to a number of businesses.

 

*Folks hitting the neighborhood bars will have to step outside for their cig. Having people loitering on the sidewalks will be disruptive to the people who live in the area.

 

*If someone refuses to put out a cig should the bartender/waitress call 911? Are the police REALLY going to come and ticket the person? If so, wouldnt it be a better idea to have the police out patrolling the streets?

 

*How can you make a legal substance illegal on PRIVATE property? Government has no right to interfere with something like this.

 

*It is a person's CHOICE to enter a bar/restaurant where they may be exposed to second hand smoke. It is also the owners right to choose to make their establishment nonsmoking if they feel that is what their clientelle wants.

 

*Tho an employee should have the right to breath "clean" air, for the most part it IS their choice to work in an environment where they may breath second hand smoke. Every job has its hazzards. Its your choice to decide which hazzards are acceptable to you and which are not.

 

*(One of my favorites, tho I dont know how true it is)...The first place they banned smoking in private establishments was in Nazi, Germany.

 

 

Just curious what other people think about the subject, as statewide and city bans have taken place in other areas of the country.

 

 

*

[scott_harpell]

Stale cigarette smoke creates ambiance

[Ratboy]

*How can you make a legal substance illegal on PRIVATE property? Government has no right to interfere with something like this.

 

*It is a person's CHOICE to enter a bar/restaurant where they may be exposed to second hand smoke. It is also the owners right to choose to make their establishment nonsmoking if they feel that is what their clientelle wants.

 

These two sum up my opinion. The government has no business telling a private enterprise whether it can allow a perfectly legal activity on its premises. If someone doesn't like it or feels harmed by the smoke, go to a place that has decided to not allow smoking.

[ashw_justin]

Hurting business? BS. People will buy drinks whether they can smoke at the same time or not. Going to other towns? Aren't we talking about statewide bans here?

[ashw_justin]

*How can you make a legal substance illegal on PRIVATE property? Government has no right to interfere with something like this.

 

*It is a person's CHOICE to enter a bar/restaurant where they may be exposed to second hand smoke. It is also the owners right to choose to make their establishment nonsmoking if they feel that is what their clientelle wants.

 

These two sum up my opinion. The government has no business telling a private enterprise whether it can allow a perfectly legal activity on its premises. If someone doesn't like it or feels harmed by the smoke, go to a place that has decided to not allow smoking.

 

Well they could always classify it as a fire or air pollution hazard, which should put it under the jurisdiction of city management. And it's not private property in the same sense as a home is. It's a place of business and as such is subject to all sorts of increased regulations.

[Ratboy]

The could do all kinds of things, but that doesn't make it right. Commercial property is still private property, and the rights of property owners should still apply. Yes, there are increased responsibilities when dealing with the public, but if the government is going to restrict something, they better have a damn good reason. I don't see protecting adults from themselves as a good reason. If someone doesn't like a place that allows smoking, then they are perfectly able and perfectly within their right to go somewhere else, and vice verse.

[ashw_justin]

Yep. My favorite alehouse/breweries are non-smoking so I agree that consumer demand alone may be able to take care of the issue.

[Rainierwon]

Considering what smokers pay in taxes here in WAcommune they should have a place they can go and let the free market dictate a smoke free bar. Sheeet the bars here in Pierce county are suffering big time while the Indians let smoke flow freely at their casinos and bars. Next thing the gov will restrict is a Big Mac.....

[carolyn]

Hurting business? BS. People will buy drinks whether they can smoke at the same time or not. Going to other towns? Aren't we talking about statewide bans here?

 

No, we are not talking statewide.

 

Yes, it would affect the businesses financially.

 

I havent looked for the study, but there was one recently done in NYC specifically designed toward the smoking ban. I cant remember the percentage exactly...something like 20% less business. For some establishments this would mean an end to their business.

[ashw_justin]

Well the smoke-free establishments do well in Bellingham and in Portland. I guess things are just different out on the left coast.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Well the smoke-free establishments do well in Bellingham and in Portland. I guess things are just different out on the left coast.

 

The restraunt where I worked 15 years ago in Seattle had a smokking area when I started. After a while we noticed that there where empty seats in the smoking area and a line outside. We went all non smoking and always has a big ass line on Weekends.

[cracked]

Smoking is gross.

[carolyn]

cracked-

whether you think smoking is gross or not is beside the point.

[ashw_justin]

no you don't understand, cracked is our future.

