Applebee's will ban smoking

Tribune Chronicle ^ | 05/11/04 | Staff, wire reports

[MissTargets]

LEXINGTON, Ky. - Applebee's restaurants in Niles and Boardman will be among those in Ohio that will go nonsmoking after a decision by Thomas and King, the nation's 11th-largest restaurant operator, the company announced Monday.

The policy at the Niles restaurant will take effect Monday and be implemented at all stores by month's end, the company said. Robert Holmes, 83, of Warren said he'd like to see other restaurants follow Applebee's lead in the no-smoking policy.

''Second-hand smoke is known to be bad for people,'' Holmes said Monday at the Eastwood Mall. ''Smoking spoils my dinner.''

Holmes, a former tobacco user, said he has eaten at Applebee's in Niles several times.

Besides Ohio, the smoking ban also will take effect at the franchise company's Applebee's and Johnny Carino's restaurants in Kentucky, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Indiana locations, the company said. Franchises owned by other operators would not be affected.

Mike Scanlon, Thomas and King's chairman and chief executive officer and vice-mayor of Lexington, was a vocal supporter of the city's indoor smoking ban that went into effect April 27. Scanlon said the timing of the company's action was coincidental.

''I can see both sides of the issue,'' Scanlon said. ''However, as a businessman, I need to listen to my customers and do what I believe is right for my business.

''While this decision will inconvenience a small percentage of our customers, I am certain that our new policy will attract many new customers who are seeking a smoke-free dining experience,'' he added.

Some of Thomas and King's nearly 80 restaurants already are smoke-free, including those in cities with municipal smoking bans such as Lexington and Tucson, Ariz. Scanlon said three restaurants the company has opened in the last year - one each in Arizona, Ohio and Kentucky - are smoke-free by choice.

Six months ago, the company banned smoking for employees. Scanlon said two of the company's nearly 6,000 workers quit over the issue.

Applebee's, based in Overland Park, Kansas, operates about one-third of its locations with the rest run as franchises.

[Leisler]

Who's next, O Great One? Sailors, farmers, golfers with skin cancer? Recreational weekend woodworkers with lung infections due to using rare tropical hardwoods? I suppose you can't wait to join a NASCAR lawsuit from some limpwrist who saids the fumes gave him/her/it/spawn lung cancer. What are you going to do then, push for electric motor NASCAR?

< insert hypocrisy/nanny hugging here >

[Paved Paradise]

I appreciate your efforts, but you basically supported my point, which is that I am about 30 miles South of Cleveland and it wouldn't really make sense to drive to Toledo for a dinner. I do a lot of take-out and will continue to do so because of the smokers.

[Paved Paradise]

Huh?

[CSM]

In other words, if he makes a choice that hurts the value of his business, the most capatilastic action is to turn to the government to help "level the playing field"?

You really are blind to how a free market society is supposed to work, aren't you? What other areas of the market would you like the government force to be used to "level the playing field"?

Only a coward needs the government to defend his business decisions. Only the business that should not survive needs a "level playing field" provided by government force. The next steps is lobbying for a required schedule for customers to frequent certain establishments. I certainly don't want to be told which establishments to give my business to in the name of the "greater good".

But, to you that is capitalism. You should sign up for an economics class at your local community college, it would be money well spent.

[Just another Joe]

Banning smoking decreases costs, especially labor and table turnover.

That is only your assertation, minion. I have seen no numbers anywhere to corroborate this.

[MeekOneGOP]

[Izzy Dunne]

It was packed with a short wait. I waited, then enjoyed my meal.

Good. I hope they do well with it. I wouldn't mind if every restaurant in the country banned smoking, as long as they do it in the owner / manager's discretion (not under government decree).

Do you know if it was recently changed to no-smoking (as a result of this decision), or if it was already no-smoking (because of individual manager or local law)?

[Gabz]

Reread your post that I was commenting upon and then tell me who is losing brain cells.

[netmilsmom]

CC, honestly I do not advocate pregnant women smoke. However, the story was more that the mom tried to put the guilt trip on her daughter when it was not warranted.

My thing in life is coffee and Diet Coke. When I first went to see my OB at six weeks, I told her that I had tried to go cold turkey without my fixes but was such a crab I had to go back. She said, "Don't try to give up anything cold turkey, your body is going through enough. Cut back as much as you can."
Well I was shocked (but happy). I asked her if she told the same to smokers and she said yes. Many smokers actually go into respiratory arrest when they quit cold turkey. She said that because she did not chastise, many of her moms-to-be are non-smokers when they finish the pregnancy because they slowly cut back over nine months. And she is a non-smoker!!

