The Facts About The Smoking Ban. If you're a business owner or not, this is a must read!

The Facts Online ^ | 11-01-03 | Dave Hitt

[Gabz]

I abhor that "level-playing field" claim.


When the smoking ban was introduced in Delaware an amendment was added exempting the bars and taverns. The (so-called)Restaurant Association were fighting both the ban and that amendment. They wanted a "level playing field" with the bars and taverns.

That torqued a lot of people off for various reasons - the main one being that the retaurants already had major advantages over the bars in that they could admit people under 21 and be open on Sundays. And many of them are nothing more than sports bars and music venues that have both a restaurant and liquor license.

A level playing field is the free market at work.

[Great Dane]

#44... No need to save your seat, no one would dare take it. :-}

[Revolver]

Both of my friend's parents worked at Laurel Lanes in San Luis Obispo (no. 3 on SheLions post) when the county banned smoking in all business except the tobacco shops. Her parents soon lost both their jobs when the bowling alley went out of business because of the smoking ban. Since the ban, the two or so remaining bowling alleys in this county have become unhealthier than ever before. Without customers, the areas have become seedy, run-down commercial voids.

Every time the anti smoking subject is brought up I remember going with my Mom to the voting polls for the first time. Before we left, we started reviewing the propositions and discusing our opinions. One pending prop was for a county-wide business smoking ban. (this was in San Luis Obispo about 4 years before it finally passed.) My mother said how much she hated having a dinner ruined by second-hand smoke, and she was all for the ban. My Dad spoke up from across the room and said he too loathes the smell of someone else's smoke when he sits down to eat, but then stated the unarguable fact that all these laws every year add up,(ie..California) with every law, we become less free. This has always stuck with me, and is probably one of the main reasons I have become republican.

If only there was a way to calculate the exact date we will lose all our freedom at our current rate of new and amended laws, people would look deeper. Too many people vote without seeing the big picture. Is it worth losing more freedom because something may be annoying or bothersome. Think about any vices, hobbies or any pleasure you may partake in, chances are that at least one of them may be frowned upon or unhealthy to others.

I think most would agree, being stuck behind city bus spewing highly toxic exhaust in traffic is a thousand times worst than smelling tobacco smoke. Should we ban diesel engines, including mass transit and highway freight transportation? Or what about the reeking smell of that homeless guy standing in front of you at McDonalds? Should he be banned from buying a cup of coffee? Fined?

We as a nation design our highways with 100 mile detours because it is deemed stressful for the Africanized spotted stink beetle. Yet it is completely unreasonable to avoid certain establishments where the majority of the customers are smokers. When I don't like something, I just try to avoid it, and when I can't when I can't, too bad for me, that's life.

If banning smoking is good for business, business owners would have chosen to disallow smoking years ago.

[Great Dane]

You are mighty good at ranting, I won't bother reading your posts again.

[Great Dane]

My point is that I have a large economic impact to restaurants as a non-smoker

So because you have money to spend, we should be banished, it may interest you to know that a lot of smokers have money as well, as evident of the losses to the hospitality industry.

[TexasCowboy]

"Could it be coincidental that maybe smoker can't afford $4.00 a pack cigs and $4.00 beers and that is why a bar goes under?"

If you really believe that then you don't understand smokers and drinkers.
Everyone has priorities in life. To a smoker the cigarettes are a priority.
He or she may not be able to afford that new car right now, but they will find a way to afford that weekly carton of cigarettes.

"I spent $20,000.00 in restaurants in 2002."

Who really gives a rat's patootie what you spent in restaurants?
You could spend a million and not make a dent in what those restaurants are losing in smoker's business.

"Let's suppose that I have TB and any exhale from my lungs could cause you to get TB, do I have a property right to sit behind you and cough? Do you have to sit there and be exposed?"

That is too ridiculous to deserve comment.

[Gabz]

English's in Salisbury has a smoking section. I know this because I eat there now instead of the one in Delmar when I am on my way to Dover.

You eat at places with buffet's but are worried about a little bit of tobacco smoke????? Your priorities regarding health issues are a bit warped. You don't know if the guy ging through the buffet ahead of you that was breathing all over the food has TB, do you? Or if the other guy washed his hands before touvhing anything.

Since you're so familiar with the business along the Maryland/Delaware line, walk into the Bar at Pomeroys and asked Mrs. Pomeroy if her business has picked up at all. Not her package store business, her bar business. Talk to any bar owner that has a business close to the Maryland line. Many of the smaller ones in out of the way places are no longer enforcing the ban because it was killing their business. I know this because I spent more than a week in the spring going into every single one in Kent and Sussex county picking up post cards to legislators about amending the ban. And while I was in them I spoke with managers and owners and waitresses and bartenders who had all seen their tips drastically drop and have their hours cut and co-workers laid off.

As I said I have nothing against any business going smoke free by the owners choice or business decision based on customer request. My problem is the government imposed bans on businesses that saw no need to go that way based upon their clientele. What problem do you have with that??

[SheLion]

I agree. We should all bend over, spread our cheeks, and compromise away our private property rights. That is certainly the solution.

Hahaaaaaa My thoughts exactly Chad. BUT being the "lady" that I am, I wouldn't DARE write that. But I thank you for writing it. Men can get away with stuff like that you know.

[SheLion]

In that case, this list needs to go to the employees of these types of businesses. They may be the only people who might have a say in these situations.

A lot of us are burning up our printers printing this out so we can GET it out around the city!

[SheLion]

Nice article. BUT, it is you're or you are, not your.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Now, do "I" look like Dave Hitt???

[cherinfl]

Thanks for posting this info!!! I live in Florida and restaurants/bars are shutting down daily!!!

Everyone out there, don't forget about Bowling Alleys, Beer Distributors, and Food Distributors!!
They are complaining big time of how there sales are down!!!!!!!

[SheLion]

Those who don't smoke vote more than those who smoke

Of COURSE. You figure that there are 23-30% that smoke in each state. Of course, if the smoking ban goes to a vote, we are ALWAYS outnumbered. The anti's have the general non-smoking public brain washed. The non-smoking public have NO idea what this is doing to the economy.

Smokers across the U.S. STILL outnumber the AARP AND the NRA!

[SheLion]

Bump. Keep up the good work, She.

Thank you and I will. But believe me, there are a lot of people working just as hard as me if not harder. A LOT of us! And even though some don't post in here, they still read. We have a LOT of lurkers........

But I am just one member of a VERY large group! I just love to type more then most. hehe!

[hotshot]

I have waterfront property in Bethel on Broad Creek and have closed two commercial Rt 13 and Stien Hwy businesses in Seaford due to idiots in Delaware Government. I refused to pay to put "improved curbed entrances" on the public right a way at my expense because the entrances I had were fine for 20 years. Delaware would not give me a auto dealers license until I installed the "new improved entrance". So I took a multimillion dollar business to business friendly Florida causing a loss of income and jobs to Delaware. I no longer pay any taxes except property taxes to Delaware. So my anti smoking has nothing to do with property rights.

[SheLion]

Anti-smoking laws are not about smoking. The intent of all smoking/tobacco laws is to get someone elected, or someone reelected to a local or state political office. Nothing more. Those who don't smoke vote more than those who smoke.

Yes! All about politics, you can bet on it. And if it's so damn bad for us, why are they restricting and controlling smokers instead of just banning the stuff! Makes you wonder, doesn't it?!

[CSM]

Rant on, just keep avoiding the question. What is your answer?

Now, I will address your points:

"My point is that I have a large economic impact to restaurants as a non-smoker. I spent $20,000.00 in restaurants in 2002."

So what. Look at the article again and you will see, when the monetary loss data is available, that your measly contribution pales in comparison to the smoking populations contribution. In addition, you will split that contribution between many restaurants. That negates the impact (that means you have zero impact) on making up for the loss of a major market of the business owners.

"Could it be coincidental that maybe smoker can't afford $4.00 a pack cigs and $4.00 beers and that is why a bar goes under?"

Before the ban the smoker was able to buy both. After the ban they can still afford to buy both. Of course, they can afford to buy twice as much alcohol now that they drink at home and invite their friends over. By your reasoning you think it is great that people get together, drink twice as much as they could afford previously then all head home. Yep, this is great for society.

"Use equitable data for suppositions before distortions."

How much more equitable can the data be? This was a study of revenue prior to the ban, then revenue after the ban. If it were a study on consumer habits, then their spending habits would be of interest. In this case, the business' revenue is the data of interest.

"Let's suppose that I have TB and any exhale from my lungs could cause you to get TB, do I have a property right to sit behind you and cough? Do you have to sit there and be exposed?"

Would you be willing to give me a visual hint that you have TB? Think, ashtray on table and lit cigs in other customers hands. If you wore a sign (think foxworthy) then you would be accurately portraying what you would be exposing others to. It would then be up to the owner to allow you on his property or not. I would have the choice to leave or take the risk.

The difference is that you present a case that carries risk in comparison to you being offended and not liking SHS. I have an idea, we should liscense all people and force them to be tested once a day for any illnesses. If they can not show they are worthy to interact with others, therefore presenting risk to society, then they will not be allowed to leave their home. How much government involvement do you need to make yourself feel "safe"?

[SheLion]

Strap your three kids in the back seat, Mom and Dad light up, close the windows and enjoy!!!

HOT SHOT HOT SHOT
WHERE'S THE BUCKSHOT?!!!!!!!

[SheLion]

Could I get a link to the info in that post? Thanks!

Which one??

[wattsmag2]

Sorry, I could not help myself hehehehe

[Phantom Lord]

Post #22