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.

[been_lurking]

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

Here here! That cigarette smoke was so powerful it was overpowering the more traditional bar smells of stale beer, old urine and vomit. Now when you get home after a night of drinking, these more pleasant aromas are all you can smell.

[Stu Cohen]

Personally I think Bloomberg cooked the books on this one

There it is. LOL. I'm suprised it took so long before Blooomberg was accused of conspiring to cook the books on bar revenue. That's gotta be the explanation. It's just gotta ...

[MrB]

All those things you mention boil down to the socialists' disregard for the right of private property.

Any social programs have to be funded from confiscated private property of someone who earned said property.

If those social programs are legitimate expenditures (Article I, Section 8), then we have to put up with them as part of the social contract of the Constitution.

Telling someone that they cannot use a legal product on their own private property is a violation of founding principles.

[templar]

Apparently getting rid of smokers is good for business.

[Gabz]

I realize the sales tax has not increased.....but other taxes that effect the cost of business have increased, such as the property taxes. Some of those have been passed along to the customers by way of higher food/drink prices, which means increased sales tax revenue.

[ampat]

YEAH, and bill clinton always told the truth.

[wtc911]

Take a walk down Second Ave. below 14th or PAS in the 20s, or Columbus Ave inn the 70s-80s, all of which are lined with (now) non-smoking bars....there is no shortage at all of crowded places where if the people aren't having fun they're pretty good at faking it.

I think the law is intrusive. The laws prohibiting a guy from tossing a football around in Central Park with his six year old offend me more and Rudy was in Gracie Mansion when that happened. NYC is changing, becoming more "polite". Both situations are symptomatic of this smoothing out the edges. I'm a non-smoker who enjoys an occasional stogie. I like the cleaner air and the lack of someone else's stink on my clothes the next day. I think smokers are idiots, given the inescapable long term issues. That said, I would not have approved the law if in a position to vote on it.

[-YYZ-]

"I hate to tell you but drinks taste much better WITHOUT tobacco!"

Maybe to you, but to me beer and cigarettes complement each other. Are there any other of my personal tastes you'd like to dictate?

[CSM]

If it "feels about the same as...." and you are supportive of it, then you are admitting you are supportive of socialism. You call me an addict to a legal product, yet you out yourself as an addict of government. I smell credibility issues!

[GraceCoolidge]

It always seemed to me, given all these people who are "so happy" with the smoking ban, that the market should have figured out this issue. If people really were going to flock to smoke free restaurants, bars, etc., then why wouldn't entrepreneurs start such businesses? I understand banning smoking in public buildings, since often you have no choice but to go there (court, DMV, etc.) but a private business is very different. The most government intervention I would support is law requiring an establishment to clearly identify (in advertising, on window, etc.) their policy: no smoking, smoking, smoke free sections, whatever. Then let consumers choose for themselves. If there really is this huge market for a smoke free venue, I'm confident people will open such restaurants.

[HamiltonJay]

Having lived places that banned smoking in bars and places that don't, I personally got to tell you its a far more pleasant evening and far more likely to go and stay when there isn't smoke.

Don't have to worry about eyes being irritated or jacket stinking of smoke for the next three days.

Reality is, more people don't smoke than do anymore. I would not be suprised that as the dust has settled that bars and restraunts are making more money now.

Also, you will find the smokers know which bars know they can get away with smoking at (even if the law doesn't allow it)... one I went to in Cali, had a codeword... if it was shouted customers just scrambled to hide all ashtrays and put out cigs etc....

You won't stop it with this sort of law, but it will go "underground" so to speak.

[Final Authority]

Ten or twenty years ago when smoking was everywhere, my mother smoked at home all the time when my wife and I visited, I was not so sensitive so my wife and I would go out and patronize a bar or two on the weekend. Lately, last five years or so, most businesses ban smoking, we have been sensitized, so much so we can detect whether or not there is a smoker in a car in front of us on the road that we can't step into a bar for the stench, the foul air, the disgusting taste in our mouths so we seldom visit a bar unless we know it is extremely well ventilated and that means summer bars when they open the windows wide or at certain venues where it is essentially outside.

We would welcome a non-smoking bar and would frequent them as we do enjoy a drink, conversation, and some bar food. In NH smoking is still a legal vice even in a public place like a bar, however.

[wtc911]

This is not scientific, just personal observation....both my social and professional lives involve a fair amount of spending in eating/drinking establishments in NYC, mostly Manhattan and Queens. I hit every nabe in both boros regularly. (one caveat...I avoid any trendy or tourist spot like the plague)

Prices have not gone up noticeably if at all. The simple observed fact is this: more people are out more often spending more money. This increase is likely attributable to a number of factors.

