Tom Kacich has a column in the 03-28-2007 News-Gazette with the above title. I can't do a direct link, because the N-G doesn't print his column online. Go read it. Here are a few excerpts:
Rocky Ryan last week used the sign outside his bar and restaurant to deliver a not-so-subtle reminder to the non-smokers in Champaign-Urbana, the ones who pledged to come out often once the smoking ban went into effect: "Nonsmokers/You promised/Get in here" "I haven't seen them," said Ryan, who owns Rock's on Springfield Avenue in Champaign. "OK, I have seen a couple of them, ones who said they'd be here. But as for the rest, I absolutely have not seen it. They are not coming out."
"I'm getting some," said Paul Wirth, owner of the Iron Post in downtown Urbana. "But as far as a huge flood, nope." He remembers the promises he heard before the city council enacted the smoking ban."People would stick their head in and say, 'I sure wish you were nonsmoking. We'd come in if you were." Wirth has had to make some significant changes to the Iron Post, including booking more bands for more shows and instituting a drink minimum ($5, which includes a cover charge plus a $2 coupon good toward the first drink) for some shows. But what he really misses are "the regulars," those customers who would come in almost every day, have a drink or two, have a few smokes and then head home."That's our bread and butter," Wirth said. "Everything I've read about no-smoking ordinances said the venues will do OK, the young and trendy clubs do OK, but it's the mom-and-pop places, the backbone of our society, who get hurt."
He's discovered that there is a market for no-smoking shows, and said he'd be happy to put some on. "But on weeknights, I need those regulars. Last Tuesday night, I did three dollars over three hours." Wirth said he wishes the city governments would leave the bar owners free to run their businesses as they please. "My catch phrase is that I didn't create this world where smoking and bars go hand in hand, but I'm sure living it," he said.
"What I hope is the people of Champaign give us a chance, because Urbana may or may not decide to go along with it," said Steve Campbell, owner of the Rose Bowl in downtown Urbana. "If they have a pro-business council after April and decide to modify the ordinance and to exempt bars and service clubs, that ought to trickle over to Urbana. If it doesn't, you can just close the bars in Urbana." Campbell said revenue at his 61-year-old business, which features live country and western music six nights a week, is off 40.3 percent so far this year. "We'll make it until the license renewal comes up on June 30, and then we'll re-examine the business and see what is the best course to take," he said. "They said, 'Your business will improve because all of the people who don't like smoke will come out and visit,"' Campbell said. "Well, those people were only on a crusade, and the Rose Bowl is not one of the places they would have come to, nor is it a place they will come to."
Of course we didn't come out, A. it's not in our routine, B. Those of us who don't smoke probably live healthier lifestyles that don't involve alot of alcohol comsumption.
Heck, we don't even keep alcohol in the house...
He said she said, the Mahomet Citizen has a Mahomet township bar owner quoted as saying he thought his business would increase from the smoking ban (referring to the reactions of smokers before the ban saying that they would drink outside of C-U), but he hasn't. Isn't two months premature for the C-U owners to be closing their doors? If some did close their doors, would that be a bad thing?
"If some did close their doors, would that be a bad thing?"
Everytime a bar closes, a little piece of me dies... ;-)
anecdotal |ËŒanikˈdÅtl| adjective (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research
So let's be honest here. What is actually down 40%? Legitimate sales of food and drink? or the illegal profits made from the "Amusement Only" video poker machines?
I have been going out a lot more since the ban was instituted, and the ban does seem to have hit some bars harder than others. But some bars, like Esquire, seem busier than ever. Maybe because they had a no-smoking section before, so non-smokers were already familiar with it. And as someone who lives next door to Bunny's and the Rose Bowl, I can tell you there is no shortage of biker wannabes tearing down Race Street at full throttle around midnight. Every night.
I think the ordinance should be modified to allow for non-smoking sections in the bars and beer gardens. That should allow the smaller bars that have been hit the hardest to stay open. At least until this last generation of smokers dies off...
Let's see some proof, instead of anecdotes. Let's see a bar owner release income and profit/loss statements, in real dollars, comparing Jan 05 to Jan 06 to Jan 07. Not just "business is down", or "I only took in 3 bucks that night" but REAL financial figures. Include inventory, utilities, employee costs. Instead of just saying it is so, let's see some proof.
Do the same for Februarys, and soon Marchs, too. Otherwise, it's just smoke and mirrors.
