Revenues up 9% in New York Bars

Fox News | 3-29-04 | unknown

[at bay]

Fox news reported that bar revenues are up 9% over a year ago when the smoking ban went into effect. Apparently the "If I can't have my way I'll stay home" crowd of puffers were outnumbered by "Now that the air has cleared I think I'll stop in for a drink."

Since these numbers are supported by public tax revenue records, there's n o doubt all the "chimney chicken little/ sky is falling" scenarios proved to be just whiners blowing smoke.

[NittanyLion]

As a nonsmoker, I have a few questions for you:

1. What statistical methodology did Fox use to link the 9% increase to smoking prohibition? How did they determine there was a statistically significant causation?

2. What is the current level against historical levels? If revenues fell 20% the year prior and rebounded 9% this year, that's hardly proof that the smoking bans are improving revenues.

[JimVT]

Thanks.

Hey, I checked your home page.

Your cat is bigger than my dog!

[SheLion]

Your cat is bigger than my dog!

LOL! You know what? I can hardly pick him UP anymore. He is a BIG CAT!!!!! I don't know what I would do without him. He and I are joined at the hip. haha!

[CSM]

Revenues may be up, but what is the actual return on sales or profit numbers. Higher profits are made from alcohol sales and I still would maintain that the number of people staying longer and drinking would decrease while the number of diners may have increased. Add to that the affect of the number of bars that have closed, the displaced customers would go to the bars remaining open and drive an offset in lost customers to those bars.

Of course, any infringement on private property is OK as long as it suits your preferences, right?

[jmc813]

You weren't invited to many parties in college, were you?

[CSM]

"It is so freakin' nice to come home after a night out and not have your clothes smell like a smokestack."

Glad to see you support further intrusion of government on private property and personal liberty. How does it feel to support socialism so your clothes don't smell like a smokestack?

[CSM]

"I love it....the Baghdad Bob's of the smoking world will claim this is all a lie however."

And the Sadam Hussein's will use this fictitious data as proof that further government intrusion on private property is warranted.

[Unicorn]

Horse Hockey

[Glenn]

It is so freakin' nice to come home after a night out

I think the world would be a better place if they would restrict the power to weight ratio of rice burners (who needs that kind of speed and why do we allow so many people to die on them?) along with restricting the amount of noise a Harley can make. I'm sick and tired of not being able to go to a biker bar without coming home feeling like I've been assaulted. It's just damn shameful.

[Stu Cohen]

what do you think? More propoganda from the smoking nazis?

Everything that in any way contradicts the pro-smoking agenda is seen by smokers as "propoganda from the smoking nazi's". Everything that you see that supports the prom-smoking agenda is a voice of reason to be trusted without further scrutiny.

If someone declared that cigarettes emitted carbon dioxide, you would decry them as a Nazi on par with those who exterminated people in concentration camps.

It's not your fault. This is a common reaction to the effect of the drug.

If bar revenues have gone up, then they have gone up. Why don't you call fox, or research the numbers to gauge the accuracy of them? And even if you found them to be true, would you accept them, or would you assume the numbers to be cooked by a secret cabal of nazi's seeking to exterminate all smokers in concentration camps.

The more I see the effects of the drug on the minds of it's users, the more I think it should be put in the same classification as crack.

[Unicorn]

All bullsh+t

[Glenn]

prom-smoking agenda

Those pesky prom-goers.

[Stu Cohen]

Glad to see you support further intrusion of government on private property and personal liberty. How does it feel to support socialism so your clothes don't smell like a smokestack?

It feels about the same as supporting that socialist ponzi-scheme known as "social security". Oh, and socialist "public schools", oh, and socialist "public benefits", etc, etc.

If you have a problem with socialism, smoking should be the least of your concerns. Unless one is an addict, which tends to make the drug the issue of overriding importance.

[Stu Cohen]

Yes, yes, typos. Good catch.

I make more typos per post than anyone on Free Republic.

And prom goes are kind of annoying. Spending all of that money on a dance? I mean, come on. Think of all the cigarettes they could buy with that money.

[Stu Cohen]

What is the current level against historical levels? If revenues fell 20% the year prior and rebounded 9% this year, that's hardly proof that the smoking bans are improving revenues.

I don't think that Fox (or anyone) can prove that revenues went up due to the smoking ban. Frankly, I doubt that it was the overwhelming cause.

The point was that the "doom and gloom, the bars will all go bankrupt" scenario did not materialize.

[wtc911]

Food/drink tabs in NYC are taxed like all other sales. The sales tax has remained the same. What NYC tax increases, that you say we are all ignoring, would affect bar/restaurant derived revenues?

[CSM]

"I consider the lack of smoke-free establishments to be one of the few failings of the free enterprise system. Before the no-smoking laws there were no non-smoking bars or restaurants. And the system had failed me because it did not give me the choice I wanted.

Despite the fact that I think there is no such thing as "smoker's rights", I do think it would be possible to reach a compromise. Charge bars & restaurants for a smoking license. It would have to be a high enough charge to prevent them all from converting back, but at some price they would be about 50-50.

If they want to recoup the cost they could charge smokers something like $1.00 per cig to smoke in the place..."

I can't believe that I just read this total lack of thought. Were you not free to risk your own capitol and open a "no smoking" restaurant or bar? Would that not meet your requirements for a place to frequent? Just because you did not have the courage to risk your own capitol and your own time, you are calling for government regulation to off you your convenience.

[Stu Cohen]

Fortunately for him, however, there is not one shred of scientific evidence to back that claim (or for that matter one signed death certificate anywhere that cites the cause of death as second-hand smoke).

FWIW, I don't think there has ever been one signed where the cause was listed as "first hand smoking" either.

So this oft-repeated arguement is somewhat specious. No?

[Stu Cohen]

Where's the anti alcohol crowd?

You can't carry an open container in any public place in most major cities (except during special events).

You'll even get cited for a closed container on many public beaches and parks.

It's not like people can drink wherever they want. And the fact that there is little second-hand alcohol, makes it all the more puzzling.

[wtc911]

Your example is not relevant. Revenues are measured in totals, not means or averages. I agree that stats can and are likely always skewed but let's stick to the real world for our arguments.