King? Or Hitler?
Posted on 12/30/2003 5:30:22 AM PST by SheLion
Monday, December 29, 2003
It's nearly the last gasp for smoking bar patrons
University of Southern Maine student Ben Theriault, of Buxton, takes time out from class to enjoy a cigarette in 2002. Starting next month, smoking will be banned in bars in Maine. Smoking is already banned in restaurants and in most public buildings.
To some bar patrons, the haze padding the ceiling and hanging over pool tables is as much a part of a bar as a bank of beer taps.
Those who have become accustomed to the sight, as well as those who are used to puffing on cigarettes between drinks, now have just a few days to savor it - the state's ban on smoking in bars is due to go into effect Thursday.
While officials at the state Bureau of Health and anti-smoking groups have touted the ban's health benefits since it was passed early last summer, bar patrons who frequent Portland's hazy, smoke-filled watering holes view the ban as another example of well-intentioned, yet misdirected legislation.
"(Smoking) is an easy scapegoat for our society's health problems," which are also caused by pollution, fast food and a number of other factors, said Clifford Brown of Portland, who lit a cigarette as he sat at one end of Amigo's Mexican Restaurant on Dana Street. Well over half of those who frequent the bar and restaurant - which has separate smoking and non-smoking sections - smoke cigarettes.
Brown, along with other patrons gathered at Amigo's on Friday, said he opposes the ban on principle. The state should not try to legislate health consciousness, he said.
"If you don't smoke, you don't have to come into a place like this," said Arty Tavano, 40, a cook at Gritty McDuff's on Fore Street. "Bars are here to be smoked in."
Tavano said the ban will not only change the character of many bars in the Old Port, but fill the area's sidewalks with smokers who must go outside to feed the habit. This will cause a slew of new problems that Portland's Police Department does not have the resources to deal with, such as fights and patrons walking out on their bills, he said.
"They're gonna ask cops to tell people not to smoke," Tavano said, laughing.
The ban has also rendered obsolete Gritty McDuff's $60,000 ventilation system, purchased after the state banned smoking at restaurants in 1999 so the bar and grill could continue to allow smoking in one section, he said.
Some smokers said they think the ban will go largely unenforced. Most, however, said they think bars in Portland will adhere to the ban.
"I'm trying to live it up until Thursday," said Brown, 21, as he smoked a Lucky Strike cigarette.
The smoking ban means that virtually all public workplaces in Maine, barring a few exceptions, do not allow smoking indoors. Private clubs such as the Elks may only allow smoking if they close their halls to the public and have no paid employees, or if they close their halls to non-members and all of their employees agree to allow smoking indoors.
Questions remain about who will enforce the ban after it goes into effect.
Portland Police Chief Michael Chitwood says he has received "no direction from the state" as to how his officers should enforce the ban.
The state eliminated the Bureau of Liquor Enforcement in June. The department used to make sure bars and convenience stores didn't sell alcohol to minors, so local police departments have already picked up those duties. The smoking ban adds another regulatory duty to the agendas of local police, he says.
"It's not a priority," Chitwood said. "I don't have the manpower to deal with it all."
Although it seems it will take time to figure out the best way to enforce the ban, the law has teeth.
The state will assess a fine of $100 per offense to smokers and bar owners caught breaking the law, according to Dr. Dora Anne Mills, director of the state Bureau of Health. Mills says bar owners may also be fined for failing to post signs informing patrons of the ban and that liquor licenses may be suspended or revoked after repeated violations.
Local police, the Bureau of Health and the Attorney General's Office have enforcement powers, Mills says, adding that the bureau has set up a Web site and toll-free number (www.tobaccofreemaine.com; 800-560-5269) where bar patrons and employees may report violations of the ban anonymously.
California became the first state to ban smoking in bars when it put a stop to lighting up in taverns and restaurants in 1998. A restaurant-only version of the smoking ban took effect in Maine in September 1999.
Supporters of the law tout the ban's health benefits, as fewer bar patrons and employees will be exposed to second-hand smoke. Mills says the ban may also convince smokers to fire up fewer times while out on the town, and minors to stop associating smoking with recreational drinking.
