Revenues up 9% in New York Bars

Fox News | 3-29-04 | unknown

[Diverdogz]

I live in Florida, where for maybe the last year, there has been no smoking allowed in restaurants.

Good God do I love it!!! I can go to a restaurant and eat a meal without gagging on secondhand smoke from some nasty, rude geezer's cigarette. No itchy eyes, no gnarly smells - just savor the kitchen aromas.

They all had smoking sections before, but those were about as effective as having a "no peeing" section in a pool.

[MNlurker]

I agree. I like to smoke when I'm out and thought I would hate the rule when I visited California. Not that big a deal really.

Of course, what is a New Yorker going to do? Its not like you can jump in the car and drive to the bar the next town over that still allows smoking. Captive populace. There should be smoking and non smoking bars. Patrons will go to the one they prefer...

[BikerNYC]

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.

[BikerNYC]

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.

[Ron in Acreage]

Revenues would be even higher if the ban was not in effect. Probably 20% or more.

[CGASMIA68]

Sorry there Biker dude...... 2001 Yamaha V-Star 650 Classic (Black)

...... when and if ya go to Daytona do ya stand on the side walk and window shop and not step inside for a brew and a look see cause ya dont want yer leathers to smell of smoke...
Missen all the fun Dude.....

[norton]

"No doubt, homey."

I just love a graceful winner.

Bite M* homey.

What it means is that smokers can generally find a congenial crowd outside...local fave has a great patio that a couple of locals shut down as a jazz venue (more mindless 'my way or else' types) and last time I was on the east coast there were more friendlies outside than in...

says something about the average Matre-De (matra-di, matter-dee, whatever) and the average breathe-not-on-me nazi.

Fact of the matter is, I'll happily step outside to smoke 'cause I'm tired of listening to the typical bar/restaurant drone.

One of my favorite memories of my father was listening to him berate people wearing cologne (pansy) or perfume in public. That man could gag and snort like he was having a true fit....he died at 74 of (get this) a birth defect.

PS lung cancer is quick, think about that while you sit in dialysis and contemplate dementia...Oh, wait, not likely that you could actually contemplate dementia is it?

[Ben Chad]

LOL BUMP

[HarryCaul]

If it's anything like bars in California, they just ignore the rule if they feel like it.

[dasboot]

I can tell you I'm pretty sure no smoking ordinances are killing business. I'm a pub bard part-time. In the towns around the two larger cities I'm near that passed no-smoking laws, the bars, once pretty busy, are dying off: non-smokers might come in, but they usually have one or two and leave...it's a lifestyle thing for a lot of folks. These places are having to rely on their food business to float the once more profitable bar business..and going under.
I played a new place last Friday in the city that , of its own, decided to go smoke-free. They have no regulars. I pulled a crowd, but they apologized to me and left in dribs and drabs--almost all of them-- soon after arriving....one smoker in a group of four who has to go outside will persuade the group to go elsewhere ...won't be playing there again: it hurts my business. I now have to remember to ask about smoking policy for my customers.
On the other hand, the city bars that still allow smoking are absolutely crammed SRO on the weekends. People are loud, rowdy, puffin', dancin', and drinking. My kind of place. The burbs are toast.
So there are winners and losers.

[tiki]

I've known about 10 people who have died of alcoholism (My 51 yr old cousin just died Saturday) and I only know 1 who has died of lung cancer and he smoked but he also loaded and flagged a crop duster. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[murdocj]

I didn't see the FoxNews story, but this just went online:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8306867.htm

There's a lot more to bar revenues than smoking or non-smoking, but the simple fact is that the people who predicted a huge drop in business after the ban went into effect were wrong.

Revenues up 9% and anti-ban people have a list of reasons why that involve all sorts of different factors and ignore the ban. Why didn't they mention any of these other factors last year when they predicted doom and gloom?

[tinamina]

I have a young friend who lives in NYC and says that what they do now is go to many bars and smoke while walking from one to the other.
Personally I think Bloomberg cooked the books on this one, since bar owners are all saying business is down. But then maybe they had to raise their prices to compensate for the lost business.

[Stentor]

The excesses of the whiner's responses remind me of a fortune cookie "Strong words denote a weak cause."

Whiners? Sanctimonious irritating prigs? All the same to me.

[Gabz]

Hmmm - sounds like it's still a business problem to me, not a cause for celebration. A net decline of 16% from 2 years ago would be the death knell for many businesses

It has been.

I've spoken with numerous bar owners and workers in NYC and through out NY state and they all say the same thing....the ban is killing them.

I have watched many of my friends who are either owners or workers seriously hurt in Delaware....and that ban has been in effect even longer. I was in Delaware 2 weeks ago and stopped to see some friends.....an Irish pub on the afternoon of St. Patrick's day was empty...........tell me the smoking ban is not hurting the bars and I will point to the bridge in Brooklyn I have to sell......

[Cicero]

When did the smoking ban go into effect? Bloomberg has been mayor for more than three years, now. As suggested above, the figures may have risen since last year but plunged from the year before that.

Frankly, I don't believe this. I suspect that if the figures are true, they massaged them by carefully picking the time period involved. That's an old trick.

[microgood]

Whiners? Sanctimonious irritating prigs? All the same to me.

Its funny the way Rush describes the anti-smoking zealots: they think they have this right to go anywhere in the world and be free of smoke. Rather than just going to non-smoking establishments of which there are many, we must all conform to their view of the world. It must be hard to have fun with people that take themselves so seriously. Kinda reminds you of that atheist guy Newdow.

[microgood]

Frankly, I don't believe this. I suspect that if the figures are true, they massaged them by carefully picking the time period involved. That's an old trick.

You are right. The link on post #32 shows they used the 2002 figures, right after 911. How convenient.

[kaki]

The news?person we heard either misstated or we were'nt listening closely, but he said the tax revenues in "restaurants" went up. That's when my husband and I looked at each other and asked "Why did they not report tax revenues for nightclubs, bars, lounges, etc.?? We could understand "restaurants", but what about the other businesses had to close due to the smoking ban? FYI, I am an ex-smoker and my husband still smokes.

[NYCVirago]

Wrong. 2002 was a horrible year for bars and restaurants, due to the aftermath of 9/11. That's what they're comparing these revenues to, which is very misleading. If you compare the post-smoking-law revenues to pre-9/11 numbers, it will paint a very different picture.