Here is a marquee in front of a restaurant in Washington state:
Posted on 07/31/2006 5:15:29 AM PDT by SheLion
The issue is no longer just about smoking.
Passing a state law outlawing smoking in most public places was, by this comparison, the easiest thing to do.
The law was not required to address the inevitable hardships such a bill was destined to inflict.
There was clapping and backslapping on the floor of the state Senate the afternoon it passed there. But none of that really matters now, when the issue is one of how it impacts people's lives.
They are men and women who once ran tiny, yet prosperous, packed-to- the-kegs establishments, who now tend mostly empty bars. The looks on their faces would be no different had their roofs actually fallen in.
They call me. What am I supposed to do, I ask? Write about it, they respond.
What has happened is a statewide tragedy, sponsored by the government. And where are all of the people, they all want to know, that the government promised would flock to their now-smoke-free bars?
The loudest of them, of course, has been Jim VonFeldt, owner of the venerable Billy's Inn at 44th Avenue and Lowell Boulevard.
In the weeks between the governor's signing of the bill and July 1, when the law went into effect, he rallied a relatively small band of tavern owners to challenge the law in court.
A judge denied their sought-after injunction. The litigation itself remains pending in the courts.
Jim VonFeldt has just returned to Billy's from his banker when he calls me, yet again.
He has owned the place for 21 years; his wife's family owned it for nearly 20 years before that. His two grown children are his only employees.
And now, he wants to talk.
It is just after 1 p.m. when I walk into the joint. The only sound emanates from a television in the corner, droning a detective show. Only bearded, vacant-eyed Jay, who has occupied the same far-corner barstool for decades, inhabits the place.
Jim VonFeldt walks up from the back, carrying a large stack of documents. He begins reading from them.
Total business is off 35.14 percent since July 1, he begins. Liquor sales, jukebox, cigarette, vending and Lotto scratch-off machine receipts have declined in 23 short days by at least half.
"That video golf game used to average $75 to $100 a week. The last two weeks, the vendor and I split the 6 bucks that were in it," Jim VonFeldt says.
"Where are all these people the government told me would make my life better? My most loyal customers come, but maybe they have a drink. Most have just stopped coming altogether."
As leader of the Coalition for Equal Rights, the tavern owners' group, he gets calls every day, he says. Three come in as we chat, including one from the lawyer representing the group.
"This is simply crippling," he moans into the phone to the lawyer. Hanging up, he beseeches me to look at the blue folder in front of him. It is filled with his complete financial records, the same ones he has just handed his banker at Chase to leverage his house to the hilt in order to pay his bills. I decline.
So he hands me his state workers compensation bill.
"I don't have the money. All of my cash flow has been depleted," Jim VonFeldt said. "And if I don't have workers comp, I can be fined up to $17,000. I don't know what I am going to do."
To emphasize his point, he walks me to the automatic teller machine I had used a month before.
A large "out of order" sign now lies across the keyboard.
"I don't have enough $20 bills to put in it," he says.
He reads from a stack of notes taken during myriad recent conversations with Coalition members, of patrons saying they are going outside for a smoke but never come back, of fights the bartenders inside can no longer break up, of thieves cleaning out cash registers when bartenders themselves sneak out for a drag or two.
Many owners, Jim VonFeldt says, are doing what he did two days ago: writing Bill Owens and begging for an exemption to the law.
"The ban has decimated my business," his letter to the governor begins. "I am one or two weeks away from bankruptcy.
"If I lose this, so goes my whole family. Please grant this exemption for my family."
The last sentence he has typed in large bold letters.
While he waits to hear back from the governor, he fumes.
"We've got young men now fighting all over the world for what they tell us is for democracy and freedom," Jim VonFeldt, 60, said.
"Yet our own government is taking away my freedom to operate my business right here at home. It's just not right."
He sighs.
"At a time when I should be planning for retirement and the good things in life, the only thing I'm planning is how to survive. If I fail - and this worries me the most - I fail my children.
"I don't know what I am going to do."
Smokers have been being volunteeringly (sic) more considerate for the last twenty years, one step at a time. With all due respect, you sound like Hamas or Hezbolla. Just give us a little more land and we promise we'll stop firing rockets at you.
It doesn't matter what is the cause of the change of business climate... ADAPT OR DIE. This guy had pleanty of opportunity, he knew the laws were changing... and should have started adapting to it before it happened.. it didn't sneak up on him.
Often times a business leader can be subject to a sudden change they have no way of knowing is coming.. this guy had pleanty of time to make a plan and start adapting... he did nothing.
Even after the change he has still done nothing. You think this is the first person or business to have to deal with government regulatory changes impacting his business? Hell no.. its part of life. This guy is going to be out of business not because of the smoking ban,but because of his own failure to adapt.
He's spending his time trying to keep things status quo, when he should be marketing and changing his business so it can capitalize on the new environment. I gurantee his competitors are, and I can find other bar owners in this same area that are seeing their crowds increase and profits grow... because they have adapted and the folks who adapted first, and were the first movers will be the ones who benefit the most.
Guys like this one, who refuse to adjust and instead of focusing on improving his business are focused on trying to keep things they way they were are going to die, and while they can blame the smoking ban for it, the real reason they are going to die is their own failure to adapt.
GIVE you the tools to win with? You're the one that seems to have all the ideas.
As for hating to take up lost causes, I'm glad the founding fathers didn't have your attitude.
Well, it used to be permitted in restaurants, so it wasn't really about whether the smoker "could control himself."
Then it was limited to a section, but that wasn't good enough.
Then it was relegated to a separate room, but that wasn't good enough.
Then expensive air scrubbers were required but that wasn't good enough.
Then it was completely outlawed in restaurants but that wasn't good enough.
All because some people don't like the smell. That's all it's about. Or actually, it's all about power.
btw. your arguments aren't all that great.
The fatter we get as a country the more concerned we get about smoking.
My whole point is that is isn't the responsibility of smokers to protect non-smokers. Just as it isn't the responsibility of non-smokers to protect smokers from themselves.
Non-smokers, being the larger percentage that they are, are free to open non-smoking restaurants and bars and leave the smoke-filled businesses alone.
But they won't. Because it isn't about wanting smoke-free establishments. It's about dictating behavior, exercising control over others and banning smoking altogether, in a backhanded way.
Funny you mention that. I recently attended an outdoor event. It was hot and people sat under a tent to watch a skit. A smoker sat down front and the wind direction caused his smoke to travel across one half of the seats.
I gave up my seat and moved to the other side. It was a small inconvenience to stand but no big deal. What I found interesting was one by one people moved to the other side until their was only standing room in the sun on the smokeless side. The smoker was oblivious to the effect he had on those around him. I am sure he figured that being outside, his smoke could not be bothersome to anyone. One smoker chased off about ten people.
My question for you is, if those nonsmokers were asked to vote on a smoking ban for that event right after that event, how do you think they would vote?
>>>only the ones that advocate fascist laws>>
That's not correct either. I have never advocated laws of any kind. I have however, refused to accept restaurant tables that were clouded with smoke and hotel rooms that smell stinky. I am one person talking to businesses where I spend money and apparently I am not alone.
Not only are they doing that, these businesses are using their government lobby connections to put the smoking places out of business. Survival of the fitest.
No, I get that. Adapt or die, and that's true.
But it does matter that this is pretty fundamental change that changes the nature of the tavern business. It's like saying that the "tavern" can still stay in bidness but they can't serve beer anymore. Call it what you want, and maybe the building will still be a business of some kind, but it won't be a tavern.
No. And the anti's even forced the Veteran Clubs to go smoke free. I know here in Maine smoking is not allowed in any restaurant, bar, tavern, bowling alley or Veteran clubs.
Here is a marquee in front of a restaurant in Washington state:
What's that got to do with smoke in a tavern?
Smoking places are going out of business because of smoking bans, Ray.
That isn't survival of the fittest - that's dirty pool.
True competition would be if they had those two establishments running as the ~owners~ see fit and seeing which one thrives.
Did ANYONE politely ask him to stop smoking?
Did ANYONE ask him politely to move?
I didn't think so.
Did you happen to take a glance at this thread?
It's a small sampling of how some tobaccophobics planned to deal with the smoking ban before it took effect.
Many of us feel this way:
If, as a citizen, society does not cater to my interests, why should I cater to the interests of society?
I haven't been out to eat in a restaurant in two years. When Maine forced a total smoking ban, I either order in or do take-out. Friends get together up here, smokers and non-smokers alike.
Much as I dislike smoke in my face, I don't think it is government's function to decide if a business should permit it or not. But it seems to me that smokers (in general, if the "stats" quoted are correct) are like the little kid who, if he can't have it his way, goes into a corner and sulks.
It's not that we act like kids and go to a corner and sulk. It's the mere fact that when we go out for our own recreation and spend our good money, it won't be in a reform school like environment.
Smoking and non smoking sections worked just fine, and especially when the business installed the big smoke eaters. But that wasn't good enough for the professional anti's.
And this isn't about people who choose to smoke. This is about all the smaller private businesses going under because of the forced smoking bans. My heart bleeds for these people who put their life's blood into their business only have the government work to shut them down.
Unbelievable, isn't it?
Non-smokers never have and never will patronize those places they claimed to be chased out from by secondhand smoke. The whole sad story of non-smokers being trapped in their own homes because of evil smokers was a lie.
Citizen Busybody just doesn't want folks smoking anywhere. And they don't care if it causes folks to lose their businesses, their incomes or their life savings.
It's taking things away from you on behalf of the common good, doncha know. Hmmm....who said that recently?
ohfertheluvva.....
And they say we act like children. Yeah, OK.
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.