(Smoking) Ban puts bars in the red

The Greeley Tribune (Greeley, Colorado) ^ | 1/12/04 | Phillip Yates

[NorCoGOP]

Mary Whitman's bar and restaurant may not be able to afford the new smoking ban.

One month after the ordinance passed, Whitman, the manager of Roasty's Steakhouse, 920 8th Ave, said the restaurant's bar revenues have dropped 60 percent. One week after the ban went into effect, the bar made only $100 one day.

"All the time I have been here, we have never done that," said Whitman, who has worked at Roasty's for 10 years. "We have terminated one of our bartenders because of it."

Other Greeley bar owners and managers paint a bleak economic picture as well, with many saying they've suffered a significant decline in business since the smoking ordinance went into effect Dec. 4.

If someone lights up inside a Greeley bar, he or she faces up to $300 in penalties and a mandatory court appearance. Both the smoker and the establishment can be ticketed.

Vicki Tobel, owner of the Red Garter Lounge, 3621 10th St, said she has a loyal day crowd, but her business has still dropped 15 percent since the ordinance passed. What worries her most is the lounge's night crowd, where business has dropped 45 percent.

"Our night is just killing us," Tobel said.

She, like many other bar owners and managers, are unsure about the future.

"I don't know if I'll have to cut employees," Tobel said. "I don't know what my next step is."

Neither does Keith Johnson, owner of Cables End Italian Grille, 3780 10th St.

He hopes he doesn't have to let any employees go but said there has been a substantial drop in the restaurant's bar. Johnson said the bar did $10,000 less when he compared his November December sales.

Although some Greeley bars and restaurants might see red, others are staying in the black. Brenda Lucio, owner and manager of Coyote's Southwestern Grill, 5250 9th St. Drive, said business is good since the ordinance passed because the restaurant doesn't depend on liquor sales.

"I would be scared if I had a bar business," Lucio said.

Several Greeley bar owners said that there is an exodus of bar patrons to Garden City, Evans and other surrounding cities so they can smoke. But Alan Dean, owner of Bear's Sports Saloon, 2519 8th Ave., which is in unincorporated Weld County, says the increase in business has been small.

"Business seems to be improving week by week," he said.

The dreary effect of the smoking ban for some Greeley bar owners and managers is in sharp contrast with a survey conducted by the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution (GASP) of Colorado that was published in the Jan. 4 edition of the Tribune.

GASP is a Boulder-based anti-smoking organization that works to educate the public against the dangers of second-hand smoke and to promote smoke-free environments. The survey quoted bar owners, managers and employees at the Paragon Family Restaurant and Cable's End Italian Grille as saying that the ordinance was "going well" or "doing OK" at their respective restaurants. Both owners disputed the quotations.

GASP president Pete Bialick said the survey was informal and not official.

Bialick said GASP conducts the survey in communities where smoking ordinances pass to update the organization's list of all the smoke-free restaurants and bars in Colorado towns. Despite some bar owners' claims the ordinance is pushing revenue down, Bialick disagrees.

"These ordinances don't affect the bottom line," he said, saying that studies based on sales taxes in more than 100 communities show smoking ordinances don't diminish bar and restaurant owners' bottom lines. He disputed the fact that bar owners say revenues are going down since Greeley passed the smoking ban.

"They are using it as a scapegoat," Bialick said. "The tobacco industry is behind this. They are probably getting paid to say that."

[GSWarrior]

I quit smoking 6 months ago. I too am against this ban, but I'm having trouble inhaling the claim that bars and restaurants are going to suffer major loss of business. Smokers are a minority already and the ones I know have no problem of trekking out to the sidewalk for a smoke.

[Gabz]

Good for you in quitting.

Glad to hear you are against the bans.

But your trouble with the claim that establishments are going to suffer has already been proven wrong.

Bars and restaurants, especially bars, are laying off emplyees, cutting hours and going out of business left and right.

The sheeple of California may have accepted the smoking ban, but the bans are not being accepted so willingly in other areas with more unfriendly climates.

The antis are hollering from the hills that the ban is so good for business in Delaware that there have been all kinds of new liquor license applications. What they fail to mention is that the purchase of an existing establishmnet requires a new liquor license application.

Anti-smokers lie and the press allows them to get away with it.

[Just another Joe]

Besides, the Taliban is composed of smokers!

Such a putz. From that statement you wouldn't know a taliban if it bit you on the a$$.

[swarthyguy]

Nope, just your mindset, ObergruppenSmokFuhrer!

OOh, and a nitpicking wannabe grammer Nazi, too.

Health macht Frei!

[swarthyguy]

I agree with you. It's all rearguard action now. Isolated cases notwithstanding, there's no real great groundswell against all these bans.

Sort of like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.

Or the British Indian force that retreated from Kabul, 16k soldiers and sepoys reduced to one survivor.

Still sucks.

[swarthyguy]

>>I fight all day long on here against "conservatives"

The terms of the struggle have changed and the parties or traditional political labels/groupings don't reflect that.

It's more Statist/Corporatists vs What - the rest? Free thinkers, individualists.

Or the old Hamilton/Jeffersonian split redux.

[Gabz]

......there's no real great groundswell against all these bans.

You just haven't heard about them........and elected "representatives" are ignoring them as is the media .........but they are there

[swarthyguy]

More power to them. I hope they start to succeed.

Just an anecdote of what I mean; a town with a new ban had a referendum. The smokers or their allies didn't come out to vote.

The referendum to overturn the ban was defeated by less than 400 votes in a town of approximately 30,000 people.

[KOZ.]

And the gnatzies are so happy that this bartender's lungs will not be exposed to ETS while standing in the unemployment line sucking on government tits!



colorful :)

[Gabz]

I bet the opposition to the referendum to over turn that ban was heavily funded by the anti-smoker organizations. And I'm not a betting kind of gal.


And that is the major problem - no money to get the message out. The anti-smoker groups have huge war chests for advertising and press releases. The smokers don't.

We try to do what we can, but it comes out of our pockets......unlike the antis who get grants from multi-billion dollar foundations that are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

[maxwell]

1. I bought a can o' beef tripe menudo about a month ago.

2. I don't believe that the majority of folks in this country wanted Prohibition.

3. A bunch of those other nasty habits are probably illegal too. Does the fact they occur in a bar make them OK?

That doesn't even make sense. Just admit it if I've bested you, dude...

[maxwell]

WILKOMMEN.

Huh? I been fightin' this fight for a while here, dude...

Thanks anyway.

[CSM]

"Over the years they have formed habits of drinking in non smoking restaurants or at home or friends houses."

Correction, a private property owner has given himself the competitive advantage of being smoke free or they are to lazy to make the investment themselves. Smoking bans destroy non smoking bars too!

[CSM]

"Do you believe in absolute property rights? Do you think zoning is unconstitutional? If you're next door neighbor decided to turn her home into a rendering plant would you just hold your nose and shrug? I think not."

OK, I'll bite. Yes, I do believe in absolute property rights. However, the example you used shows a clear violation of another persons property. The rights of the property owner end when someone else's property rights are trampled.

So how does smoking on a persons property infringe upon someone elses property rights? The only way a gnatzie such as yourself is affected, is when you enter the establishment. Don't you enter by your own free will upon invitation? (hint: The "open" for business sign on the door is an invitation!)

[Gabz]

It's called comparing apples and oranges and is a common tactic of the anti-smoker juggernaut members.

[CSM]

Yep, a common tactic when they know they don't have any legitimate argument to use to impose their will on others.