[scott_harpell]

chew is where its at.

[EWolfe]

 

 

note: you wouldn't believe the weird shit that came up when I googled "snuff"!

[JoshK]

The business going down arguement is bullshit. I know so many people that would go out more if it didn't smell like shit everywhere.

 

Government can mandate what happens on that property when it's a public place and the behavior harms the health of others. I am all for a ban. People can smoke outside where they should if they want to smoke. Second hand smoke violates other people's personal space.

[johndavidjr]

As far as government banning a legal substance, on private property, what they're actually doing is banning a particular behavior in public places. So in that sense, it's obviously nothing new. Also the 20% figure regarding bar sales in NYC seems suspect to me. I was leaning against bans, until recently when I took up smoking again after quitting ten years ago. Apart from politics & philosophy & public health, personally, I'd just find it convenient not having the temptation. I suppose an alcoholic might say the same about prohibition, which doesn't make it a good idea.

Edited June 11, 2004 by johndavidjr

[EWolfe]

recently when I took up smoking again after quitting ten years ago.

 

Sweet! You health nut, you!

[Dan_Harris]

Smoking in businesses has been banned in CA for quite a few years now. The lost business argument was a big one here and I have yet to talk to or read about businesses that went belly up due to the ban. I forget how nice it is until I travel and go into restaurant and smell the smoke. And smoking areas are a joke. The smoke doesn't know it's supposed to stay there. We all still get to get our second hand smoke as we walk past all the smokers and their cloud of smoke just outside the doors of some estabishments.

[murraysovereign]

I remember smoking in theatres years ago. They long since banned smoking in theatres - I didn't notice them all going bust as a result.

 

I remember smoking in department stores years ago. They long since banned smoking in department stores - I didn't notice any of them going bust as a result.

 

I remember smoking on buses and planes not that many years ago (one of my favourites, courtesy of "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", was the obvservation that having a "smoking section" on the plane is like having a "peeing corner" in the pool ). The airlines have had their struggles these last few years, but I don't think any of them seriously attribute their problems to the smoking ban.

 

Hell, I can remember walking around the local supermarket with a cigarette hanging out of my mouth, checking out the produce and baked goods with ashes dropping off and old butts all over the floor. They long since banned that one, too, and I don't think those supermarkets are hurting for business as a result. Nor do I think anyone has successfully argued that any of the above bans violated anyone's constitutional rights.

 

Some day, smoking in bars and restaurants will been seen in much the same way we now look back at smoking in theatres or on planes or in the produce department of the local supermarket. Bars and restaurants in BC are doing just fine post-ban. The pubs in Ireland are doing just fine - some are reporting increases in business since the bans went into effect. No-one's "rights" are being violated - you can still smoke, just go outside so you're not forcing everyone else to smoke against their will.

 

In other words, no-one's saying you can't pee: just get out of the pool before you do it.

[Dru]

it is so nice to not have any tobacco smoke mixed in with the marijuana smoke on the dance floor at the commodore

 

[arlen]

*Folks hitting the neighborhood bars will have to step outside for their cig. Having people loitering on the sidewalks will be disruptive to the people who live in the area.

 

This is the convincing argument for me, because anybody standing around trying to enjoy a cig in -15 before windchill is bound to be disruptive.

 

*How can you make a legal substance illegal on PRIVATE property? Government has no right to interfere with something like this.

 

NYC's smoking ban was about the workplace, so you'd have to ask how you can make underpaid labor illegal, hazaradous workplaces illegal, etc. For each, it's a matter of the public agency assessing benefits and drawbacks, and that's exactly what's taking place. In any case, it's true that the government doesn't have the right--it has the authority, and it's the prospective business owner that can choose whether or not to run a business.

 

 

Every job has its hazzards. Its your choice to decide which hazzards are acceptable to you and which are not.

 

OK, but if we throw out all the protections against workplace hazards, how will you know what the risks are? Say all the local employers band together to refuse to notify workers of any workplace hazards--where is our noble free citizen going to choose to work? Choices for the working poor are limited, otherwise we'd all be CEO.

 

 

Just curious what other people think about the subject, as statewide and city bans have taken place in other areas of the country.

 

 

Cite from New York Times, but it's a pay-to-read article

 

When New York City banned smoking in its bars and restaurants last March, opponents warned that the tough new law would drive away customers and devastate businesses. Supporters insisted that New Yorkers would quickly adjust.