Opponents of the ban, however, say the financial impact on bars that cater to those who want a cigarette with a drink will be fierce.
Tracy Knight, owner of the Loose Moose Saloon in Gray, owned a bar in Whittier, Calif., when smoking was banned there in 1998. Knight says although she hopes to see no decline in revenue, she expects a 30 percent drop in sales after Thursday.
"I dealt with it in California," she said. "My customers say, 'We'll just stay home and drink a six-pack there.' "
Knight and an association of mostly bar owners have fought the ban since it was passed last summer.
The group tried to gather enough signatures to force a "people's veto" referendum on the legislation, which would have taken place in June 2004, but was unable to meet a tight deadline. It is now trying to gather enough signatures to force a referendum to repeal the ban in November 2004.
That may be too late for a small number of struggling bars and their employees, Knight says.
"The majority of bar owners are struggling anyway - people don't have a lot of expendable income in today's economy. . . . A fourth of the businesses I talked to (during the referendum campaign) were just hanging on."
Staff Writer Elbert Aull can be contacted at 791-6335 or at: eaull@pressherald.com
Or cities. But, if your assertion is true (that the bans are not harmful for business), the bans will at least stay in place, and should not have any exceptions carved out (e.g., for hotels to accomodate loss in convention business, etc.).
Time will tell. Right now, everybody is pretty well dug in, and talk is cheap.
If I were king there would be only one law regarding smoking.
Actually, my preconceived notion is that bars and restaurants in NY would lose business to the surrounding areas. I was surprised to read about numerous openings. Whether its true or whether its just the normal turnover and the net amount of bars has reduced I don't know. I do wish I could find it again because the reason for posting it was to raise up the issue that just because someone closes doesn't mean the total industry business is down. The true measurement needs to be take of the total plusses and minuses.
Any smoker who lives in a non smoking state, and who lives close to a border is lucky! We live pretty close to the Canadian border here, but I am not sure how the smoking laws are over there anymore. I haven't been to Canada in years. We used to go to the mall over there, and you could sit in the open in front of their cafe's, eat, drink and smoke. It was great. And inside. Not outside. A big airy mall.
He just puts "spin" on everything to come out the way HE wants it to sound. Doesn't make what he says true or factual.
He wants to look like the big dog in the kennel, hoping somewhere, someone will back him up. Unless he calls out his troops, he is a little out numbered today. Maybe finally, the general public, not him, is starting to see the light. One can only hope.
I believe that if a national ban were to take place there might be some lost business but the amount lost would be more than offset by increased profit margins. Catering to smokers adds labor and maintenance costs. In addition, if the hard core smokers/drinkers who dropped a lot of cash in bars stayed home the savings to the owner in liability insurance and to us in car insurance is a welcome offset to the lost business as well as the boost in income to the liquor store owner would yield an uptick in the economy.
King? Or Hitler?
Boy! Have "I" got a camp for YOU!!!
Why would a national ban be necessary to produce savings in the form of reduced liability insurance, reduced car insurance, etc.? Already, we nonsmokers have the benefit of reduced health and life insurance premiums. Likewise, the savings you recite in the form of labor and maintenance caused by catering to smokers should appear even in a local ban.
Happy New Year to you!
Its not. The need for a national ban is to create the environment that the smoker has no other option than to go to the nonsmoking bar or restaurant based on features other than smoking. The owner of a bar in a nosmoking town will loose business to smokers who go to the next town. A national or regional ban is needed to keep the customers from drifting to smoking bars.
I can only imagine.
That is inconsitent with the assertion that a ban is not harmful to business. I thought you were saying that any "drifting off" of smokers is likely to be more than offset by increases in attendance by folks (smokers and non smokers alike) who prefer the non-smoking environment.
That is inconsitent with the assertion that a ban is not harmful to business. I thought you were saying that any "drifting off" of smokers is likely to be more than offset by increases in attendance by folks (smokers and non smokers alike) who prefer the non-smoking environment.