I go out to the bars a lot. I haven't noticed any decrease in the quantity of patrons. Sure, I miss the hippies smoking cloves in Boltini's but Mollie is happier because she doesn't have to wash as often. She said she's thinking about making the back seat of the Studebaker non-smoking as well.
It sounds to me like he misses having a smoke with his friends. As a non smoker who only frequents non smoking bars and restaurants, I have noticed that I am going out a lot more. Also, having lived in Colorado and seen the impact of smoke free legislation for years in communities like Boulder, the music venues were always packed, even non smoking clubs in cities that allowed smoking (before the statewide ban). The business is there, cities like New York and Madison aren't having a huge slump due to going smoke free. What they don't want to discuss is that it is a health hazzard, plain and simple. Their right to have a business does not superceed other's rights to work in an environment that isn't toxic.
Since we are speculating that bar owners are lying, we should speculate as to why they would do that. I'll give it a try: 1) Their receipts are actually up, they don't like the extra money, and they are preparing for a political blitz to get smoke back on the menu and profits down to a more reasonable level, or, 2) Receipts are unchanged, they are mad the extra business didn't materialize, and they want to punish non-smokers who didn't come to the bars like they promised by having smoke in the bars, just in case they ever do come.
Perhaps there is a 3) that I didn't think of.
John
Why the fawning over bar owners? They sell demon rum. Lots of counties in America are dry counties, where people have more sense than to guzzle liquor. I say we should go dry. Then you all can howl about the poor bar owners not being able to sell their poison. You'll say it's legal to sell alcohol, but we'll say, not around here.
That's just what I was thinking about, John.
In published articles alone, we've now heard from Rocks, Esquire, Rose Bowl, Bunnys, Iron Post, Tod & Jon's, and Tumble Inn. From personal conversations, I can add in Huber's, Boomerang, Phoenix, Brass Rail, Pia's, Diggers, Mike & Molly's, VFW, American Legion, and of course, yours truly. I think I'm still missing some folks in the list, but right there we have 17 different (and in some cases, directly competitive) establishments who are stepping up to say, "This is bad for business."
I cannot for the life of me come up with one valid reason for that many businesses to wantonly mislead the public. And all the more so with bars, where conveying the image of a popular, "happening" place is, in fact, part of the secret of creating a popular, "happening" place...
If the bar owners had such a huge increase in sales due to the NON SMOKING ban, why whould they complain? I sure don't see this big influx of non smokers that suddently decided to show up at the bar. Better get used to this idea of city goverment telling business owners what they can and cannot do in their own establisment, it's only going to get worse.
Bar Owners need to be patient...REMEMBER there's going to be this HUGE influx of NON SMOKERS, now that that evil smoke is gone. Better get used to these government gas bags telling BUSINESS OWNERS what they can and cannot do in their own business...it's gonna get worse. I understand there's a proposal now circulating to BAN ALCOHOL at all bars, seeing that ALCOHOL is a greater health risk than smoking? Hmmmmmmmm
I remember the public discussions on the smoking ban during both city council debates. There were dozens of antis who assured the councils that they would replace any business bars would lose. That was also one of the CPPFT's main points, although we all knew what the actual result would be. They about that, and they lied about SHS danger.
One of the best points I've seen on this blog is that if smoking is so deadly that even a hint of smoke in the air will kill a person, why don't the anti's lobby for complete prohibition? And if they are concerned with the health of innocents, why are they chasing the smokers out of the bars and into their homes where there are children and/or non-smoking spouses present?
The only reason I can think of that the anti's haven't been in the bars is that we've had such horrrible winter weather that no one left their homes. And now that it's nicer everyone is out jogging.
As far as the the helpful anon's definition of anecdote goes (maybe Mr. Dictionary?), good point...it's the reason we have the smoking ban. Why hasn't a bar in Mahomet profited that much? Savoy is closer.
There are just too many published anecdotes from bar owners for them not to be true. Why would all these owners lie if their business had increased? But the main point of Kacich's column was not that bars are losing business. It's that the smoking ban has turned the Champaign Council election into a one issue debate that's going to backfire on the anti's come April 17. I would imagine that the CPPFT and a certain Champaign council incumbent are very nervous. And what would the Urbana Council do if Champaign amended the ordinance? Would they still claim the ban was good for business and keep theirs intact? Yeah, probably.