And, again anecdotal evidence wise, I hear more people laud the ban than bemoan it. For better or worse our society is more aware of the inescapable long term tragedy that befalls smokers and is reacting to eliminate it.

Most people my age (first tier boomer) have watched a relative waste away from LC or strangle slowly from emphysema. We don't want that suffering in our lives. In part these laws are a reaction to the ugliness of the kind of death brought on by decades of smoking.

I do agree that this kind of law is intrusive and I would not vote for it if in a position to do so. I do enjoy the results.

[cinFLA]

Taste buds endure a lot of wear and tear, and over the years their numbers decline. By the time a guy becomes eligible for a senior discount at the movies, his buds have been reduced by about one-third, and his acuity of taste has gone out the window. This deterioration can be sped up by bad habits and obscure diseases that directly damage the taste receptors. Studies at the University of Pennsylvania showed that cigarette smokers were twice as likely to have a reduced sense of smell and taste as nonsmokers. Other studies revealed that cigarette smoke damages olfactory nerve tissue in mice and progressively reduces their ability to find cheese at the end of a maze.

Mens Fitness 11/98

[NittanyLion]

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.

I also doubt it can be proved, since there are far too many independent variables involved.

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

Actually, the point of this post was (and I quote) "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."

That said, your statement assumes facts not in evidence. Did some bars go bankrupt? Has there been a decrease in revenue that will force others into bankruptcy? Have revenues increased? Clearly the information provided is incomplete for the purposes of drawing any conclusions whatsoever.

[cinFLA]

http://www.healthy1.org/199908_salt.htm

Are you slowly losing your eyesight or hearing as you age? Do you seem to be experiencing erectile dysfunction, prostate difficulties, or other organ and sexually related problems as you grow older? Well, it may be related to your salt consumption.

A slow deterioration of eyesight, hearing, prostate problems, erectile dysfunction, and premature aging are all problems related to smoking, however if you don't smoke and are still experiencing some of these problems as you grow older, you might want to examine your salt consumption. Smoking destroys the elasticity of the arterial walls throughout the entire body and restricts blood flow through the smaller capillaries causing an eventual deterioration of the eyesight, hearing, prostate, and subsequent erectile dysfunction due to an abundance of free radicals1 from constituents of the gas phase of tobacco smoke2 which are deposited on the arteries. This creates serious problems throughout the body and especially to life sustaining organs due to diminished blood flow and lack of oxygen.

Salt also destroys the elasticity of arteries and capillaries just as smoking does except that salt is a totally different constituent. The common name for the damage which salt does to the arteries is hardening of the arteries, and it will ultimately cause a stroke and possible death when an artery eventually becomes too brittle and breaks from the hardening effect that is taking place.

This damage to the arteries is very similar to the tobacco smoke damage. When arteries lack the proper elasticity, blood has a difficult time getting into the capillaries, the small thin-walled vessels, in route to a healthy organ because efficient blood flow is dependent upon proper expansion and contraction of arteries and capillaries. The organ becomes even more effected when the size of the artery decreases due to excessive salt or free radical deposits on the arterial walls. The blood flow through the capillaries diminishes causing deterioration of the eyes, hearing, prostate, and sexual organs. The results can be devastating if an organ cannot get proper blood flow.

[cinFLA]

(An interesting article)

CAN opinion
4. Tobacco, that most underestimated of drugs
Introduction
This piece is about tobacco, the most underestimated drug in the world. Why?
Tobacco is the most integrated of all drugs in the culture of present-day humanity.
At the same time the consequences of its use are the most underestimated and concealed.
Tobacco came to Europe via Spain and Portugal in the 17th century as a result of the discovery of South America, and spread from there throughout the rest of the world. The explorers had seen the native South Americans smoking the leaves of the tobacco plant and attaching a ritual significance to this.

