It can from some test that was done here in NYC when our ban was first being proposed. The mayor mentioned it several times. Here is the only link I could find that mentioned it. It also talks about the effects of the ban. Many opposed it here in NYC when it first was proposed but now I don't know anyone who doesn't love it, even smokers. http://www.ucsf.edu/its/listserv/stanglantz-l/0203.html New York City to Celebrate Smokefree Anniversary Business up, jobs up, tourism up, and popularity over 70% At the end of this month, New York City will celebrate one year of smokefree workplaces, including smokefree restaurants and bars. On December 18, 2002, the New York City Council voted 42-7 in favor of smokefree workplace legislation. Two weeks later, the Mayor signed the bill into law. Ninety days after that, the law took effect. The New York Times and New York Newsday issued strong editorials in support of the law, whose purpose is to protect workers from tobacco smoke pollution, a known Group A carcinogen (i.e. a substance known to cause cancer in humans). Although the New York Post has gone ballistic in its opposition (Post owner Rupert Murdoch is a former Director of Philip Morris), the results of smokefree workplace legislation have been good. 1. Workers are breathing cleaner air. Studies done before the law took effect showed worse air pollution in a smoky bar than in the Lincoln Tunnel at rush hour. Now the air quality is comparable to that of every other workplace in the City. 2. On January 5, 2004, the Department of Finance reported tax revenues from bars and restaurants increased by 12% over the same period a year earlier. 3. On December 15, 2003, USA Today reported that tourism in New York is booming. The biggest problem is getting into things you want -- hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, theaters. Hotel revenues are up for the first time in three years. 4. On July 23, 2003, the Department of Labor reported 1,500 new jobs in city bars and restaurants since the smokefree workplace law went into effect. 5. On October 20, 2003, Zagat Survey reported that 96% of diners were eating out the same amount or more often (23% more often and 73% the same). Only 4% were eating out less. Polls by Global Strategy, Zogby International, and Quinnipiac University show that New Yorkers in every political party, every ethnic group, and every borough overwhelmingly support the new smokefree workplace law.
Apparently you haven't been out in New York, California, or any of the myriad other states and localities that have had such bans in place for years - and had increased revenues directly following them. If you want a Texas parallel, El Paso enacted one and there was no drop in revenue, or so found a CDC sponsored study. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm In fact, about the best the pro-smoking lobby can come up with as far as economic impact is not that business decreases, but a half-assed argument by a few amateurs that "business doesn't grow as quickly as it should have" after a smoking ban. EVen if true (which is highly debatable) that's a far cry from people closing up shop.
It really doesn't matter. It's the wave of the future. The sin tax on cigs, the banning of smoking in public places, the set-up of designated leper colonies for those that smoke. There is nothing beneficial about smoking, and I don't want to suggest there is. I don't have a problem with banning smoking in dining establishments. nothing makes me feel sicker than seeing a family of four in the smoking section with a baby. If I'm in a smoking section and someone comes in like that I say something and I also refuse to light up as long as they are there. Forcing a business to ban smoking in a bar makes absolutely no sense to me. I was a musician for years and it's hard enough to make a living in that industry without having to fight that much harder to get people out to listen. I know lots of people in the entertainment industry in Austin and I tell you this. That place is no longer the live music capital of the world. Apart from the economic cleansing that has moved some of us into other lines of work in other cities the ones who have stayed are suffering dearly from this ban. The bars are closing and there aren't new ones popping up. The ones that are still there are having a hard time in already hard times. Either way, what's done is done and the puritanical moves to legislate morality are here for a while. Nothing like seeing a bunch of senior citizens and church groups line up at the voting polls to ban smoking in bars. If they really want a fair vote they should have the voting take place on a Friday night in every bar in town. Regards, Brock
You're apparently right. All anecdotal evidence suggests bars do fine post-ban. I can only speak for myself and as I do I recognize that the loss of my business and that of people like me has not been significant, as surprising as that is to me. I've lived in two cities now with smoking bans: New York, briefly, as I was there for a couple months to direct a play, and Providence, where I lived for five months. I am a hardcore barfly. Bars are my "third place," and have been since I was old enough to frequent them. They have been a living room of sorts for me for almost twenty years. If I'm not at home or at work I'm almost surely at a bar. Or I used to be. I never much fancied drinking in New York bars. At $5 a Budweiser, they are far too expensive for someone with my budget and my appetite for drink. They are crowded as hell at night as a rule. And, in Manhattan at least, the city's nature does not lend itself to neighborhood pubs with regular patrons, which are my meat. The ban in New York means I no longer drink in bars there, but so what. I never enjoyed the bars there anyway and when I'm there, while I have a generally lousy time, I save a lot of money now. Providence was a different story. There are a handful of cool bars there, with regular crowds. I especially enjoyed Nick-A-Nee's, Lily Marlene's, The Yacht Club and The Decatur. But just as I was planning my move there the ban hit, relegating smokers (which made up the vast majority of the regulars at each of those bars) to outside seating. While the weather remained nice, I continued to frequent each of those bars except Lily's which had no outside option. When winter hit, I stopped going to bars altogether apart from an after show cocktail with my cast. But even then, I'd have one and leave rather than staying til last call as is my nature. In Houston bars, I've been known to arrive just after dark and leave at the end of the night. Virtually every one of my entertainment dollars has been spent in a bar as bars have traditionally been the places where I've been best entertained. I, and people like me, like to go to bars and smoke and drink and throw darts and shoot pool and talk ****. All night. And we spend a great lot of money there. No more. Not for me. And maybe that's fine. I'm 37 years old. Maybe it's time I stayed home more and these bans will surely ensure that I do. And, again, the evidence suggests that the loss of my business and that of people like me doesn't hit that hard after all. For the sake of the great sentimentality I've developed toward bars -- and particularly those bars I've loved -- I'm glad of that. But it's only nostalgia. Bars have been my favorite places, but these non-smoking bars are not those. For ones such as me they aren't bars at all. The thing that non-smokers fail to grasp is that smoking isn't a preference to smokers -- it's an addiction. We can't have just as good a time without it nor can we have a slightly less good time -- we just don't have a good time at all. In bars without patios, I spend half my time wishing I was smoking and the other half wishing I was drinking. And I spend all my time wishing I was somewhere else. I want to say though that I don't think non-smokers should ever have to be exposed to smoke. And because of that I am mostly in favor of the bans. Where they break down for me is in their absolute nature. No one, it seems, can explain to me why I can't open a bar explicitly dedicated to smoking and drinking. I would have no live entertainment and I would serve no food. It would simply be a place where, if one wanted, one could have a beer and a cigarette -- both legal things -- while enjoying shelter from the elements, whether extreme heat and humidity in Houston or extreme cold in say Providence. And the only reason I can imagine on my own is spite. Non-smokers have dealt with unwanted smoke for so long that they not only want smoking banned in places they would like to frequent, but they want it banned in places they would never dream of going. That's not to do with their health or comfort, it's to do with revenge. But it's going to happen. It's going to happen in every public space in America within the next few years and there's no point pretending it won't. As for me, I will just have to find something else to do for fun.