"Since we are speculating that bar owners are lying, we should speculate as to why they would do that. I'll give it a try: 1) Their receipts are actually up, they don't like the extra money, and they are preparing for a political blitz to get smoke back on the menu and profits down to a more reasonable level, or, 2) Receipts are unchanged, they are mad the extra business didn't materialize, and they want to punish non-smokers who didn't come to the bars like they promised by having smoke in the bars, just in case they ever do come.
Perhaps there is a 3) that I didn't think of."
John and QoM are correct.
What exactly would the motivation be for the bar owners to be lying about this? If the ban hasn't hurt (or has even helped) their bottom-line, why would they be falsely complaining?
Good point, eggs. But if that certain council incumbent you are referring to is Bruno, I personally think that voters need to be very careful.
Deb Feinen will win, that's a given. I suggest Giraldo Rosales will win, too. That leaves one seat. Will it be Karen Foster? I doubt it. Despite the Republican backing, she has little name recognition, and the Republican organization doesn't seem to be as strong as the Democrat's organization. If that is true, then Patricia Avery will take the third seat. She has high name recognition and strong Democrat party backing.
Bruno was wrong about the tram, but it seems he has backed off, realizing the trial balloon was made of lead. As far as the smoking ban goes, as I recall, he wanted a compromise but the vote got pushed through so fast there wasn't a chance for a compromise. Otherwise Bruno has been very business friendly.
The problem is that if Foster doesn't win, and Bruno doesn't win, then the council will have Avery elected. That would make the council Schweighart, McIntosh, and Feinen, with LaDue on the side of repeal or modification, against Pirok, Dodds, Jackson, Rosales and Avery in favor of keeping the total ban in place.With Bruno over Avery, at least a modification to allow smoking in bars is possible. With Avery beating Bruno, then Section 8 housing, Township bailout, and a whole host of liberal agenda items will sail through.
Better to have Bruno, who may compromise, than Avery, who will give away the city to the Township. Unless you are positive Foster can win, Bruno is the better choice, or the libs will take the city down a very "progressive" road.
So if you vote for Feinen and Foster, you should also vote for Bruno. Otherwise, without Bruno getting suffcient numbers, Avery and Rosales are both sure to win. Then it's goodbye to any chance of reasonable city government.
"So if you vote for Feinen and Foster, you should also vote for Bruno."
Dittos - every vote for them is a vote against Avery and Rosales and Williams - take what you can get.
As a full-time bartender for over a decade in C-U, I feel qualified to comment on the issue. I currently work at several bars in the area, including one mentioned in Queenofmemphis' post, and I have a considerably different view of the situation.
I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is where the actual blame for any decrease in business lies (I think it's pretty premature to be declaring definitively the effects of the ban when the first 90 days have included a blizzard, a two week span of brutally cold weather, and simply two of the slowest moths of the bar year). Having spent countless hours listening to to the debate prior to the bans passage by the council, it was clear that the two major issues were personal rights and small business owners rights. It was said repeatedly that the bar owner should not have be subjected to any government regulation (in spite of the fact that the government has already established vast regulation of the business from what hours the bar can operate, to which shelf products must be stored on, etc.);that his or hers ability to make a living should be based on their on business accumen and not the perceptions of local government. While these are legitimate concerns, there has been a clear hypocricy amongst those who expressed them. Before the ban they worried about the future of their particular bar and it's owner. Once the law did'nt go their way, they have essentially turned their back on the very people and establishments they were so concerned about. If you're are someone who has started drinking in Savoy or some of the other outlying areas, you are doing every bit as much a disservice to the small business owner as the five council members you so disdain.
The curious thing to me is how I keep hearing bartenders and owners talking about how they are doing fine on the weekends but that they've had problems in the begining of the week. If your'e saying that your customers don't have an issue coming in on friday and saturday nights, then it only follows that they wouldn't have a problem on any other day. I contend that it simply takes some more creative approaches to attract customers on those days. The truly successfull establishments employ this practice on a daily basis not just in times of "crisis". To imply that there is no mon-wed business in C-U, is to not understand the market.
Although there is plenty more to be said, I will leave it at this: 8.4% of elligible voters actually went ot the polls during the last election in Champaign. The level of complaining about the ban is only outweighed by the sheer apathy of those complaining.