Source of pleasure?
Most tobacco users can recall their first experience with the drug.
The first cigarettes are generally described as foul, sick-making and repellent. Fair enough, since the human body has a natural reluctance to inhale smoke. The first meeting with the poisonous materials in tobacco smoke evoke a violent physical reaction. Thus babies and young children react with aversion to tobacco smoke in their surroudings.
How does it come about that some new users, despite this aversion, still persevere?
That is the result of cultural influence. There is a strong association between tobacco use and adulthood, which is what the youth wants to achieve as quickly as possible. Advertisers take advantage of this. In this way starting to use tobacco has acquired the significance of a sort of "initiation" into adulthood. We know that as well from some primitive societies, where youths must demonstrate their adulthood by some act of achievement: killing an animal, making a survival mission, withstanding a painful experience or whatever. Tobacco has succeeded in gaining a similar role in modern society. In fact we are much more primitive than we think! Many young people fall into this trap. They allow themselves to be talked into it, switch off their intelligence, overcome their aversion and start smoking tobacco, usually cigarettes or shag. What is their resulting experience? It's not a question of taste: tobacco smoke tastes of nothing, it just irritates the mucous membranes of the air passages and there are no taste buds there! Indeed the nicotine in the tobacco deadens the sensation of taste. Smoking is thus more a question of hurting yourself a little, a sort of masochistic experience. When smokers talk of taste they really mean: it does more or less "pain" in the lungs, or it smells differently.
It is the experiences, the social culture and the strongly addictive substances in the tobacco that soon make young people dependent. And once addicted usually means addicted for life. All these things make nicotinism public disease number one. There are few people that start smoking after their 20th birthday. In fact tobacco use is adolescent behavious carried through to adulthood. A real adult does not smoke.
Effect of tobacco on the body
Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 different substances including some which are radio-active.
At least 40 of these are proved to be carcigonenic, others play a part in the origin of cancer. In addition there are caustic substances in the smoke, such as formaldehyde, ammonia and cyanide gas. These substances are irritating to the air passages and limit their self-cleaning capacity. Tobacco smoke also contains a substantial proportion of carbon monoxide. That limits the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity, leading to diseases of the heart and blood vessels. Tobacco smoke contains nicotine which, being chemically related to heroin, is what causes the physical dependence. The addictive power of tobacco is indeed about as strong as that of heroin. That means that once you have started you soon have the feeling of not being able to manage without - and stopping is ten times as difficult because the dependency is not only physical but psychological and social.
Since nicotine is quickly broken down in the body, the withdrawal symptoms begin soon after the last dose. Which is why a smoker gets up in the morning with a powerful urge for tobacco, and soon after the last cigarette starts longing for the next one. The withdrawal symptoms include restlessness, stress, shaking, and lungs that cry out for the "hit" of tobacco. A user thinks that a cigarette has a calming effect. In fact that feeling is a result of the withdrawal symptoms being pacified; nicotine has in fact an accelerative effect on the body and thus causes more stress. This is the vicious circle in which users are caught up, and which is characteristic of every addiction.
In the short term tobacco use means an immediate attack on physical condition and performance, as a result of the effect of carbon monoxide on the oxygen carrying capacity. Sport and tobacco use is thus a contradiction in terms.
Headaches and migraine can also be caused by active or passive tobacco use. Tobacco is also a "starter" drug. Via tobacco, which itself does not cause a kick other than the physical reaction and the feeling of "belonging" (that is the component of social dependence) a way is quickly found to the use of other addictive products. This is because the combination of nicotine and formaldehyde in tobacco smoke has an effect on the brain which causes an accelerated need for other addictive or stimulating substances.
The product Zyban which is shortly to appear in the Dutch pharmacopoeia takes advantage of this effect.
Tobacco use is almost a condition for the use of soft drugs, because hash and marijuana are commonly used in combination with tobacco. There tobacco serves as a carrier, and frequent use ensures that the air passages are prepared to receive the alien substances. The danger inherent in the use of soft drugs is for an important part a result of the associated tobacco use.
In the medium term, tobacco use causes physical discomforts such as tightness in the chest, expectoration, coughing, reduced sexual performance, wrinkled skin, increased use of medicines, longer reaction time, worse concentration, bad teeth, poor sleep, loss of capacity to taste and smell, chronically cold limbs, loss of fertility, bad breath, greater propensity for illness, damage to the unborn foetus, eye disease, impotence and lots more.
In the long term, tobacco use is responsibility for invalidity and premature death. The commonest diseases are: all kinds of cancer (lungs, stomach, throat, pancreas, bladder, kidneys, breast, leukaemia and others), and circulatory diseases such as heart attacks and strokes. These diseases often lead to serious disability, for example as a result of amputations and paralysis. Other lung diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis are also an effect, and these too can lead to early invalidity and death.
The collective effect of these diseases is an average reduction of the life expectancy of smokers by 20 years. A large scale research project involving English doctors who had been followed up since 1951 showed that 50% of the smokers reached the age of 70 as compared with 80% of the non-smokers.
In addition there is a significant deterioration in the quality of life, and in this the choice of light or heavy tobacco makes no much difference. Statistics show that of all the young people who start smoking now, half of them will die early as a result of a tobacco-related disease, and half of those will die around middle age.
In short tobacco is a real assassin, and smoking is, like unsafe sex, playing Russian roulette wtith yourself.
There are more than 80 deaths per day in the Netherlands as a result of tobacco use. Everyone has one or more victims among their acquaintances. Many young people lose one or both parents prematurely to tobacco. This is all equivalent to a national disaster. The world situation is even worse; the Western tobacco industry is very active in trying to get the developing nations addicted. The number of victims in those countries will rise from the present 3 million to 20 million in 2020.
Tobacco and the environment
Tobacco use is also responsible for significant environmental pollution.
All the poisonous gases from tobacco smoke, especially in the climatic conditions here, end up in the indoor environment where we spend most of our time. Because of this tobacco smoke is the biggest source of indoor environmental pollution by far. Did you know for instance that the burning of one cigarette indoors causes more internal environmental pollution than was encountered recently in the Dutch town of Lekkerkerk where poison was entering the houses as a result of underground pollution? The burning of two cigarettes in a living room causes a pollution of 1000 particles per square meter. On the busiest crossing in Amsterdam "only" 50-100 particles were measured. Airborne tobacco smoke is in fact more dangerous than the presence of asbestos fibres.
In short: smoking tobacco indoors is highly irresponsible, it is something like burning an open fire without a chimney. Air purifiers do not offer adequate help; they remove the dust particles, but not the dangerous gases in the tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the devices are expensive and consume energy.
Tobacco growing in developing countries makes an enormous contribution to deforestation and environmental pollution, partly as a result of the use of large quantities of pesticides. Often chemicals are used which have been banned in the rest of the world.
In many countries the tobacco leaves are dried on enormous wooden fires which have to maintain a high temperature for a week. You can imagine how much wood is needed and how much smoke is added to the atmosphere as a result.
Most of the small tobacco farmers are exploited by the tobacco multinationals.
So it makes no sense at all to claim to be supporting a cleaner environment and the development of poorer countries whilst at the same time smoking a cigarette. It is strange that the environmental organizations do not let that worry them.