here is a good, fair article on Austin and the effects of the smoking ban. Obviously not enough harm to keep cities from passing the bans. A slight difference between Austin and other cities is that quite a few of the bars still allow smoking in them despite the ban, which has obviously diminished some of the impact. http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/007928.html Regards, Brock
To me, it seems misguided. If one's goal is to get people to smoke less, raise the price of cigarettes, raise the age limit, whatever - provided it's directed at the smokers themselves. It's not like bars asked to be frequented by smokers. Meh - I don't really care since I just avoid bars that are too damn smokey.
Re: live music and non-smoking venues... A smoking ban would make me more likely to go out to shows. I've always hated going to crowded shows where inconsiderate people (no, not all smokers are inconsiderate... and non all inconsiderate people are smokers) aren't watching what they're doing -- burning you with their cigarettes, flicking ash on your shoes, or blowing smoke over their shoulders into your face. And I know Jeff brought this up in another thread, but if you are a non-smoking musician (which I am also), right now, you don't really have much of a choice... if you want to make a living playing music, you're pretty much stuck inhaling smoke and going home reeking like an ashtray every other night. They don't allow smoking in my office building downtown. Smokers have to go outside. It should be the same in bars/restaurants. Cigar bars are another story...
I have to say, banning smoking in bars has been nice in nyc - now non-smokers (healthy cute chicks) go out to bars. It's helped me quit - and honestly, my clothes don't smell like smoke when i get home from a bar. I think it's a good thing - you'll get use to it....you just have to step outside to smoke.
i would think the same, but my evidence is just antecdotal. my wife has awful allergies. smoke seriously affects her. it makes her feel bad. we went to live one night and she was like "i gotta get outta here." i'm sure we will be much more likely to take in live music now. but that's just one story, so i don't know where the bigger trends are.
I agree with all that. But if "Cigar bars are another story," I only ask that it not be illegal to open a "cigarette bar."
Forgot to mention that I have allergies too. Being around smoke does make me feel like crap ... irritated dry eyes, nose, and throat. No fun... same with my girlfriend.
The difference is that the dangers of which you speak in coal mines are documentable and based on sound data. The dangers of second hand smoke are not. I'll ask you the same question I bring up everytime this debate comes up: I want to open a bar called SMOKERS. Only hire people who understand the place is called SMOKERS and allows smoking. Have a big sign that says we allow smoking in this establishment. Why shouldn't I be able to do that?
The new ordinance states that a significant amount of sales has to come from the sale of tobacco products. Fairly specious terminology.
I go to bars without smoking. I don't smoke cigarettes, yet I still go to a bar. SHOCKING! Fortunately for me, I'm not directly impacted by other people's drinking in those bars. Unfortunately for me, I am by their smoking. Smoking is bad for you. Smoking is bad for others. Second hand smoke is carcinogenic. I don't really know about the exact details of the law. I just think a ban on smoking in those types of places makes sense, with "permits" or "liscenses" required to open/run establishments where smoking is allowed. And again, I don't think this is an issue of "let the consumer decide if he wants to go to said establishment or not" - that is NOT the way to dictate public policy. I have smoked cigarettes in the past (every day, few packs a week for 4+ years), and I remember having a completely opposite opinion. "Smoking may be bad for me, but it's my life...screw you non-smokers, I'm not hurting anyone but myself...yada, yada, yada." But then I just decided to quit cold-turkey, and quickly realized that yes, cigarettes are a useless addiction that I didn't really need but couldn't put away, yes I can now immediately tell when I'm in the vicinity of a smoker, I know when there is smoke in the air, I know when I am inhaling it, and I don't like it. And I have no major asthma or associated problems - I know people who do, though, and they literally can't physically be in the same room as a smoker. At the end of the day, though, I don't think it is a smoker vs. non-smoker personal debate. It's about overall cost/benefit to society. Random question: would any of you smokers want your children to pick up the habit?
Truly, some of us grasp that concept. On the same hand, some smokers fail to realize that a lot of non-smokers can't have a good time around smokers. They just physically can't. I think a ban is smart, but there should be some kind of legitimate way to allow bars with smoking, so everyone can have their fun.
