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.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Those whiners who actually believe in private property. Reactionaries!

[Just another Joe]

OK, I'll bite.
How many bars had to close for the revenue of the bars still open to go up 9%?

ps: This is for restaurants, bars, lounges, grills, etc, not just bars.
You're comparing apples and grapes.

[cinFLA]

I was listening to the local FM news commie talking about this story on his top of the hour news. It was a hoot while he tried to explain the increase in revenue was only because of the smoking ban, to spite the "sagging economy".

What an idiot.

I have seen many post here on FR about decrease in revenues related to smoking bans and trying to explain it was NOT about a sagging economy.

What idiots.

[ClintonBeGone]

Those of us that know about Mayor Blooming Idiot do not like him and we do NOT trust him. He can twist the numbers all he likes, but the truth is in the pudding. The pudding was on Fox News yesterday. Three people who told it like it is about how the revenue has fallen off for them since the smoking ban was instigated.

It's very likely that the revenue is up in those bars that have survived. If 50% of the bars have gone out of business, its possible that the demand is spread over the 50% the remain, although as a whole revenue is down in the industry.

I say this knowing that that is the way Bloomberg and Stu Cohen want it.

[cinFLA]

Hey...the fewer smokes people buy, the more money they have to buy booze. And it's great not smellin like the inside of an ashtray.

Reminds me of an old phrase; kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray.

[NittanyLion]

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.

I see. Personally, I'd like to buy a car that doubles as a personal jet, yet oddly enough the automakers aren't providing this amenity to me. While it's theoretically possible I could buy GM, I think since I merely want a car they should be forced to provide it to me.

After all, we already subvert the free market to cater to personal choices, right? What's one more?

[ClintonBeGone]

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.

Good point CSM. Its not unlike those that use the Windows operating system yet complain its a monopoloy and want to destroy Microsoft for that very reason. Either it works for you or it doesn't. If it doesn't, do use it (or don't go to a bar that has smoking). Don't look to government to solve all your grievances.

[Madame Dufarge]

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.

Just curious, what kind of pretty, suffering-free death do you anticipate for yourself?

[ClintonBeGone]

While it's theoretically possible I could buy GM, I think since I merely want a car they should be forced to provide it to me.

After all, we already subvert the free market to cater to personal choices, right? What's one more?

LOL here here! Here's to landing one right between Curly's eyes.

[CSM]

"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."

So you admit that your own preferences didn't warrant the appropriate level of effort on your part to satisfy those preferences. You end up celebrating the government regulation that catered to your laziness.

"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."

No where have I, or any other poster standing against the bans, advocated a "right" to smoke everywhere and anywhere. Instead, we are advocating for the owner of the property to chose thier preferences. We are willing to abide by the property owner's wishes and either not smoke if they prefer us not to or practice our right to not enter that property. We are now seeing the tryanny of the majority eliminating private property.

"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."

Why must smokers be the only advocates protecting the owner of a property's rights? I would expect all AMERICANS to have the desire to protect private property rights. What other areas of the constitution are you going to leave to me to protect? What other compromises would you suggest the smokers offer up? We already have no smoking in truly public places, we have smoke free airplanes, airports, non-smoking sections in EVERY restaurant, most workplaces are smoke free, etc. Smoking is still allowed a VERY SMALL fraction of our world and generally that is in PRIVATE property. Smokers have continually compromised and the result is a kick in the groin and the theft of private property.

"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."

Yep, and after smoking is taxed to death and the behavriour is completely demonized the next step will occur. Bad foods will be regulated and taxed. I hope you enjoy your government approved gruel. Soylent green, who would have thought it would someday come true!

[metesky]

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.

Stu, I'm sixty and all these things were enacted by the Federal gooberment before I was old enough to have a say in it, a condition I assume to be correct for most of the posters on this board. In other words, on these three issues we were stuck with a fait accompli.

This is not the case with smoking bans, which you and your ilk have not only supported, but gleefully supported. Folks like you and your cohorts actually had a chance to beat back socialism and have instead embraced it.

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.

No wonder so many people dislike you and your posts when you repeatedly mock and stigmatize people as "addicts".

[ClintonBeGone]

Just curious, what kind of pretty, suffering-free death do you anticipate for yourself?

You make a great point. It is rather naive to think that only by not smoking you'll experience a nice tidy painless end.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Sad to see people championing this kind of government interference here. In a free society it should be the property owner's choice.

Government bans on alcohol and certain foods to follow...apparently with "conservatives" cheering them on.

[Gabz]

I have no problem with you enjoying the results, and appreciate the fact you would not support such a measure if in a position to do so.