 

Nine months later, the impact is hardly so clear cut. An examination of government data, public polls, private surveys and interviews with customers, employees and owners of more than three dozen bars and restaurants around the city shows the law having an impact on some businesses, but certainly not on all.

 

Some restaurants and bars say that business is fine — even thriving, as the economy improves — particularly in places where food is a main draw. Further, a vast majority of New Yorkers have said in recent polls that they are happy with the new law. One survey shows that many regular restaurantgoers see a smoke-free environment as an attraction.

 

The early evidence, however, is that many businesses are unharmed. In fact, though rumors swirl in an environment where every bit of news is trumpeted by the side it favors, a reporter could not verify that one bar, restaurant or club, of the more than 20,000 in the city, had closed solely because of the smoking ban.

 

The ban does not appear to have deterred businesses from opening in New York City. The New York State Liquor Authority, which issues licenses to establishments that serve alcohol, received 127 applications from city businesses last month, compared to 126 in November 2002. The number of licenses granted by the authority in that same period rose to 106 last month, from 75 the year before.

 

The city's Health Department, which enforces the smoking ban, has also analyzed monthly employment numbers and found no overall job loss in the food service and drinking industry. Critics have countered that such findings are politically motivated, and cannot show when establishments cut back shifts and absorb revenue losses. But many restaurants and bars refuse to divulge their finances, making it difficult to gauge the validity of their complaints.

 

Polls back the city's contention that New Yorkers have welcomed the ban. A New York Times poll in June showed that 56 percent of the 962 respondents said they approved of the smoking ban. A Quinnipiac University poll in October found that 62 percent supported the ban.

 

Tim Zagat, the publisher of restaurant guides, surveyed more than 29,000 of his volunteer reviewers this year and found that 96 percent said they would eat out as much, if not more, with the smoking ban. Only 4 percent said they would eat out less. "I don't care how you cut it," Mr. Zagat said. "I think it's long-term good for business."

[carolyn]

Well here is my take on it.

 

I do smoke.

Ive also been bartending at a nightclub for ten years (one which is notorious for being smokey).

 

The proposed ban is specifically to protect workers, not so much the customer. Basically it covers any work place, even if someone works at home. The focus has been on the restaurant and bar industry because it seems they will be affected the most (either positive or negative).

 

Personally, I think the ban is wrong.

I choose to work in the nightclub. I cant think of anyone working there who was 'forced' to either by another person or the lack of being able to get another job.

I believe one of two things will happen where I work....

1.we will lose business on regular dance nights. Concert nights probably wont be affected TOO much. I will get sick of the complaints, tho. If we lose anymore business this place WILL close. Its been around 25 yrs...10yrs under a different name before that. Its a legend in the city.

2.We wont be able to control whether people smoke or not (keep in mind this is a good size venue).

 

As a smoker, who rarely goes out to the bars anyway I think I would rather just sit at home with a few friends where I CAN smoke while I have a few beers. Until I make the decision and effort to quit it WILL affect my choice to go out.

 

In regards to restaurants, I agree and have no problem with a smoking ban. I can respect folks not wanting inhale smokes along with there burgers. I think most folks at the forum...and in general agree that there is a big difference between a restaurant and bar.

 

I guess what I wonder is if people are so concerned about the 'right to breath clean air', why are there sidewalk cafes along streets where cars and buses go by? I would take cig smoke over exhaust fumes anyday! OR if the concern has to do with the rights of not "harming" others health in general, then maybe we should start policing the bathrooms to make sure everyone washes their hands. Its really gross when you think about the amount of money I have to exchange while I bartend from all of the customers who are drunk, take a piss and stumble out of the bathroom without even looking at the sink. How about the fact that someone can carry a gun into the place where I chose to eat?

 

I just dont think the government has the right. Unfortunately, as stated earlier by someone...they have the authority.

 

I found some interesting links...dont know how reliable any of them are..There is one listing the affects of the ban on bars in various states. I know the ones listed in Duluth, MN are accurate.

 

list of bars affected in country

 

links to numerous articles/posts on topic

 

BTW...thanks for posting that article arlen.

[cracked]

To my suprise more people attended in support of NOT having the ban. I have to wonder with so many people who support the ban, where were they?

Is this really surprising? Those who DO smoke will be more pissed than the people who DON'T smoke will be pleased. Hence, more smokers will show up than non-smokers. So the meeting population is almost certainly not representative.