Skip to comments.
Smoking Ban Hurting Tempe Restaurants
cbsfive ^
Posted on 06/23/2002 9:26:10 PM PDT by chance33_98
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341 next last
To: chance33_98
A number of owners say revenue is down by as much as 20 percent since the voter-approved ordinance took effect May 30. local bar owners are having a tough time. The big problem is, that this totally coincides with ASU letting out for the school year. In past conversations with local merchants (of all types) around the campus over the years, a huge percentage of their business drops every year at this time. Some of them struggle to stay open through the summer. Others close their doors entirely.
I read this article in the local Tribune. The way it was written, it was made to blame the whole decline in business on the smoking ban. This is not completely accurate. You can't have regular business when the student population of Tempe drops significantly over the summer.
Nonetheless, I still (as a nonsmoker) voted against the ban. It will be more accurate to assess the damage in the fall, when the kids return to class.
2
posted on
06/23/2002 9:40:33 PM PDT
by
kstewskis
To: chance33_98
Smoking Ban Hurting Tempe Restaurants The only way that can be related to the smoking ban is if the smokers were weasels and decided to stay home and smoke rather than enjoy an outing.
To hear the smokers talk they're supporters of business owners. So it couldn't be that they're cowering at home afraid they won't be able to blow smoke in other peoples faces if they left the house.
Unless of course their claim to support business owners is just more of their blowing smoke.
3
posted on
06/23/2002 9:42:19 PM PDT
by
lewislynn
To: SheLion; Gabz; Max McGarrity
Puff!
4
posted on
06/23/2002 9:43:43 PM PDT
by
Bella_Bru
To: lewislynn
The smoking ban in California has been produced a wonderful under the table money maker for the cops and politicians. There are plenty of bars that are NOT owner operated that allow smoking.
5
posted on
06/23/2002 9:45:03 PM PDT
by
Bella_Bru
To: Bella_Bru
OK, I don't know what "owner operated" has to do with anything but, go there, pay whatever graft you have to and enjoy yourself, I don't really care.
6
posted on
06/23/2002 9:52:17 PM PDT
by
lewislynn
To: lewislynn
Those who believe in free enterprise understand that owners who wish to run smoke free businesses should do so, and those who wish to allow smoking should do so. Those who believe in the mommy state believe that she should decide for all of us.
7
posted on
06/23/2002 10:02:25 PM PDT
by
per loin
To: lewislynn
If the bar is owner operated, it's legal to smoke in it. No one else may be working there, except the owner.
8
posted on
06/23/2002 10:04:22 PM PDT
by
Bella_Bru
To: per loin
Those who believe in the mommy state believe that she should decide for all of us. And those who don't get their way, cower at home with what really controls their lives, their cigarette.
9
posted on
06/23/2002 10:19:25 PM PDT
by
lewislynn
To: Bella_Bru
In my town (here in Cal.) where dining out and going to a bar is a pleasure (if you can get a seat), no one, including the owner can legally smoke.
To: chance33_98
So, who's not addicted?
11
posted on
06/23/2002 10:37:56 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: lewislynn
That may be a local law. The state law has one exception: If the only employee is the person who owns the establishment, smoking may be allowed.
I have actually enjoyed finding all of the bars in L.A. County that have been good enough to pay the cops their graft.
To: chance33_98
If smokers cannot light up at their favorite eatery, what do they do? Stay home? Go to the next town?
In the Fox Valley one town banned smoking in all establishments. The smokers just come to my town now.
Also, you can't get a table on the weekend if a restaurant has a liquor license. If it doesn't, there's plenty of room.
The upshot is: people eat out (and drink) to socialize. Often they smoke. This area more than most.
If they can't enjoy the experience, they go elsewhere or stay away.
To: per loin
Those who believe in free enterprise understand that owners who wish to run smoke free businesses should do so, Then you'd have no problem with landlords not allowing smoking in his/her rentals.
To: chance33_98
Amendment V:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE others retained by the people."
15
posted on
06/23/2002 11:00:37 PM PDT
by
tahiti
To: lewislynn
they just moved into the neighboring cities to support business owners who aren't resticted. Happens like that in other areas, does there to i'm sure.
16
posted on
06/23/2002 11:03:18 PM PDT
by
tickles
To: lewislynn
The only way that can be related to the smoking ban is if the smokers were weasels and decided to stay home and smoke rather than enjoy an outing. To hear the smokers talk they're supporters of business owners. So it couldn't be that they're cowering at home afraid they won't be able to blow smoke in other peoples faces if they left the house. ...Unless of course their claim to support business owners is just more of their blowing smoke.Don't you ever get tired of being an a$$? Sounds like the smokers are voting with their feet. And their pocketbooks. Just like they've done everywhere else these unelected dictators in the "health" cabal trample all over the owners' private property rights.
To: Bella_Bru
I have actually enjoyed finding all of the bars in L.A. County that have been good enough to pay the cops their graft. Sounds like a nice neighborhood....Bar owners "good enough" to pay off cops on the take and all.
To: lewislynn
Then you'd have no problem with landlords not allowing smoking in his/her rentals. Of course not. Nor would I argue against their right to ban non-smoking tenants, should they choose to do so.
19
posted on
06/23/2002 11:06:36 PM PDT
by
per loin
To: per loin
Of course not. Nor would I argue against their right to ban non-smoking tenants, should they choose to do so. You sound reasonable. You'd have no problem with a new owner excercising his/her right to ban, even evict, the existing smoking tenants too then?
It sounds like, unlike some, actually most of your phony smoker friends, I'm sure you'd have no problems patronizing the businesses of innocent owners if a ban was in effect where you live....right?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson