Bars, clubs included in Austin smoke ban - ordinance allows tobacco in billiard halls, bingo parlors

Austin American-Statesman ^ | June 6, 2003 | By Stephen Scheibal

[Gabz]

I'm not saying the economy is not hurting things, but the smoking ban in Delaware has had a large impact on business in the hospitality industry in Delaware.

It is very noticeable when one crosses the state line into Maryland - business in the bars just along the state line have increased substantially in them.

The owner of one establishment that I used to frequent told me her Delaware business has more than doubled.

Dover Downs was seeing double digit increases in revenue prior to the start of the ban. Those increases are now gone, and there is a double digit decline in revenue from this time last year - before the ban was implemented.

And event he Governor admits that they "knew there would be an impact on business." It's hitting the state pretty hard, because they get a percentage of the take from the slot machines at the race tracks - the slots are run by the state lottery - so it's very easy to track the numbers because they are pubic record.

[swarthyguy]

A restaurant owner hires a hindu waiter. The waiter doesn't like having to serve beef to the patrons.
The owner should have to stop serving beef?

Scrrew the Hindus. Wait til the islamis bring a lawsuit against a ribs joint for serving pork ribs!

This whole thing about employees is a smokescreen. No one forces people to work in smoky joints. And i haven't met a bartender yet who likes Boston's smoking ban. Even when i tell 'em to ask the mayor for the tip.

[nothingnew]

But Thomas said that might still force diners sitting near a restaurant bar to breathe secondhand smoke.

Give me a frikkin' break!

FMCDH

[Just another Joe]

The steam roller moves on.

You just sound so gleeful that patrons and owners are being stripped of libertys and rights.
Why are you not a member of some statist organization? Or ARE you?

[Gabz]

No one is FORCED to enter a restaurant to begin with - it is a personal choice to do so.

[Hodar]

Just a data point:

The proportion of the population that smokes varies from a low of 13.2 percent in Utah to more than 30 percent in Kentucky. The national average is 22.9 percent of the population, a decrease of 0.3 percent from last year.

http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2002/components/risks/RiskFactors.html

[Just another Joe]

And what I couldn't do with 1/4 of the population as my steady customers.

[Hodar]

No one is FORCED to enter a restaurant to begin with - it is a personal choice to do so.

From the customer point of view, you are correct. From the bartender, waitstaff, band, manager (you get the idea), it's not. Just as you are protected at work, the workers in resturants and bars are entitled to the same protection.

[Gabz]

What protection? Protection? They knew when they took the job that smoking was permitted.

[Hodar]

And what I couldn't do with 1/4 of the population as my steady customers.

But, this is the crux. We all know that smokers can (and do) go to resturants and not smoke while they are inside. You can still smoke, just not there. Like the 7-11's in some states. In some states, it's illegal to consume alcohol on the premises. You can drink, just not there.

[walden]

Well, the musicians might discover that a lot of people would rather just stay home than go out to the bars and clubs to listen to the music and be unable to smoke. If so, eventually there will be fewer bars and clubs, thereby requiring fewer musicians. So it goes.

I can tell you, when smoking was banned from malls here in Houston, I found that I didn't need to spend nearly as much time (or money) there.

[Hodar]

They knew when they took the job that smoking was permitted.

And if someone could prove that florescent lights CAUSED skin cancer, would you say "tough, the lights were florescent when you started?"; or would you expect the gov't to step in and force the business to go to some other form of lighting? Same thing.

For example; X-Rays used to be found everywhere. Way back when, you used to buy shoes, and put your foot betweeen a phosphor tube and an X-Ray tube to see how your foot fit inside the shoe. Really and truly .... Then they discovered that people were getting messed up by the radiation, and they forced the shoe stores to remove the expensive X-Ray Shoe Fitting machines. Scares the crap out of me, cause I'd have irradiated myself to death, just to watch my toes wiggle for hours.

[Just another Joe]

We all know that smokers can (and do) go to resturants and not smoke while they are inside.

That's not the crux of the matter.
My beef is that the govt, of ANY type, is imposing laws on private property owners, banning a legal action, without a shred of proof that the action will harm the people that go to that business.
If the owner of a business wants to ban smoking on the property I have no problem with that. It's their property
For the govt to do it, against the wishes of the owner, with no proof of harm, is just wrong. It's Big Daddy Govt telling it's children, "Don't do it because I SAID don't do it."

[Just another Joe]

And if someone could prove that florescent lights CAUSED skin cancer, would you say "tough, the lights were florescent when you started?"; or would you expect the gov't to step in and force the business to go to some other form of lighting? Same thing.

See post #15.

[Gabz]

Maybe if they could prove that exposure to tobacco smoke CAUSED anything I might think you have a point.

As it is the only thin proven about SHS isthat it annoys some people and may excaccerbate a pre-existing medical condition.

[VRWC_minion]

You just sound so gleeful that patrons and owners are being stripped of libertys and rights.

It will keep happening until smokers change their image. The private property argument is getting creamed in the political market place. Its getting trumped by the effect of SHS on employees.

Your arguments are being made that the SHS isn't really harmful and that the owners rights are being violated and the politicians are not buying.

You need a new tactic. The current ones have failed. Until you get a new set of tactics the steam roller will keep in rolling town by town and state by state.

[Wolfie]

"What is at issue here is the extent to which the city may dictate to its citizens what is good or bad for them," wrote Jennifer Riggs, the association's lawyer.

Government has carte blanche where that's concerned.

[Just another Joe]

Its getting trumped by the effect of SHS on employees.

What effect? Prove your point or STFU.

[Hodar]

I can tell you, when smoking was banned from malls here in Houston, I found that I didn't need to spend nearly as much time (or money) there.

Ah, but non-smokers have increased their presence to counter the loss of yours. You don't actually want your brand new clothes to smell like stale smoke, do you? I certainly don't want mine to stink.

[MeekOneGOP]

They just extended it in Austin. They've had the same thing in restaurants for over ten years, as I discovered on my honeymoon. Needless to say we left after one day to go where free people lived, and would never go there again.

Thanks for the info. I haven't been to Austin in years and years. Leave it to the shoddy media to bill it as a . . .strict new smoking ban in the city's restaurants, bars and music venues.