I'm not sure what you mean by "first tier boomer" when you say "most people my age........" Neither my husband (born '55) or I (born '60) know anyone who has died from LC, let alone a relative. In fact I only know one person that has had a relative die from it, and that person was a life long non-smoker, and I'm the baby of the bunch in our circle of friends and acquaintances.

There is no "inescapable long term tragedy that befalls smokers"..........some smokers do, but by and large, most don't. The pundits all love to quote the CDC's number of 400,000+ premature deaths each year attributable to smoking....yet fail to acknowlege nearly 20% of those "premature smoking related" deaths are over the age of 85, with nearly an additional 20% over the age of 75.

Everyone has their own personal experiences, all of which are perfectly valid because they are first hand personal experience.

[metesky]

In the March issue of The American Spectator Ben Stein whines about his father's "premature" death from smoking. I looked it up: Herbert Stein was 83.

[Stu Cohen]

This is not the case with smoking bans, which you and your ilk have not only supported, but gleefully supported. Folks like you and your cohorts actually had a chance to beat back socialism and have instead embraced it.

I think you are overdramatizing the situation. With the examples of socialism in place that you addressed, which actually effect every American financially, effort should be expended into getting rid of those things, rather than the preservation of smoking.

This is not the case with smoking bans, which you and your ilk have not only supported

"My ilk"? I don't even want to know what you mean by that.

No wonder so many people dislike you and your posts when you repeatedly mock and stigmatize people as "addicts".

If someone is a drug addict, it is not mocking or "stigmatizing" to refer to the addiction. Is it?

[Stu Cohen]

I say this knowing that that is the way Bloomberg and Stu Cohen want it.

First of all, Stu doesn't particularly care about the New York bar scene. I've gone on record as stating that I do not believe that smoking should be banned in bars. I am not in favor of the law.

That being said ....

If revenue is up 9%, it's up 9%.

If it was down 30%, you would be here screaming that it was because of the smoking ban - and you know it.

Because the numbers aren't the way you want them, they're inaccurate, cooked, contrived, or were forumulated in backrooms with conspiratorial caluculators.

Unless you can point to contradictory statistics, instead of anecdotal "well, I know a bar owner who says his patronage has dropped off" ... it's hard to take your conspiracy theories seriously.

[CurlyDave]

Here's to landing one right between Curly's eyes.

Actually it is a pretty lame analogy for two reasons:

1. I never suggested that the drink should be free, it appears Nittany wants a free car.

2. A car which doubles a a jet is not technically feasible at this time, a non-smoking bar is feasible--lots of states have demonstrated exactly how to do it.

There is a better way to work this out. All of these laws allow smoking outside. There is a lot of grousing about how this doesn't work in colder climates, but the true free enterprise and democracy solutions give smokers two choices:

1. Lobby for relaxed smoking laws (not much chance of this since the non-smoking laws were recently passed), or

2. Pick up stakes and move to a warm weather state. Florida and southern CA have very few problems with outside smoking.

What, you don't want to give up your job and all the other parts of your life just to have a few smokes with your drinks?

Well, that is just as practical as you wanting me to buy a bar just to have a few drinks without smokes. (If i buy a bar, I have to give up my current job just to run it.) And, it has the advantage of being completely legal right now.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it at all. Well, us non-smokers have been forced to tolerate smoke for centuries. Of course business at bars is down, peole who don't like smoke have had a very long time to find other activities. Give us a few hundred years and we will flock back to the bars.

Plus, there is a hidden agenda in all of this that has very little to do with smoking. Bars are considered "undesirable" businesses in most localities. Seldom will a politician campaign on a platform of bringing more bars to an area. If a smoking ban has the effect of forcing bars out of business without overtly outlawing bars, most local governments will view this as a beneficial side effect. Go skewer the politicians over this issue.

[wtc911]

I have no way of knowing how the Lord will call me back. I do know that it's pretty arrogant for you to presume to do my thinking for me on the subject. I do know that I won't die because of any kind of any addiction. I also know that smoking increases my chances of suffering from certain kinds of ugly slow death. I also know that watching me suffer a kind of death that could have been avoided (you know, sucking on an oxygen bottle for six months then suffocating) is not something I want for my kids. Guess I'm just selfish. But, hey, that's me. You of course are absolutely free to do anything you want to yourself and to subject anyone who might love you to witness the suffering of your choice. Have fun.

[-YYZ-]

You addressed the post about salt to me because...?

No, I don't have any problems with eyesight, hearing, or getting it up. Do you?