Smoking Ban Debate - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Tautog · #61 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

And you know they went out of business because of the smoking ban, how, exactly?

Well, I know one of the owners personally. His bar, as well as some of his competitors, lost a huge chunk of customers when the smoking ban hit. Alot of people go to bars to relax, talk to people, and have a drink/smoke. Having to run outside every 5-10 minutes for a smoke all of a sudden makes the whole experience less enjoyable. Many people would rather just go home to have a drink, where they can smoke in peace - and believe it or not, alot of drinkers are also smokers.

O'Sullivan Bere · #62 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Dude, seriously? You smell your co-workers?

EEWWWW!

LOL, as a non drinking social person who still likes to go to social places like bars, etc, but with all sensory functions working with no impairment, I'll definitely tell you this much in my experience: whenever I enter some non smoking bars now in places that ban smoking, the bar and the people in them often do stink. The classier places with big space, less so. But drinkers puke, have booze odours emanating from their bodies (why cops can pick up on drunk drivers so easily), the bathrooms are busy and smell, drinkers fart, many drinkers are unclean and sweat, especially when dancing, etc. Smokers usually don't smell the smoke scent but drinkers usually don't smell the drinking scents.

Steve · #63 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

I know of several resturants/bars that went out of business due to the smoking ban, clearly the ban had the employees best interests at heart - now they are all out of a job.

Well, at least they're still healthy, so they won't need that job to pay for their health insurance...

pramjockey · #64 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

If businesses know smoking is bad for business, then they don't allow smoking. It's common sense for business.

Almost all business I know other than some kinds of restaurants and the vice trades have already prohibited smoking where it is still permitted. I can't think of one smoking office anywhere in PA even though smoking is still permitted (but they are discussing a ban at this very moment, but I believe with some exceptions contemplated). That includes my own law office where I'm the owner and boss.

Only the late night diner dive places that thrive on the bar and late night party crowd allow it in my area, and often only at those hours. Bars generally allow it, but still some do not because that is not the kind of clientele they wish to serve. It's the places that cater to smoking customers that know their business, and thus allow it. That is mostly vice trades.

And businesses do report having lost out or even been closed because of these bans. They know what caused their customer bases to leave because they know their customers, how they trade, and why the cause and effects have happened. It's the governments and anti-smoking lobbies and their supporters who stuff words in their mouth with cooked up self-serving 'stats' to say otherwise, as if they know better than the businesses themselves.

Ireland's famous country pub trade got absolutely crushed by the 2004 smoking ban. The famous country pubs are now becoming history. Yet, if one listens to the Irish government and its big anti-smoking lobbyists--ASH--one would think they are all open and lively. But, like most nanny laws commonly do, smoking, drinking and other vices rose anyway due to unintended consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

Well, I know one of the owners personally. His bar, as well as some of his competitors, lost a huge chunk of customers when the smoking ban hit. Alot of people go to bars to relax, talk to people, and have a drink/smoke. Having to run outside every 5-10 minutes for a smoke all of a sudden makes the whole experience less enjoyable. Many people would rather just go home to have a drink, where they can smoke in peace - and believe it or not, alot of drinkers are also smokers.

Here, the bars are doing well.

The problem is that being the first bar to ban smoking was suicide. But, when all are placed on equal footing, the damage doesn't happen.

The decline of pubs in Ireland could be due to a lot of things. To blame it on a smoking ban without any real evidence is presumptuous, IMHO.

pramjockey · #65 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

LOL, as a non drinking social person who still likes to go to social places like bars, etc, but with all sensory functions working with no impairment, I'll definitely tell you this much in my experience: whenever I enter some non smoking bars now in places that ban smoking, the bar and the people in them often do stink. The classier places with big space, less so. But drinkers puke, have booze odours emanating from their bodies (why cops can pick up on drunk drivers so easily), the bathrooms are busy and smell, drinkers fart, many drinkers are unclean and sweat, especially when dancing, etc. Smokers usually don't smell the smoke scent but drinkers usually don't smell the drinking scents.

