"Businesses Harmed by Smoking Bans"
Every company's greatest assets are its customers, because without customers there is no company.
- Michael LeBoeuf
Posted on 03/29/2004 6:13:25 PM PST by 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.
Actually, quite the contrary. I am against the Social Security system. Against Public Education. Against Public Benefits. Against Public Grants. And I am against the New York Bar Smoking Ban.
Some socialist I am.
You call me an addict to a legal product
People who are addicted to Percodan are addicted to a legal product (didn't Rush just leave rehab for this). Alcoholics are addicted to a legal product, etc, etc.
What, please tell, does addiction have to do with the legality of drug? Do you think the brain and body knows the difference?
yet you out yourself as an addict of government. I smell credibility issues!
Well, like a famous philospher once said "Whoever smelt it, dealt it".
You've got to be kidding? Smokers have been compromising for years and years.....but the anti-smokers are never satisfied.....give them an inch and they take a mile
I've been dealing with this issue for more than 15 years, and first spoke out publicly at a City Council meeting in 1990, when Dover was on the verge of becoming the first city in Delaware to institute some form of a smoking ban.
I have watched the rights of business owners be gradually removed ever since.
This has nothing to do with smokers wanting the "right" to smoke where ever and when ever they wish.......it is more about the anti-smokers demanding their "right" to go where ever and when ever they want and not be subjected to the "right" of a property owner to smoke on his own property if he so chooses.
What people fail to remember is that these smoking bans cover ALL businesses/workplaces, not just bars and restaurants. I've been self-employed for years, however had I chosen to hire a an employee I would have been forbidden to smoke in my own home after the Delaware smoking ban went into effect because it would have then been considered a "workplace"......my own home. How ridiculous is that? One of my clients owned the building his business was in, everyone that worked there was a smoker....the total ban forbade even the owner from smoking in his own building. Granted, unlike a bar he didn't face the prospect of losing his business license for ignoring the ban, but it was still a hassle.....he sold the building and the business less than 6 months after the ban went into effect....because he couldn't be bothered dealing with the health police.
I agree. You should be able to do what you want on your own private property. Well, maybe not anything.
Some municipal ordinances have a place. For instance, the ones that prevent you from mowing your lawn at 5am on Sunday, or blasting your music at 120 decibals at 3am ... but for the most part, I agree with you.
I don't smoke, but I do own a home and a business in NY, and I would prefer to make my own decisions for better or for worse as to how to run them. That being said, lets take a closer look at the 9% year over year increase and the possible reasons:
1. There really was a 9% increase, and therefore the pro-smoke crowd is well, blowing smoke.
2. The statistics lump all food and beverage establishments into one large group so that an increase in sales tax revenues at places like McD's, Burger King, Wendy's, and your corner deli, compensates for the decrease in sales tax revenues at bars, clubs, and restaurants.
3. Bars and restaurants have raised prices across the board to mitigate the hit from lost revenues due to the smoking ban. Less people paying more may add up to higher tax revenues, at least in the short term. However, Economics 101 teaches that a point will come when the increased prices will actually produce lower revenues as people spend their money elsewhere. (Something to do with the laws of elasticity and diminishing returns.)
4. Sales tax revenues are up because the overall economy is up and as a result, people are spending more. Indeed, I've noticed at my own favorite Irish Pub that people I haven't seen in years are back out spending money, not because the place is smoke free, but because they have more money to spend. Perhaps the healine should read "Revenues only up 9% in NY Bars." If not for the smoking ban, perhaps revenues would have been up 20% or more. To test this theory, one would have to look at the year over year change starting back in 1999, which was the last good year in the stock market before the DOT COM bust and the Clinton Recession.
5. You need to look at how sales taxes are collected. At many non-chain, non-hotel bars and pubs, the sales tax is "included" in the price of the beer or wine or scotch or whatever, as long as the beverage is purchased at the bar and not at a table with food, and that's because bar sales in these types of places are cash and no bar owner wants to hand back change consisting of nickles, dimes, and pennies. That's why the prices are nice round numbers, with the sales tax included in those round numbers, and paid upon total cash register receipts. (Which is also why people who order drinks at a table with food are overcharged because the drinks -- which already includes sales tax -- are added to the total bill pre-tax.) My point is that sales tax revenues could be up because people are spending more money at places where food is the primary focus rather than secondary or because traditional bars are adding more food to make up for lost bar revenues. The problem is that food sales is low margin, and while the B & R's total revenues may be up (which is what the sales tax is based upon), the bottom line is in pretty big trouble.
The one gal bartender in NYC that Fox News interviewed yesterday was ask about this very issue. 'But didn't she feel better by not going home at night smelling like smoke?'
She fired back "If the smell bothered me, I would never have taken a job in a BAR!" She's sharp!
She also said her personal wages are down now almost 35% and she wants her earnings BACK!