A bartender you know
The "certain Champaign council incumbent" to which I refer is not Bruno. He's pretty much a lock. Rosales has made quite a few enemies with his "socialistic" leanings. He has taken any reference to the smoking ban off the front page of his site, and buried it on the "City Council" section, where he states, ""Things have progressed since the City Council has taken progressive action to look out for the rights of people, in that, it seems to me bars and restaurants are still doing brisk business and appear to be a lot healthier as a result of that." By the way, the title of the website section is "Breif (sic) Biography."
Avery is perceived as another liberal who would help make the Champaign council an Urbana council. Williams is out. I'm calling it Bruno, Feinen, and Foster. If you look at the primary numbers, even with the low turnout, there was a huge difference between Foster and Rosales. Not at all a good showing for an incumbent.
"A bartender you know"
Hmmm... now you've got me scratchin' my head a-wondering who you are. ;)
I do hope you're sharing your creative ideas at your establishment and that management is listening. You who work behind the bar truly do have the best finger on the pulse.
And it's an interesting customer behavior angle you bring up. Can't say that I have any argument with what you're saying. But isn't that the real puzzle of running a successful business? We can't expect to change people's preferences and try to make them want to spend money on whatever we want to offer. We have to try to understand what our target customers want and do our best to provide it for them.
Although I have disagreed with Bruno on many issues, especially spending, I'm not about to vote against him with the possibility that Rosales continues on the council, or heaven help us, Avery or Williams win. If the majority on the council shifts, then I think we can expect runaway spending on programs that many of us are opposed to. I do applaud Rosales for being honest about what he stands for--his website is very informative. In this election, I'm supporting Feinen, Bruno and Foster, and if you don't like Bruno for his smoking vote, I say this is a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
To hear these 'few' bar owners cry so much is ridiculous. Why can't they just adapt like every other american business, or move on to something else. Whenever a law is enacted that would effect business, everyone complains in the beginning, but then years later 'most' of the businesses are still operating. Price of gas goes up, build smaller cars. Taxes on cigarettes went up over a dollar, yet people still sell them. How many people (small businesses) who complained about minimum wage going up (and then would have to close shop), really did close their doors? Historically, isn't there a business model of the longevity of a bar's life? Maybe it is the Queen's time. It seems unprofessional to carry on like Queen does.
a bartender you know-
"I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is where the actual blame for any decrease in business lies (I think it's pretty premature to be declaring definitively the effects of the ban when the first 90 days have included a blizzard, a two week span of brutally cold weather, and simply two of the slowest moths of the bar year). "
Great post, this thought was the basis of my posts in another thread on this site (profits up in smoke). It is nice to hear this sentiment from someone else who is not an anti-smoking nut and who truly does "have the best finger on the pulse" as QOM stated.
Why can't they just adapt like every other american business, or move on to something else.
Or, they can organize and engage in the political process, just like those who got the ban imposed did. If it is good for the goose, its good for the gander.
I just looked at Rosales' website again. He refers to a quote from the National Council on La Raza. Does anyone know if that is the group that supports a return of the Southwest to Mexico, or is that a different group.? Is he a member? Since he quotes them on his website, I was curious about them and his relationship, if any, to that group.
I went back and looked at the website for that group--they're not associated with MECCHA, the group I was thinking about--they're a national group set up for civil rights for Latinos--so I don't see any problems there. It just boils down to whether you support his vision for the City or not.
Here is a link to help Queen of Memphis and the other bar owners out.
http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2005/c/pdf/smoking_bans.pdf
"To hear these 'few' bar owners cry so much is ridiculous. Why can't they just adapt like every other american business, or move on to something else."
Like get a job? I think as part of life training,everybody should be required to own and operate a business for at least two years. People who have always been secure in working for someone else just don't understand.
I'll repeat the questions that I and a few others have asked:
here's an idea: they're not lying, they're just wrong. they'ree so worried about the potential for a loss that they don't factor in that during a blizzard, people don't go out as much. that was the worst winter period i've experenced in 30 years
Here's another answer: They personally work in their bars, and they are addicted smokers.
They cannot step out for a smoke as easily as a customer so the new clean air regulation impacts their personal habit, and therefore they don't like it.
They are grasping at straws so they exagerate the monetary impact in order to persuade others that no health regulation is ever worth it if it adversely affects the profit margin.
Further support of this theory is that the loudest complaints are coming from owners who personally work in their bar and not from owners who do not work on premises.