Oops, I mistated your earlier assertion. It was ..."there might be some lost business but the amount lost would be more than offset by increased profit margins."
Sorry about that, you didn't say increased attendance, you said increased profit margins. That implies not going out of business, eh?
Your opposition to the bans has been noted and appreciation for that has been expressed in the past, yet you insist on pushing much of the propaganda being spewed out by the media from the highly paid anti-smoker orgs.
Some of it may be market driven, but it's still wrong. The only level playing field in the hospitality business is the free market system. If the big places think they can fare better by being non-smoking, let them do it, instead of forcing the little guys to do it as well.
As to employees having to tolerate SHS while others don't have to, the laws requiring those private businesses shouldn't be there either. The business itself should make that decision based upon the desires of their employees. (smoking bans because of fire hazard concerns are a differnt story and so I am not referring to the sales floor of most retailers, just the offices). Why should an office of 4 people who all smoke be subjected to these bans?
Everyone tends to just focus on bars and restaurants and other recreational types of business, but these bans effect all businesses.. Which brings me to your point of unfair application.
These smoking bans, even the total bans across the board do have a major element of unfair application that no one seems willing to address. The owner of a coffee shop faces nothing more than increasing dollars for each violation, yet the bar across the street faces losing its liquor license after 3 violations. Losing a liquor license puts a bar out of business.
Is it just a back door effort at prohibition? I don't know, but it sure looks like it to me.
If the majority smoker has the option available to go to a smoking place, then the nonsmoking bar will loose his revenues. If there is a ban on all places so that the smoker has no other options than the majority smoker will go to his ussual places.
The minority smoker will never go and will represent lost revenues. If lost revenues were the only effect from the smoking ban then all businesses would have less profits. However, costs are more than likely to be reduced if their is no need to cater to smokers. These reduces costs will offset the lost revenues from the hard core smoker. The exact numbers are unknown but my guess is that the net effect is a wash.
You may be surprised but in a true market system, the winners use everything at their disposal to win. Use of the gov't, especially in a heavy regulated industry is a prerequisite to winning.
As to employees having to tolerate SHS while others don't have to, the laws requiring those private businesses shouldn't be there either. The business itself should make that decision based upon the desires of their employees.
I agree but the fact is the current laws include bans that allow other workers a smoke free environment so that the present situation is unfair. The law should be either all or none. My guess is that if this question were put to the electorate, the nonsmokers would throw a fit if the current smoking bans in other businesses were lifted. The only way to resolve the inconsistancy politically is for all smoking in work places to be banned.
Which brings me to your point of unfair application.
These smoking bans, even the total bans across the board do have a major element of unfair application that no one seems willing to address. The owner of a coffee shop faces nothing more than increasing dollars for each violation, yet the bar across the street faces losing its liquor license after 3 violations. Losing a liquor license puts a bar out of business.
Is it just a back door effort at prohibition? I don't know, but it sure looks like it to me.
Good point.
Increased profit margin implis less work for more profit. A business's only purpose is to make a profit not increase sales.
I agree. Unfortunately that is not done.
News stories about the supposed good for business done by the bans are generally generated because of press releases issued by the proponents of the bans and because of the inherrent laziness of the so called reporters get printed practically verbatim.
Catering, take-out and fast food sales are all lumped into the same category as dine-in restaurant receipts and license issuances. Sales receipts from package stores is included with that of bars and taverns. And the list goes on.
Earlier in the year there was an article in one of the Delaware papers about an increase in business licenses for bars and restaurants. What it didn't mention was the number of licenses that were not renewed. There was an article with in the past 2 weeks regarding the boom in many of the upscale restaurants going into the takeout business and the many delivery services that have started springing up. The owner of one of the delivery services stated specifically that the smoking ban was the major reason for his increase in business.
Each one of the restaurants that opts to offer a take-out business, seperate from its regular business must get an additional business license for that arm of it.
Granted these are only examples from Delaware, but they do show that lumping everything together can give a very skewed picture of the real situation.
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.