Oh, believe me, I know the smell of chronic drinkers. In EMS, we pick(ed) up our share.

I can't say that I've noticed a bad smell in bars, though. Maybe our housekeeping practices are better here?

O'Sullivan Bere · #66 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Here, the bars are doing well.

The problem is that being the first bar to ban smoking was suicide. But, when all are placed on equal footing, the damage doesn't happen.

The decline of pubs in Ireland could be due to a lot of things. To blame it on a smoking ban without any real evidence is presumptuous, IMHO.

It's not presumptuous. It's what happened--big time, and still declining rapidly.

As for being the first bar closing and 'leveling the playing field,' that only has some truth. It doesn't work with jurisdictional difference issues. That really creates winners and losers.

And yes, one can say "that means level all the playing fields." Still, that saves some but not others.

The charm to many 'holes in the walls,' 'late night hangouts,' etc is their ability to provide time passing leisure. That is their selling point. The smoking crowds love those places. If they can't chill out there, then they won't. Many of the late night smoking diner crowds simply go home, grab store food and/or chill out at someone's house, etc. A corner bar becomes drearier. You might as well go to the classier places or just do something else. These places often die out. Others may lose business but survive. When people are outside smoking, they are not drinking, and if they don't stay as long, then they aren't buying anything when they are gone.

Others may even get compensating customers and do well whilst the smokers head outside. Pro-ban people love to cite the winners as anecdotal proof of success. Bans create winners along with the losers. But without the bans, everyone wins.

O'Sullivan Bere · #67 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Oh, believe me, I know the smell of chronic drinkers. In EMS, we pick(ed) up our share.

I can't say that I've noticed a bad smell in bars, though. Maybe our housekeeping practices are better here?

No (and I know you are jesting in part). People piss, fart and smell like booze wherever they go drinking. The upside of drinking is dulling the senses to those nasty smells.

goober · #68 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

As a former beer salesman, who had to go into 30 bars a day, I can tell you that most of them smell pretty bad in the morning. Back then there was no smoking ban, so the smell of smoke covered the stale beer-puke-mens room smell at night.

In Massachusetts we began with town wide smoking bans, and bar and restaurant owners would complain that it was costing them business, because if 4 people wanted to go out to dinner, and even one of them was a smoker, the smoker would lobby the group to go to a place that allowed smoking. There was some interesting case law developing, in my town the VFW was excluded from the ban, as it was a private club, and one of it's members said at the hearing "I wish the government had been so concerned about my well being when they dropped me off on Omaha Beach".
Then all that got replaced by a statewide workplace smoking ban. I believe a place that has no employees may allow smoking. And a business that derives most of it's revenue from the sale of tobacco may allow smoking, but thats it.
Private clubs that don't employ people may allow smoking.

It's interesting to see tobacco at the crossroads, on the one hand to a part of the population which used to be the majority and is a shrinking minority now, tobacco use is an icon of sophistication and freedom as it has been for centuries, to another part of the population, which was traditionally small but has expanded greatly to form the majority now, smoking is evil, and smokers are the new lepers.

O'Sullivan Bere · #69 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

As a former beer salesman, who had to go into 30 bars a day, I can tell you that most of them smell pretty bad in the morning. Back then there was no smoking ban, so the smell of smoke covered the stale beer-puke-mens room smell at night. . . .

Whew . . . you are bringing me back down memory lane from working in bars. The smells were awful after closing. The mornings were foul but you missed the closings. Smoke has masked the smell but after they left the first fresh odours were nose-curdling. The worst was the bathrooms, provided someone didn't barf earlier. Men's Rooms were almost guaranteed jammed toilets, bad aim spray ... and don't even think of using the sink and be careful of the taking the trash bags out because some people used them as urinals. Add puke and you got the whole toxic waste dump up your nose. The Women's Rooms were occasionally just as bad. Men wouldn't think it and presume hygeine, but somedays the stuff that gets deposited in there and jams stuff up or gets strewn about . . . *shivers.* And then there were the occasional soiled and abandoned clothes, condoms, cocaine evidence . . . People can be real animals at clubs and funhouse bars.