Passive smoking
When tobacco is smoked, by far the largest quantity of smoke ends up directly in the environment.
Only a small amount remains in the body of the smoker; the rest is added to the air which has to be shared by the non-smokers.
The biggest source of poison by far is the smoke from a smouldering cigarette. And that is inhaled by everyone present, smokers and non-smokers. Thus non-smokers are also passive smokers - also a serious threat to health. A "light passive smoker" such as someone who shares house room or a working area with smokers, will soon absorb as much smoke as the result of smoking 10 cigarettes. Passive smokers are also vulnerable to smokers' diseases and it is also a threat to their health and their life. It is estimated that 3000 people per year in the Netherlands die prematurely as a result of passive smoking (source: ANSR), of these, 200 are victims of lung cancer (source: NKI). Obligatory passive smoking is therefore extremely antisocial; the passive smokers are deprived of access to the clean air that is essential for life, and their health is threatened. People with asthma or an allergy (10% of the population) are worst off. They can become really ill either immediately or a few hours after exposure. They are just prevented from taking part in every day life and descend into social isolation. Also babies, children and the unborn suffer serious physical and psychological effects from exposure to tobacco smoke. Smokers have many tricks to force non-smokers into passive smoking so that they can continue their habit undisturbed.
What unsafe sex does to our intimate life, so does alcohol to life on the move, and tobacco to our social life!
A few statistics
The number of fatalities due to tobacco use in the Netherlands is at the moment around 30,000 per year (source: RIVM). In comparison: 2500 due to alcohol, 200: drugs, 1200: traffic.
Tobacco is miles ahead of all the others.
In the Netherlands about 1/3 of the population above 15 years are smokers. A greater proportion of young people between 15 and 19 year seem to have adopted the habit - the proportion is up to 45% now.
There is even an increase from 7 to 11% in the case of children aged between 10 and 14 (source: Stivoro). In addition there is a considerable increase in the use of soft drugs, and these two go hand in hand.
Partly as a result of the increasing popularity of soft drugs, tobacco is back in the race to enslave more addicts; thus an increase in the number of victims can be expected in the future. The danger of the use of soft drugs is only partly as a result of the drugs themselves, but much more by the associated tobacco use.
The average Dutch smoker lights up 7500 times a year, around 20 times per day. The tobacco companies spend annually about 700 million guilders (220 million English pounds, 350 million U.S. dollars) on advertising and promotion (source: CBS). This is especially directed to young people.
An estimated 10% of the costs of health care can be attributed to the effects of smoking, which is more than 8,000 million guilders (£2,500 million, $4,000 million). This is about the same as the total of the salaries of all the employees in the health service. A study by the Swiss Health Ministry shows that the social costs of tobacco use in the Netherlands (medical expenses, cost of invalidity, pensions etc.) must be in the region of 15,000 million guilders.
The tobacco trade
Tobacco marketing is in the hands of large multinationals. Vast sums are earned with this trade in death and destruction. No means are eschewed to ensure a profit whatever the consequences. For example:
the tobacco industry is actively involved in smuggling as a means of getting round government policies
they deliberately conceal unfavourable results of scientific investigations
they increase the natural nicotine content in order to make tobacco even more addictive
they obstruct the work of independent scientists
Deception is also part of the standard arsenal. The producers in the developing countries are exploited and forced into inappropriate practices. And this is just what has leaked out to the outside world.
There is in fact no difference between the methods used by the drug trade and those employed in the tobacco industry. Ethically seen, one is the extension of the other. But considering the large scale of the tobacco trade this is in fact much more dangerous.
Once there was a slave trade, now we have a trade in enslavement by addiction.
Conclusion
Now the underlying physical mechanism has been revealed, the title of tobacco as "the mother of all drugs" is seen to be justified. There is a very clear association between the explosive increase in drug use by young people and the increasing tobacco use by the same group. And this all begins at age 12 or 13!
For non-smokers, who are exposed just as much to the combination of nicotine and formaldehyde (and a cocktail of other poisons) tobacco smoke is also a serious threat. And this is sufficient reason to make the choice: SMOKEFREE LIVING! The difficulty is that this choice is still not permitted by the minority group, the smokers.
They continue to pollute almost all areas intended for public use.
If they threaten their own health that is their own business, but let them keep away from the non-smokers! Every individual smoker is personally responsible in this respect, but that does not relieve the community from the responsibility of making social rules and seeing that they are obeyed!
Abbreviations used:
Stivoro: Foundation for Public Health and Smoking
RIVM: State Institute for Public Health and Environmental Hygiene
CBS: Central Statistical Office
ANSR: Association of Non Smokers' Rights
NKI: Netherlands Cancer Institute