Dear anonymous,
If this is the worst winter you have experienced for 30 years, you haven't lived here for 30 years. We had one bad blizzard. Streets were bad for less than a week. I am guessing someone who runs a bar can factor that in. I agree that the long term is more important than the short term, but I am willing to take the owners'word on the short term effects.
John
I agree with the statement that they are probably not lying. Let's keep in mind that there is a difference between losing money (operating at a net loss) and losing profit margin (but still operating at a net gain). There is also a cycle to any business where there is a slow time and a busy time (sometimes days, sometimes months). Just what is this cycle for bars in central illinois? I have no idea, but I would be willing to bet that it is busier in the summer and at xmas (according to QOM) than it is during the times in between those which could create misleading loss of profit figures if we compare each month to the previous starting in January. It would be revealing to look back a few years and see what the cycle for a particular place is and if there is a pattern of losses during a particular time. In other words, if sales are off 30% from January to February it brings some questions. What did last year look like at the same time? Were January's figures higher than in the past?
Could bars be losing business? If the owners say they are then I am inclined to believe them also, but the logical jump to the smoking ban being to blame, or that it is a larger loss than usual this time of year, is not one that I feel we can make without more information and consideration. It could just as easily be blamed on the atmosphere of the bar changing due to the owner's politically charged beliefs that is driving people off.
"Here's another answer: They personally work in their bars, and they are addicted smokers.
They cannot step out for a smoke as easily as a customer so the new clean air regulation impacts their personal habit, and therefore they don't like it.
They are grasping at straws so they exagerate the monetary impact in order to persuade others that no health regulation is ever worth it if it adversely affects the profit margin.
Further support of this theory is that the loudest complaints are coming from owners who personally work in their bar and not from owners who do not work on premises."
All of them?
Every bar owner quoted in a story about how this has hurt their business is lying because they smoke themselves?
And they're willing to jeopardize their business (by lying about the increased profits they're making now) in order to make it more convenient for themselves to smoke?
I find that very difficult to believe.
You asked for any explanation, I gave one. Here's your examples. Others can think of more I am sure:
GT Sellers: Smoker who works in his bar, vocal.
Carlos Nieto, non-smoker who doesn't work behind the bar, not vocal.
Jim Cross: Smoker who works in his bar, vocal.
Dale Holt, (Legends)non-smoker who doesn't work behind the bar, not vocal.
David Spears (Radio Maria) non-smoker who doesn't work behind the bar, not vocal.
Chris Knight: Smoker who works in his bar, vocal.
Scott Cochrane: non-smoker who doesn't work behind the bar, not vocal.
All of them?
Every bar owner quoted in a story about how this has hurt their business is lying because they smoke themselves?
And they're willing to jeopardize their business (by lying about the increased profits they're making now) in order to make it more convenient for themselves to smoke?
I find that very difficult to believe.
You clearly don't know very many smokers, do you? :) Most die-hard smokers I know will go to some extreme lengths to get a smoke in. Some refuse to eat in non-smoking restaurants, some will not stay in a hotel that doens't have enough smoking rooms, others have chosen not to attend weddings and other family things because they can't smoke there. Heck, some of them even start screaming about property rights to do as they please, ignoring all the other restrictions that are placed on business and ownership. If they truly believed what they're preaching, then they would also be advocating for a lower drinking age (or no drinking age at all) because the government is telling them who they can serve and who can come into their establishment.
Why can't they just adapt like every other american business, or move on to something else.
If you adapt too well, you're a greedy and ruthless capitalist.
Man, you all really hate both bar owners and smokers, don't you?
I never really realized it until reading the last few comments on here, but you really, really hate them.
I thought the Left was all about peace and love.
"I thought the Left was all about peace and love."
Yeah, sure fooled me. Especially that "Power to the People," stuff. Evidently they meant power to the people who make sure that we dumbasses behave correctly. Sorry about the bitterness in that statement. Not.
No, actually, we don't hate bar owners and smokers. I do hate it when smokers who are bar owners turn this into a property rights issue and suddenly start talking about how their rights are being taken away and that the country is two steps away from being a political suburb of Communist China. Why didn't the Esquire spend as much time being vocal about all of the building codes they had to follow in that expansion they added on a few years ago? Same with Blind Pig and their expansion. Surely all of those safety features added to the cost of doing business. I find it interesting and not at all coincidental that the biggest complainers, the ones predicting the doom, gloom and lost business, are almost all smokers looking to sustain their addiction. I wish they'd rather come out and say that instead of the other load of crap we're hearing from them.
Arvid, your arguments are either incredibly obtuse, or your logic is just beyond my modest intellect. I'd wager that Wenalway understands. He'd probably beknight you into the "Protective Order of the Holy Non Sequitur."
"No, actually, we don't hate bar owners and smokers. I do hate it when smokers who are bar owners turn this into a property rights issue and suddenly start talking about how their rights are being taken away and that the country is two steps away from being a political suburb of Communist China. Why didn't the Esquire spend as much time being vocal about all of the building codes they had to follow in that expansion they added on a few years ago? Same with Blind Pig and their expansion. Surely all of those safety features added to the cost of doing business. I find it interesting and not at all coincidental that the biggest complainers, the ones predicting the doom, gloom and lost business, are almost all smokers looking to sustain their addiction. I wish they'd rather come out and say that instead of the other load of crap we're hearing from them."
Sure you hate them. You think they're lying and throwing away increased profitabilty for their own businesses just so they can smoke at work. At the very least, you have no respect for them, their businesses, or their positions in the community - all because they smoke.
speaking of codes, all those pesky health codes kept the food co-op from going public. Compliance was more expensive than the possible benefits.
The POHNS, now that is funny right there...
"Man, you all really hate both bar owners and smokers, don't you?" (emphasis added)
Not sure if you were including me in this or not, but here goes. This might be part of the overall problem wrapped up into a neat little package. Anyone who is against the ban lumps anyone else who is not 100% against the ban into a large group of villified leftist, communist, anti-smoking zealots (VLCASZ if you will :-). It seems that there is no middle ground on this issue in the minds of the anti-ban folks, someone is either for the ban or against it (in their minds) and anyone who asks any questions is obviously against it and attacked. Where is that grey area that Queen mentioned in another thread? Believe it or not, it is possible to neither support nor oppose this ban and it would make a difference to those of us that are trying to view this whole issue rationally if the claims of lost profits were substantiated.
"This might be part of the overall problem wrapped up into a neat little package. Anyone who is against the ban lumps anyone else who is not 100% against the ban into a large group of villified leftist, communist, anti-smoking zealots (VLCASZ if you will :-)."
I just call them the Coalition to Protect People from Themselves (CPPFT). :-)
"Believe it or not, it is possible to neither support nor oppose this ban and it would make a difference to those of us that are trying to view this whole issue rationally if the claims of lost profits were substantiated."
Again, what would be a logical explanation for why a bar owner would be lying about losing money on a ban? If he's lying, that means he's making money off the ban - so why would he be unhappy enough about making more money to lie about it?
The CPPFT have put forth the argument that the bar owners are lying because they'd gladly sacrifice increased profits so they can smoke at work. I find it incredible that someone can hate smokers and bar owners so much as to have that as a foundational belief.
If there's some other logical explanation that has you convinced of the possibility that bar owners are lying so that they can make less money, I'm eager to hear it.
"It seems that there is no middle ground on this issue in the minds of the anti-ban folks, someone is either for the ban or against it (in their minds) and anyone who asks any questions is obviously against it and attacked."
Don't count me in that group. I stopped smoking in restaurants long before the ban, because it wasn't polite to non-smokers. You know, I think that ticks me off worse than the ban itself. I always considered myself a polite smoker. I was careful not to smoke in places where no one else was smoking, restaurants, meetings, homes, and if I was with a non-smoker would ask if they minded if I smoked. Even with all that I have been forced into an untenable situation where one of my social pleasures, that of a beverage and a cigarette in a bar, has been legislated away by people who my pleasure doesn't directly affect.
I'm can live with a smoking ban in restaurants. It's the ban in bars that I'm adamantly opposed to. There's plenty of middle ground. It's the anti-rights side that can't see that.
As yesterday's post was my first ever to anything anywhere, and no death threats were made, I'd like to offer a few more thoughts.
Being in the business, I pay close attention to whats going on in any establishment that I go to. There is a trend that seems to have been devoloping for some time now that is just being ignored by owners and managers: the lack of interaction with new customers by the staff. This past wednesday my freind and I made the rounds across town. During our travels we went to The Office II, Pia's, and The Brick House, among others. In each instance we sat at the bar and were promptly ignored by those who were working. I'm not suggesting that everyone who enters a bar wants to be engaged by the bartender, but my experience has shown me that a large majority of patrons want to be at least acknowledged, if not catered to. The other aspect of this is the basic money issue: the business model of any bar requires the persuit of repeat business. When I'm bartending and someone that I know is new to the bar comes in, my absolut intent is to make sure they enjoy themselves so much that they will want to come back and see me again. It's money in the drawer for my employer, and money in the tip jar for me ( one new customer who spends just $20 a week adds up to an extra thousand dollars to the bars bottom line at the end of the year). When I do encounter that kind of attention from a bartender, I make it a point to continue to see that person when they work- usually bringing others with me. I'm not alone in this philosophy, in fact, I would suggest that this is the essentially the politics of bar patronage in C-U. Perhaps if some owners thought more about service they might reap more rewards than they think.
Are bar owners lying? I don't think lying, but I do think being fairly disingenuous. As I stated yesterday It's simply to early to clearly quantify the bans effects. Others have stated rather articulately how any true analysis would require a good look at the bars' balance sheets (and several years worth at that). I would also offer that many owners are far more concerned with the level of play on their "for amusement only" poker machines, than the days bar receipts.
I'd like to commend QueenofMemphis on the tuesday night suggestion. That's precisely the type of creativity I was talking about. I intend to be there, and will bring some people with me.
Gotta go make my tee-time!
PS: I'm new to this technology stuff and I haven't figured out how to access the spell-check function, so I appologize for my spelling and general abuse of the rules of grammer
"Where is that grey area that Queen mentioned in another thread?"
Here's a perfect example -- and I continue to be frustrated by the posturing of those on either end of the spectrum as if such a spectrum did not exist. My position on the smoking ban issue:
1. I am a former cigarette smoker and an occasional cigar smoker.
2. I do not dispute the evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke poses a health danger. Even without such evidence, it would still make sense to me.
3. I have publicly stated my opposition to the ban, with my reasoning generally following the "let market forces prevail" argument.
4. I believe wide-ranging smoking bans will become the norm and that will be that. If the tobacco lobby can't fight the tide...
5. I have spoken to a couple of bar owners who also smoke, and while they certainly complained about being inconvenienced on a personal level, I can see no reason why they would lie about the effect on their business. If the non-smokers really started turning out in significant numbers (as they promised), the bar owners would surely welcome the increased business.
6. If you disagree with any of the above statements, I will not resort to labeling you an idiot. If I actually listen to you or read something you take the time to write, I might learn something. That's why I visit this site.
I'm a non-smoker. Or, rather, a former smoker. Quit about three years ago. My wife still smokes. So I think I can speak with some knowledge of smoker behavior.
While it's true that a smoker will go to great lengths to smoke, the use of this fact as a possible motivation for the statements of bar owners is silly. As a smoker, I would step outside in cold weather or walk to the bar area of a restaurant to smoke when my party was seated in non-smoking. And I would delay entry into a store or whatever to finish my cigarette.
But neither I nor anyone I have ever known or heard of has refused to attend a wedding or other family function because it was non-smoking. That's just stupid because you can step outside and light up. There are extremely few situations where that is not an available option.
About 99% of smokers are respectful of non-smokers. We never light up in a non-smoker's house or car unless the option is offered. It's not like being a smoker requires you to have a cigarette in your mouth at all times.
My wife used to be a bartender. There is a difference between the weekend business of a bar and the weeknight business. Weekend business in people going out for a good time. Often in groups. It's kind of like going to a party. Weeknight business is more subdued. It's more about going out to relax and talk to friends or others over a beer while sitting at a table. It's the equivilent of sitting around the kitchen table at home or poker night with your buddies. The bar is incidental to this activity whereas on weekends the bar IS the activity. You are going to do this at whatever place is conducive to you sitting back and relaxing and doing what you want. One bar is much like another. If you are a smoker, the smoking status of the bar is more of a factor for this type of activity that it is for the weekend night out. Might as well just go home and sit around the kitchen table.
So there IS a difference between one's preference for weekend vs. weeknight environment.
Also, someone mentioned that hardcore smokers would refuse to stay in a motel without a smoking room or eat in a non-smoking restaurant. Ummm...yeah...so? Is there something wrong with choosing the business you patronize based on the services/environment they offer?
Now, obviously there are legitimate health concerns here. I don't think I've seen anyone on the anti-ban side put forth that cigarette smoking is not bad for you. I don't know any smokers who would say that. And I don't think anyone has said that second hand smoke is good for you, just that some of the statements as to it's harmfulness are exagerated.
And it IS a property rights issue as well. Anything that limits what one does on his own property or how he runs his business is limiting one's property rights. Including the oft-mentioned existing regulations on how a bar is run. The existance of some regulation is not justification of more regulation. That is, just because we have accepted some limitations on property rights does not mean that all limitations on property rights are acceptable. That's a false argument.
So how should this logically be addressed? Maybe the same way other air contaminants are. OSHA has permissible exposure levels for air contaminants. These can be sampled, measured and controlled. Why not allow a bar to have smoking provided that it demonstrably has adequate ventilation to stay below a permissible threshold? At least that way the law would be based on maintaining an indoor air standard rather than banning a particular activity.
IP- I dont believe that the owners are lying about losing money, and I couldnt begin to presume to know why anyone would say anything. See my post dated 3/29 at 3:19 pm. I must stress again that "losing money" is a very vague term, and that it may be a particular's business's normal business cycle to experience a downturn in business during the current period. I simply believe that we need more analysis and history. Let me turn your question around, if they are losing money, more specifically operating at a net loss, what would be the harm in sharing figures to give those of us unfamiliar with their business cycle some sort of idea of the entire picture? Would it be bad business to release this info? Why? I realize that nobody has to prove anything to me because I have no stake in this (at least that is what I was told in the other thread), but wouldnt this information move this debate forward in a positive direction? (There I go sounding all hippie-ish again)
Bartender- Watch out for that rain!
"Would it be bad business to release this info? Why?"
In a public forum like this, definitely bad business. Particularly as part of such a volatile issue. One reason being the number of folks who are tracking these conversations and finding very creative ways to use bits of information shared here.
But my husband has told me a couple of times that he would, in fact, be willing to sit down with the books under very controlled circumstances. I don't know exactly if or how this would work, so I'm not making any promises here. But feel free to e-mail me if you want to explore whether or not such a thing would actually be feasible. Webmistress at memphisonmain.com will reach me.
QOM- Just what is in a MOM's bomb, and if I show up on my metric cruiser will I be ridiculed by all the Harley guys?
Your concerns are well founded and honestly, I had not considered that angle. Please know that I don't want to know anything that you guys are not willing to share with everyone. My goal has been to move forward in this discussion (and to try and form an informed opinion about the ban) by getting info out that everyone can consider and discuss, not to have something proven to me.
PS- Do you guys have a pool table?
Survived the rain (thanks for the thought anonymous hippie!) and yet another invasion of my wallet by my so-called friend.
Although I enjoyed TomB's post, I find myself at odds with some of his interpretations.
First, the notion that "99% of smokers are respectcful to non-smokers" is one that flys in the face of any kind of rational thinking human being. I won't waste time going into the many different ways I think that argument could be countered, only to say that if the amount of cig butts found on the ground in front of grocery stores, banks, and other buildings is left their by one percent of smokers, I'd hate to see the yards of the other 99 percent. That's just one of the ways a lot of smokers, not all, disrespect non-smokers and smokers alike.
Secondly, the anlysis proffered of weekend vs. weeknight mentality is, at best, skewed. The view presented is that of a community of bar patrons who all work a monday-friday schedule. This is clearly not the case for a fair percentage of customers in this town. A good deal of the service community alone ( not to mention retail workers and others whose job require regular weekend work) routinely make up a fair number of customers in a bar at any given time. I would argue that their view of a monday or tuesday is dramaticly different than that presented.
I have, unfortunately, been summoned by the Man and have to go to work unexpectedly. I will continue this later.
Anonymous 10:04 -- A MOM's bomb is basically a Jager Bomb, but with OCC energy drink instead of Red Bull.
Metric cruiser? Guess it depends on how tricked out it is. ;) Naw, you'll blend just fine. And nope, no pool table, though we do love to shoot pool and it was something we thought about while setting things up. But it would take too much space away from the dance floor, and our friends do love to dance; so we wind up with a fair portion of folks who go back and forth between Jupiter's and MOM's.
And if they are going back and forth, then they shouldn't have a problem smoking on the way to the other one.
See, problem solved. It's so simple when you break things down logically.
Yay, smoking ban! Yay, logic!
Wenalway, if you weren't so darned cute, I think I could lose my temper with you sometimes.