[CSM]

The question was to provide a list of non smoking restaurants in OHIO, all of Ohio, not just your region. Of course, changing the rules late in the game is the normal tactic of gnatzies.

[netmilsmom]

>>Banning smoking decreases costs, especially labor and table turnover. If revenues stay the same then its profits increase. Revenues will stay the same so long as smoking is banned in all restaurants.<<

Reference please.

[Rebelbase]

"Who's next, O Great One?"

I appreciate your ackowldgement! :-)
Your rant is Bravo Sierra, I don't even like NASCAR.

[VRWC_minion]

You really are blind to how a free market society is supposed to work, aren't you? What other areas of the market would you like the government force to be used to "level the playing field"?

I understand capitalism. I'm a CPA who have worked with small businesses for 30 years. Getting regulations changed, laws passed is all part of the "game". Winning using every legal means available is the essence of competition.

[Rebelbase]

Cute kid!

[Gabz]

Your example of the hog confinement owner is a perfect example of what is going on with way too much government control of way too many aspects of our lives.

I have absolutely no problem with the community or the local government putting restrictions on that hog confinement prior to it locating in the community that already exists. However, if the hog confinement operation existed in the location prior to a community being built around it it is the fault of those who chose to move within it's proximity that they do not like certain aspects of the operation, not the operators.

If one doesn't wish to hear air traffic, one shouldn't purchase a home near an airport. If one doesn't like the clickety clack and other noise of trains, one shouldn't move near railroad tracks. If one doesn't care for the odor of a hog confinement business, one shouldn't move into close proximity of one. If one doesn't like the presence of tobacco smoke, one shouldn't enter an establishment that clearly permits the practice.

To seek government control against something that already existed prior to one's voluntary exposure to it is just plain wrong.

[VRWC_minion]

That is only your assertation, minion. I have seen no numbers anywhere to corroborate this.

It is simply not arguable that the costs for running two separate seating arrangments, the slower turnover of tables from smokers and the extra cost for equipment and supplies increases costs.

It is arguable that the effect on revenues is an unknown variable which may be different from one location to another. In that respect a ban on smoking area wide provides insulation from lost revenues.

As far as facts and figures, the best evidence is that the large chains are banning smoking. They have the ultimate responsibility to maximize profits and gain market share. If there actions lowered profits and/or market share the market would be creating smoking establishments FASTER than nonsmoking ones. In that this isn't the case, the numbers speak for themselves.

[Gabz]

Its in his business best interest to see that other restaurants ban smoking too.

I can't imagine why you would say such a thing, considering the mantra of the ban-addicts is that smoking bans are so good for business. If such were the case he should be opposed to a government induced ban, because it would take away his niche market of catering to all the non-smokers that will be flocking to his restaurants.

[Gabz]

You are absolutely nuts.

It is not in the best interest of a business that has gone smoke free to seek government pressure to force other businesses to do the same. That is economic suicide if being smoke-free is so profitable.

This particular city coucilcritter has a major conflict of interest issue here.

[Just another Joe]

As far as facts and figures, the best evidence is that the large chains are banning smoking. They have the ultimate responsibility to maximize profits and gain market share.

And THAT is what the "level playing field" is all about.
The "fact" is that when you take away a percentage of local consumers from the smaller establishments, they can't stay in business.
The larger chains can eat the drop and wait for the smaller businesses to go OUT OF business.
What a way to gain market share, using government force to make your competition go out of business.

And you condone this.
Shame on you.

There are no figures that say it is a cost savings to go nonsmoking. Period. Otherwise you would be touting them to the high heavens.

[CSM]

"I understand capitalism. I'm a CPA who have worked with small businesses for 30 years. Getting regulations changed, laws passed is all part of the "game". Winning using every legal means available is the essence of competition."

Anyone who advocates the use of government legislation to "level the playing field" by adding more government regulations and market restrictions has no understanding of the Free Market at work. Yes, the changing of regulations and laws is part of the "game", but any good business person will advocate that those changes mean less government involvement. Only a socialist cries out for more government regulation to "level the playing field".

Would you also advocate maximum incomes allowable to the citizens, to ensure that all citizens have the same chance to get upper level educations, therefore leveling the competitive playing field for "premium" jobs?