[Gabz]

Having lived places that banned smoking in bars and places that don't, I personally got to tell you its a far more pleasant evening and far more likely to go and stay when there isn't smoke.

I also have lived in both types of places and from personal experience believe you to be more the exception, then the rule.

I walked into an Irish bar in Dover, DE on St. Patrick's Day at happy hour and was able to get a seat at the bar. 2 years ago, when I walked into the same establishment on St. Pat's Day, I had to get there before 2pm to get a seat anywhere near the bar, let alone at the bar. 15 miles away, the bars in Maryland were SRO, and more than half the cars in the parking lots had Delaware tags.

Reality is, more people don't smoke than do anymore.

Nobody will argue with that point.

I would not be suprised that as the dust has settled that bars and restraunts are making more money now.

The dust has settled in many places and that is just not true. I have friends who are owners and others who are employees in both new York and Delaware.......they are still hurting

One friend of mine in Delaware has seen an increase in his dine in business.....but not nearly enough to make up for the losses of his happy hour business or his weekend night business. he has gone from live entertainment 3 nights a week to one night every other week......he doesn't have the crowd any longer to justify the cost of the entertainment. Where he used to have 5 staffers working on Friday and Saturday nights, he now has 2 at the most......and this is well over a year after the Delaware ban went into effect.

[CurlyDave]

...total lack of thought. Were you not free to risk your own capitol and open a "no smoking" restaurant or bar?

While this is theoretically possible, it is you who have the lack of thought. I merely wanted to buy a drink, not the entire bar. There is a huge difference in cost, and even if I do buy the whole bar, I still have very limited choice.

The reality of this is that by insisting on a non-existent "right" to smoke everywhere and anywhere they want, smokers have fouled their own nest. The backlash has grown strong enough that the majority is passing laws which I agree are "bad", in the sense that they are an overreaction to the problem.

If smokers want to preserve any public smoking areas they really ought to get in front of the anti-smoking movement and start offering up some compromises. Agree to wide areas of non-smoking in order to preserve a few smoking areas.

This may be distasteful to many, but the fact is that the antis are looking pretty strong right now and smokers have the choice of reaching the best deal they can now, or being flattened by a steamroller over the next few years.

[CSM]

"We would welcome a non-smoking bar and would frequent them as we do enjoy a drink, conversation, and some bar food."

Is there something preventing you from putting your own effort into opening such a bar? Is there something preventing you from risking your own capitol? If you are to lazy to take advantage of a potential market, you can't complain that the market doesn't cater to the minimal extreme potential customer.