Smoking ban didn't hurt most restaurants, bars

Here in Chicago, bars patiently waited through the first winter for all these new customers. As the seccons winter approached, they had to decide to allow smoking, or close. Risking a few fines is a lot better than just laying down to die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

oops, "second"

This is not a surprise. Smokers only represent 20% of the population. If the business picks up a just a fraction of the nonsmokers that stayed away because they didn't like the smoke, they will notice no decline in patrons.

Sez Who wrote:

This is not a surprise. Smokers only represent 20% of the population. If the business picks up a just a fraction of the nonsmokers that stayed away because they didn't like the smoke, they will notice no decline in patrons.

Many Chicago neighborhood (not "yuppie" places with usually high turnover) bars waited for over a year, How long will it take?

Since you've told us that they continue to allow smoking, they'll probably be waiting a long time for the nonsmoking customers...

Sez Who wrote:

Since you've told us that they continue to allow smoking, they'll probably be waiting a long time for the nonsmoking customers...

It is a matter of simple math. 80% of the population doesn't smoke, but were avoiding bars and restaurants that allowed smoking. Smokers will still eat and drink, they will just have to go outside to do it. But now the other 80% that avoided the bars or restaurants will now patronize them.

Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>It is a matter of simple math. 80% of the population doesn't smoke, but were avoiding bars and restaurants that allowed smoking. Smokers will still eat and drink, they will just have to go outside to do it. But now the other 80% that avoided the bars or restaurants will now patronize them.

As I said before, they were smoke free for over a year. Where were all these new customers?

Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>It is a matter of simple math. 80% of the population doesn't smoke, but were avoiding bars and restaurants that allowed smoking. Smokers will still eat and drink, they will just have to go outside to do it. But now the other 80% that avoided the bars or restaurants will now patronize them.

Really??? The other 80% were avoiding bars and restaurants that allowed smoking?? Are you for real? You must be smoking something because there are many non smokers that are not at all bothered by restaurants and bars that allow smoking. They're in there spending their money all the time.

Drew wrote:

<quoted text>Really??? The other 80% were avoiding bars and restaurants that allowed smoking?? Are you for real? You must be smoking something because there are many non smokers that are not at all bothered by restaurants and bars that allow smoking. They're in there spending their money all the time.

I guess I would ask ARE YOU FOR REAL?
If 100% of bars allow smoking, then non-smokers have to just tolerate the smoke IF they want to go out!
I am amazed how anyone can think that 20% of the population should be able to dictate to the rest.
You say non-smokers are not bothered by it, just because people go to bars that have smoking in them, does not mean they are not bothered by it, it just may mean there is no other option, what a silly statement!

The other day I went to a bar that was 100% non smoking at Palm Beach, and the place was packed, people were happy and the only smell was the sea air, the food and the suntan lotion. If the bar had of been smoking, you would have smelled "smoke" and thats it!

HiHoHiHo wrote:

<quoted text>I guess I would ask ARE YOU FOR REAL?
If 100% of bars allow smoking, then non-smokers have to just tolerate the smoke IF they want to go out!
I am amazed how anyone can think that 20% of the population should be able to dictate to the rest.
You say non-smokers are not bothered by it, just because people go to bars that have smoking in them, does not mean they are not bothered by it, it just may mean there is no other option, what a silly statement!
The other day I went to a bar that was 100% non smoking at Palm Beach, and the place was packed, people were happy and the only smell was the sea air, the food and the suntan lotion. If the bar had of been smoking, you would have smelled "smoke" and thats it!

You sir are a liar and a phobe.!
If you could smell the sea air then it had to be an outside bar,or open on many sides. Dont try to peddle your non sense in here.

HiHoHiHo wrote:

<quoted text>I guess I would ask ARE YOU FOR REAL?
If 100% of bars allow smoking, then non-smokers have to just tolerate the smoke IF they want to go out!
I am amazed how anyone can think that 20% of the population should be able to dictate to the rest.
You say non-smokers are not bothered by it, just because people go to bars that have smoking in them, does not mean they are not bothered by it, it just may mean there is no other option, what a silly statement!
The other day I went to a bar that was 100% non smoking at Palm Beach, and the place was packed, people were happy and the only smell was the sea air, the food and the suntan lotion. If the bar had of been smoking, you would have smelled "smoke" and thats it!

When I visited Florida a few months ago, most bars are outdoors, or they have large "roll up" doors. That idea won't work very well where sub zero temperatures are common.

HiHoHiHo wrote:

<quoted text>I guess I would ask ARE YOU FOR REAL?
If 100% of bars allow smoking, then non-smokers have to just tolerate the smoke IF they want to go out!
I am amazed how anyone can think that 20% of the population should be able to dictate to the rest.
You say non-smokers are not bothered by it, just because people go to bars that have smoking in them, does not mean they are not bothered by it, it just may mean there is no other option, what a silly statement!
The other day I went to a bar that was 100% non smoking at Palm Beach, and the place was packed, people were happy and the only smell was the sea air, the food and the suntan lotion. If the bar had of been smoking, you would have smelled "smoke" and thats it!

Yes, I'm for real. Pay attention and I'll go real slow for you.
1. If 100% of bars allow smoking then I guess that means that there aren't any people like you willing to invest their own money in a non smoking bar. Why do you think that would be?
2. When you spend your money in a smoking allowed bar, then you're approving the owner's decision to allow smoking.
3. I do not believe that 20% of the population should dicate to the rest nor do I believe that 80% of the population should dictate to the rest. I do believe that 100% of the owners of private property should be able to decide whether or not to allow smoking. Some can choose smoking and some can choose non smoking......and then you can decide which ones you want to patronize.
4. "There is no other option"......what a silly statement.
5. Smoking allowed bars are also packed. There's a marketplace out there for BOTH smoking and non smoking bars.

Why do many states exempt their casinos?

Because in the case of some the native americans own/operate the casino and won't let the goverment/state dictate to them reather they can allow smoking or not.At least it's that way in wisconsin.The native american's are making money at their casinos while the bars/restraunts that are FORCED to go SMOKEFREE are loosing money an in some cases even CLOSING their doors because of this ban on smoking everywere.

spurs wrote:

Because in the case of some the native americans own/operate the casino and won't let the goverment/state dictate to them reather they can allow smoking or not.At least it's that way in wisconsin.The native american's are making money at their casinos while the bars/restraunts that are FORCED to go SMOKEFREE are loosing money an in some cases even CLOSING their doors because of this ban on smoking everywere.

Many also exempt the non Indian casinos.

generalsn1234567 wrote:

<quoted text> When I visited Florida a few months ago, most bars are outdoors, or they have large "roll up" doors. That idea won't work very well where sub zero temperatures are common.

My point was not bars in Florida or whether the sides open up (even though they did there was still no smoking), my point was to say that smoking masks many of the natural smells that are so nice.(ready for the smell jokes)

Later this same day I went to an inside outside restaurant/bar (stand alone building), it had live entertainment, it was packed and there was no smoking.

Had the bans of not been enacted, those places still would have smoking, and what would have been lost are the things I mentioned, for smokers yeah it maybe was a little inconvenient, but what was gained was far more valuable in the big picture.

generalsn1234567 wrote:

Why do many states exempt their casinos?

Fear of lost tax revenue...

HiHoHiHo wrote:

<quoted text>My point was not bars in Florida or whether the sides open up (even though they did there was still no smoking), my point was to say that smoking masks many of the natural smells that are so nice.(ready for the smell jokes)
Later this same day I went to an inside outside restaurant/bar (stand alone building), it had live entertainment, it was packed and there was no smoking.
Had the bans of not been enacted, those places still would have smoking, and what would have been lost are the things I mentioned, for smokers yeah it maybe was a little inconvenient, but what was gained was far more valuable in the big picture.

Do you expect anyone to actually believe this BS?

Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>It is a matter of simple math. 80% of the population doesn't smoke, but were avoiding bars and restaurants that allowed smoking. Smokers will still eat and drink, they will just have to go outside to do it. But now the other 80% that avoided the bars or restaurants will now patronize them.

OMG, people. Most of the other 80% didn't go to bars in the first place. We own a bar in Ohio. Ohio has extremely bad winters. We lost all our smoking customers because no one wants to leave a warm bar to huddle outside in freezing weather. We never DID see the anti-smokers who've been just "dying to patronize smoke-free bars". The 20% of the population was 80% of our customers. We barely kept our doors open this past winter. What once was a very lucrative business is worthless now. We couldn't even sell it for what it used to be worth because our profit/loss statement shows it worth less since the ban than before.

Chain restaurants seem to do ok. Bars do NOT. I believe the Carolinas have much kinder weather than we do. Don't believe the propaganda about no loss to our businesses from smoking bans. What tobacco-control does is combine employment data from restaurants AND bars to make that claim. Problem with these "studies" is that restaurants outnumber bars 5:1. Restaurant employees outnumber bar employees 10:1. They know exactly what they're doing to manipulate numbers to prove their claims. For every 1 laid off bartender, 50 hired restaurant employees negates the loss.

Believe what you want. I'm telling you as a bar owner, BARS close from smoking bans. Of the 2,345 "drinking places" in Ohio, 313 closed their doors the first year of the smoking ban. Last year, hospitality and leisure lost 6,700 jobs. What could have been handled with posted signs has destroyed many families financially.

And I love this idiot with the Ohio Restaurant Association. He represents ONLY those who pay into his association, the big chain restaurants who can afford their dues. In fact, the ORA was busted in the Toledo Blade. The legislature was talking about creating exemptions for "family owned" restaurants and bars (which is what the voters approved but never happened) and the ORA was whining about the unfair financial advantage the family owned places would have over his dues-paying chain restaurants. From one side of his face, he was saying there's no losses being smoke-free but he vehemently opposed allowing exemptions for family businesses because it would financially hurt HIS members. Which is it? You can see where HIS alliances lie.