Stu, this isn't about the preservation of smoking.
This is about the preservation of property rights. You've been told this more than twice and still don't seem to get it.
If someone is a drug addict, it is not mocking or "stigmatizing" to refer to the addiction. Is it?
And so you lump all who enjoy smoking tobacco, cigarette, cigar, or pipe, into one perfect little category, "addicts".
What about the occasional smoker? What about the smoker that ISN'T addicted? Don't tell me there is no such thing on either count, I know better from personal experience.
What do you have to say about those people?
Pro-property rights, Stu, not pro-smoking.
"Businesses Harmed by Smoking Bans"
Every company's greatest assets are its customers, because without customers there is no company.
- Michael LeBoeuf
I do get it, Joe. I am against the NYC bar smoking ban.
And so you lump all who enjoy smoking tobacco, cigarette, cigar, or pipe, into one perfect little category, "addicts".
Only if they are addicted. Not all tobacco users are addicts. They are only addicted if they are unable to cease or control usage.
What about the occasional smoker? What about the smoker that ISN'T addicted? Don't tell me there is no such thing on either count, I know better from personal experience.
I know many such people. They are simple recreational users, not addicts at all. Same thing with those that drink an occasional glass of wine. I am well aware that these people exist.
What do you have to say about those people?
That they are recreational drug users, and not addicts.
Pro-property rights, Stu, not pro-smoking.
Fair enough. I agree with you on this position.
Fair enough. I agree with you on this position.
But yet on every one of these threads I have seen you on you come across as a champion of these types of bans.
Why do I, and several others, get this disconnect?
But you profess to know how the Lord will call smokers back.
I do know that it's pretty arrogant for you to presume to do my thinking for me on the subject.
I merely posed a question. Or is any questioning of the perpetually sanctimonious prima facie evidence of arrogance?
I have been saying this for years.........smoking bans are just a back door move towards prohibition. It is only bars that face losing their license to do business by violating the bans. A bar without a liquor license is no longer a bar or in business. A coffee shop that violates the ban only faces increasing fines....not a loss of a business license.
Except for a few specific exemptions (VFWs, American Legion, ELKS, Moose lodges and volunteer fire companies) the smoking ban in Delaware covers EVERY single place of business in the entire state. 2 weeks ago today, the Senate debated a bill that would have "leveled the playing field" by removing the possibility of liquor license holders from losing their licenses for smoking violations........it was defeated based upon the (patently false) premise such a change would be diluting the ban.
For more than 2 years I have been proposing an amendment that would truly level the playing field.....any business convicted 3 times of ban violation faces the possibility of losing their license to do business, not just liquor license holders.......it has been shot down every time.
When I call someone names or level a personal attack, I always get a private email from 'Admin Moderator' informing me that it is expressly prohibited by the Free Republic terms of service. Therefore, I will not reply in kind.
it is not mocking or "stigamatizing to refer to the idiocy. Is It?
Idiocy is subjective. Addiction is well-defined in scientific, biochemistry, and medical research.
Thefore, calling somone who is unable stop administering a drug an addict, and calling someone you don't like an "idiot", are two entirely seperate logical arguements.
It's not that I am a champion of a ban on private property (though on PUBLIC property, I am). I support the right to smoke in private property 100%. The disconnect is that I notice some rather pathalogical hypocricy when it comes to statistics on smoking itself, which tend to rear their heads on such threads.
If the data supports smoking in any way ... it's valid. Anything less is "bogus" and "manipulted".
I am against the intellectual dishonesty of responses to news artciles on the law, not the distaste of the law itself.
That is the distinction.
Let me disabuse you of your mistaken notions. First, I'd be perfectly happy to pay for the car, provided the automaker produces it. And it's certainly technologically feasible - the only question is whether the free market would support its manufacture.
Since you're already on record as stating you prefer government intervention to subvert the free market, we're simply talking about a matter of degree.
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.
You forgot the easiest way yet: allow the property owner to determine what behaviors are allowed on his/her property. Assuming the market exists for nonsmoking establishments, owners will surely be willing to open them. Right?
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?
Actually, I don't smoke at all. I guess you could say I'm addicted to private property rights, though.
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.
Not really. You're also free to seek out a nonsmoking bar, or get together with likeminded individuals and provide capital to open one.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it at all.
Huh? What shoe, on what other foot?
Well, us non-smokers have been forced to tolerate smoke for centuries.
Yes, because property owners allowed the behavior on their property. You do believe in property rights, don't you? Or does that only apply when yours isn't the ox being gored?
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.
Can you provide the evidence to back up that assertion?
Plus, there is a hidden agenda in all of this that has very little to do with smoking. Bars are onsidered "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.
I already am. Yet oddly enough, you continue to support their hidden agenda, which is trampling property rights in its path.
Why would you do that?
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.