Wallaroo · #70 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

It should be up to the restaurant owners as to whether to allow smoking and up to you as to whether you're willing to work there or not. Last time I checked, no on forced people to work where they didn't want to.

I agree 100%. That the state are now dictating where people can smoke is like treating people like babies.

PopulistAmerica · #71 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

In Massachusetts we began with town wide smoking bans, and bar and restaurant owners would complain that it was costing them business, because if 4 people wanted to go out to dinner, and even one of them was a smoker, the smoker would lobby the group to go to a place that allowed smoking. There was some interesting case law developing, in my town the VFW was excluded from the ban, as it was a private club, and one of it's members said at the hearing "I wish the government had been so concerned about my well being when they dropped me off on Omaha Beach".

Quote:

Then all that got replaced by a statewide workplace smoking ban. I believe a place that has no employees may allow smoking. And a business that derives most of it's revenue from the sale of tobacco may allow smoking, but thats it.
Private clubs that don't employ people may allow smoking.

This is all fine and dandy, but I hope you'll be consulting the populace of the affected area before you go through with this.

Quote:

It's interesting to see tobacco at the crossroads, on the one hand to a part of the population which used to be the majority and is a shrinking minority now, tobacco use is an icon of sophistication and freedom as it has been for centuries, to another part of the population, which was traditionally small but has expanded greatly to form the majority now, smoking is evil, and smokers are the new lepers.

Yep, in any true Democracy the minority are at the despotic whim of the majority.

PopulistAmerica · #72 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

I agree 100%. That the state are now dictating where people can smoke is like treating people like babies.

And it also serves as a sign of America's slow crawl towards a fascistic nanny-state.

Donkey_Left · #73 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll say that I'm having my cake and eating it. When the ban came up for a referendum I conscientiously voted against it, and now I'm fully enjoying the benefits of smoke free environments.

I still disagree with the ban, but I must say it's kind of nice.

Anybody familiar with this?

BBC NEWS | Americas | US drinkers upstage smoking ban

Made me chuckle.

Sharon den Adel · #74 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Smoking has been banned in pubs and clubs here, and has been for nearly two years - or maybe it's only been one? Whatever the case, there were the initial complaints from people whinging about not being able to smoke their cancer sticks and breath their rotten smoke on the rest of us, but you know what?
Not one of our pubs and clubs have gone out of business. In fact, we have MORE customers than ever before.

The smokers can still smoke - they just have to go outside to do it, which is fair enough, too.

O'Sullivan Bere · #75 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon den Adel

Smoking has been banned in pubs and clubs here, and has been for nearly two years - or maybe it's only been one? Whatever the case, there were the initial complaints from people whinging about not being able to smoke their cancer sticks and breath their rotten smoke on the rest of us, but you know what?
Not one of our pubs and clubs have gone out of business. In fact, we have MORE customers than ever before.

The smokers can still smoke - they just have to go outside to do it, which is fair enough, too.

Some reports state differently. Smaller places got hit whilst larger places that had the space to set up patio space got the advantage. That's a common pattern. Bans create winners and losers along those lines. I know one of my uncles who runs an Irish pub in Sydney wasn't thrilled with what it did to his pub atmosphere.

Oz also has a big climatic advantage for indoor smoking bans and, in many areas, space advantages too.

And on public health, filling the bars with more non smokers whilst the smokers go the patio route or elsewhere increases alcohol and other vice total consumption whilst not reducing smoking. In fact, one big drawback is the 'smirting' phenomena where many people have found smoking outside a great way to socialise and even hook up with the opposite sex. This adds new smokers and glamorises smoking, a backward trend on reducing tobacco usage.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode