Posted on 11/16/2001 1:16:38 PM PST by Just another Joe
Effects of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns and Night Clubs
300 alcoholic beverage serving operations were surveyed. The sample was selected at random from a list of 7,216 beverage license holders provided by the Alcohol Beverage Control. The sample breaks down by property type as follows:
| Type of Establishment |
Percentage of Respondents
|
| Bar Connected to Restaurant/Hotel |
57.3%
|
| Stand-alone Bar/Tavern |
35.7%
|
| Nightclub |
7.0%
|
Of the 300 beverage operations surveyed, 3.7% of the establishments did not actively enforce the ban while an additional 22.6% indicated that customers simply ignored the ban. Overall, this implies that smoking still occurs in approximately one out of every four establishments.
The survey results indicate that the majority of establishments (59.3%) experienced a decrease in business since the ban went into effect on January 1, 1998, while 30.3% experienced no effect, 3.7% refused to answer or did not know and only 6.7% experienced an increase in business. The 178 establishments that experienced a decrease in business averaged a 26.2% decrease in sales, with over a third of the establishments (35.4%) experiencing a decline of over 30%. In contrast, the 20 establishments that experienced an increase in business averaged only a 7.8% increase in sales, with the majority (60.0%) experiencing less than 10% increase.
Of the establishments that experienced a decrease in business, 89.3% experienced a decrease in weekday customer traffic and 81.5% experienced a decrease in weekend customer traffic. In contrast, 60% of the establishments that experienced an increase in business experienced no effect to average weekday customer traffic, while 70% experienced an increase in weekend customer traffic.
Separating the respondents by establishment type indicates that bars attached to restaurants/hotels may have been less adversely affected than stand-alone establishments and nightclubs since the ban went into effect on January 1, 1998. According to the survey, only 44.8% of the connected establishments reported a decrease in business, as opposed to 81.3% of the stand-alones and 66.7% of the nightclubs. In terms of average customer traffic, only 47.4% of connected establishments indicated a decrease in weekday counts, while only 37.4% indicated a decrease in weekend counts. The largest percentage of connected establishments reported no effect to either weekday (47.4%) or weekend (49.1%) counts. In direct contrast, 79.6% of stand-alones and 61.9% of nightclubs indicated decreases in weekday customer traffic, while 75.0% of stand-alones and 57.1% of nightclubs indicated a decrease in weekend customer traffic.
The smoking ban appears to have had the following negative impact on the respondent's operations:
2) The fact that something precedes an event, does not establish a causal relationship.
They took figures for before the event and figures for after the event and posted the numbers. I would say that in all likelyhood, barring any other event of the same magnitude or greater, the event caused the numbers to change.
) This survey is missing a "control" group necessary to establish a cause and effect.
This is a survey, not a scientific study. I did not realize that surveys HAD "control" groups.
4)The hospitality industry is a b!t(h - a large percentage of businesses fail with no outside intervention.
I agree but we're not talking about the number of businesses failing here. We're talking about the amount of people that actually come to businesses of this type and how much money they spend.
Admittedly, some of these businesses might have lost customers for other reasons but don't you think it strange that, as a whole, over half saw a drop in business after the ban was put into place?
You may agree with the conclusions, but it is still junk science and propaganda.
I do agree with the conclusions but it's NOT science, even junk science, and if it is propaganda then the numbers that cause this propaganda have shown the same trend in practically every place that has instituted a smoking ban.
But, hey...anti-smokers can go wherever they want without ever having to use what brain they have to make a choice.
Having the jackboot of government on my neck was more than enough reason for me to start my own business. And I've never regretted it.
I smoked for over thirty years and still didn't like someone smoking while eating.
It makes me wonder why--when so many anti-smokers apparently share your distaste--some of you didn't simply open your own smoker-hostile restaurants.
The fact that not allowing smoking caused business to drop off is more an indication of the pathetic hold people allow a cigarette to have on their lives....OH GEE, I can't leave the house....what would I do if I have to do without my cigarette for 30 minutes?
Joe's already answered this very well, and I agree with him. Antis say "it isn't about smokers, it's about smoke!" To which I say, bullroar. Antis don't like smokers, and I don't intend to part with my hard-earned money at any establishment that doesn't care about my comfort.
But you'd believe a "study" by paid professional anti-smoker guru Stanton Glantz that says the opposite? Give me a break.
2) The fact that something precedes an event, does not establish a causal relationship.
Hey, whose side are you on? We know that correlation does not prove causation, but most antis won't admit it because that sends all their "studies" right down the crapper.
3) This survey is missing a "control" group necessary to establish a cause and effect.
Asked and answered. Surveys don't have "control groups."
4)The hospitality industry is a b!t(h - a large percentage of businesses fail with no outside intervention.
That doesn't explain the businesses, particularly small ones, that have been successful for decades, although with a small profit margin, who suddenly lose 20-30% of their customers and can't keep the doors open. These people are not just statistics, they're real people losing real businesses and jobs, and the smoking bans are causing it.
The other glaring omission from this "study" is obvious... One quarter of the establishments did not adhere to the ban for one reason or another - you would expect that if the ban hurt business, there would be a substantial increase in busness at these establishments. One would also expect that this study would be quick to trumpet the difference. That the study is silent on the difference could only mean that either there was no statistical difference or that these establishments faired worse than their compliant neighbors.
Probably so- they don't have to worry about saving money for retirement.
That's just as likely as "it's all good" when it's your propaganda or do you disagree?
The other glaring omission from this "study" is obvious... One quarter of the establishments did not adhere to the ban for one reason or another - you would expect that if the ban hurt business, there would be a substantial increase in busness at these establishments. One would also expect that this study would be quick to trumpet the difference. That the study is silent on the difference could only mean that either there was no statistical difference or that these establishments faired worse than their compliant neighbors.
Or, and the most likely scenario, is that the SURVEY was not crafted to get that information therefore you have no idea WHICH of those establishments adhered to the ban, whether it was constant or off and on, etc.
These are not hypothetical:
* Nutshell Tavern, Rte 1, Biddeford, Maine closes its doors due to smoking bans. Press Herald News, January 6, 2000
* Mingles Coffee Shoppe, Kitchener, closes after non-smoking bylaw passed--45% drop in business Kitchener-Waterloo Record, July 31, 2000
* Twelve restaurants close in Brookline, MA, after smoking ban decimates business Lowell Sun, March 28, 2001
* In British Columbia, 200 workers in 46 establishments have lost their jobs because of the smoking ban National Post, March 3, 2000
* Hotelier Don Ritaller, Victoria, fired his entire staff of 12 due to the bans
* J. P. Malone's Pub in Richmond, laid off eight of its 20 employees
* Clyde's Restaurant Group, one of the most popular and successful restaurants chains in the Washington DC area since 1963, suffered a staggering loss of sales after smoking was banned
* The Duluth Grill has closed after 16 years due to the smoking ban--Duluth News
* 130 tobacconists in California have been forced to close since the 1998 smoking bans and punitive tax increases SF Gate, July 1, 2001
* Thousands of employees have had their hours cut, and hundreds have lost their jobs because of the loss of the smoking customers who form a majority of their customer base. "Dread, pink slips greet smoking ban," Globe and Mail, December 29, 2000
* A recent study from British Columbia pointed out major economic and job losses after a provincial smoking ban took effect in January: After 80 days of the bylaw, 730 employees were let go, 9 businesses closed and more than $16 million was lost . The Ottawa Citizen Online, August 27, 2001
* Letter from a waitress in BC: "My livelihood is being jeopardized for my own protection, and I never asked to be saved."
* A hotel-industry study released this week shows that San Francisco's hotel-occupancy rates have shrunk to 1994 levels. City hotels are operating at 74% capacity. Rooms priced at more than $160 are about 69% full. While those numbers aren't disastrous, they are a far cry from the stuffed hostelries we've been used to the last few years. San Francisco Examiner, April 19, 2001
* Three more restaurants have closed in Weymouth, MA: Haijjar's, in East Weymouth, J.C. Grear's in South Weymouth and the Aloha in Hingham. A fourth restaurant said business is way off. Weymouth News
* Corvallis, OR: Employment at the Peacock has dropped from 50 to 14. Owner John Carter says the business has lost 38 percent of its lottery income and more than half of its basic bar revenue since the law took effect State records support Carter's lament about lost business. The Register-Guard, September 24, 2000
* Clergymen complain that 40 bingo halls have closed because of the smoking ban. These halls supported local charities. Sun-News, February 7, 2001
* Bud's Place in Cambridge and said his sales have fallen 23 per cent since the smoking ban was implemented. His staff has shrunk to 12 from 17 and a full-time employee he's had on staff for 10 years has been cut back to three shifts a week
* Wareham rescinds smoking ban when restaurant owners prove business decreased 25-40%. "We knew it would hurt," Board of Health Chairman Ralph R. Thompson said of the board's decision to implement the ban, adding that he and his fellow board members weren't aware of just how devastating the ban's impact would prove to be on area businesses. Representatives from Wareham's Elks club said the ban had cut the attendance at their weekly bingo nights in half, crippling their ability to raise funds for scholarships and other civic endeavors. Standard-Times, 12/20/2000
* In Washington State a smoking ban at the Spokane Interstate Fair went down in flames Monday after attendance dropped by roughly 22% (despite perfect weather) and county commissioners were deluged with calls and letters of protest. "Fair policy up in smoke," Dan Hansen, Spokesman-Review, 9/14/99
* Susan Barnes of the Waterworks Restaurant in Rockland (Maine) said she has lost more than $8,000 a month in liquor sales to other establishments since the restaurant smoking ban went into effect. Bangor Daily News, February 5, 2000
* Peter Martin, owner of John Martin’s Manor Restaurant and Lounge in Waterville, said he proclaimed all Sundays in January to be no-smoking. Food and beverage sales dropped 25 percent and off-track betting revenue dropped 30 percent, he said Bangor Daily News, February 5, 2000
* ''On Saturday night, we had a band, two bartenders, two waitresses, a doorman, a floor man, and we grossed $33,'' said Dorsey Carey, manager of Handlebar Harry's bar/restaurant in Cordage Park, after smoking was banned.. Boston Globe Online, September 9, 2001
* Owner of the Chateau Lafayette, Jill Scott, said: "People can't say this isn't hurting us. I've closed down my kitchen and cut five shifts. I don't know where people are going, but they aren't here." Ottawa Sun, Tuesday, October 2, 2001
* After smoking bans were implemented, the number of Buffalo bingo establishments dropped by about 20 percent, while city bingo fee revenues declined by 36 percent, according to officials. The Buffalo News, By BRIAN MEYER, News Staff Reporter, 7/24/01
* Mesa, AZ, banned most restaurant smoking in 1996. The Marquee, the Zur-Kate and Arizona Jack's are the exceptions. They demonstrated that they lost so much business as a result of the ban that they were allowed to permit smoking. The Washington Post, Monday, February 19, 2001; Page A03
* The most recent Gallup poll on smoking, November 13-15, shows that even in the current climate more than half of Americans, 53%, still want to allow smoking sections in restaurants; a solid majority still favors the preservation of smoking areas in the workplace, 63%, as well as in hotels and motels, 72%.
That doesn't matter, though, does it, because Stan Glantz says smoking bans don't hurt business.
So sorry to disappoint you, I am 67 my husband is 70, and we are both in good health.
It has more to do with people not like having a life style dictated to them.
And what might you call the junk science coming from the EPA. ???
The thing that really got to me were my blue collar workers. These guys are what makes America hum. They get up every morning, work all day, and all they ask is for an hour or so after work to sit at the bar and talk, have a couple beers, and have a smoke cause the old lady doesn't let them smoke in the house. Then they go home and the next day they do the same thing all over again. I don't think they're asking for too much. But Rob Reiner and the smoking Nazis do.
I know in this area some places lost money, I don't know if any folded.
I stopped smoking over a year ago, but I know many bars had a "smoke at your own risk" policy, and most of them make you smoke outside.
Laws they have no RIGHT making.
But...they have an agenda...of course.
Rob Reiner...put an eye patch on him and he looks like ObL's buddy...LOL
Cloquet Perkins closes night shift - blames smoking ban
Restaurants blast no smoking regulations
Eateries say smoking ban hurts
And the list goes on............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.