Posted on 08/28/2002 11:52:16 AM PDT by SheLion
The City Council's anti-smoking crusaders are teaming up again to try to ban patrons from lighting up in Chicago restaurants.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Chicago's proposal, unlike New York's, does not include bars.
Two years ago, Burke proposed a measure to ban smoking within 5 feet of the entrances to public buildings and in restaurants with more than 35 seats.
"Now that New York City has gone to a much more strict policy with respect to smoking in public places, Chicago should follow suit," said Burke, whose father died of lung cancer. "Had I been successful several years ago we would have been on record before New York City as banning smoking in public places."
Smith, who has lost three siblings to lung cancer, agreed that the timing was right for imposing such a drastic measure. He successfully pushed through an ordinance banning smoking in the council chambers' anteroom two years ago.
"Now let's face it--smoking is just bad. Just because you're in a restaurant and you're sitting on that side of the aisle where you're not smoking and somebody is over here smoking, you're not out of the line of fire," he said. "When you walk out you can still smell smoke in your clothes, which means that you're breathing it."
Opponents, however, want the aldermen to butt out.
Ald. William Beavers (7th), a steadfast opponent of previous anti-smoking measures, said the financial impact on restaurants would have to be carefully studied before considering the ordinance.
Does that mean he would, on some level, support it?
He took a long drag from a Pall Mall while sitting in his office Tuesday afternoon and exhaled slowly.
"No."
Colleen McShane, president of the Illinois Restaurant Association, said her organization also would fight the proposal.
"We're opposed to any type of governmental intervention, especially a mandate on smoking," McShane said. "This is about giving the customer the freedom to choose."
Most restaurants already have incorporated non-smoking areas into their establishments, sometimes at considerable cost for upgraded ventilation systems to accommodate all customers, McShane said.
Ron Burke, spokesman for the American Lung Association in Chicago, said the organization supports an overall smoking ban in restaurants to protect employees as well as customers. He said that being exposed to eight hours of secondhand smoke is equivalent to "smoking a pack or two of cigarettes, involuntarily."
"All reputable studies have shown that smoke bans do not hurt businesses," Burke said. (This is a bold faced lie).
Similar bans exist in Los Angeles and other cities.
Burke acknowledged that chances of passage for his latest anti-smoking initiative might be slim in Chicago.
"These kinds of laws don't come about unless there is a ground swell of support in the public," he said.
Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects
I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S.Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be onfronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"
Good idea, Great Dane. Might be worthwhile to post it here, as well.
PUB AND BAR COALITION OF ONTARIO
Official Figures from Ontario Brewers Confirm Disastrous Effects of Smoking Ban
Almost $11.5 million loss in beer sales and tips over 10 months;
Ottawa's losses more than three times the rate for rest of the province.
Total impact exceeds $25 million and rising.
OTTAWA, August 6, 2002 - The Pub and Bar Coalition of Ontario (PUBCO) today released sales figures provided by the Brewers of Ontario which irrefutably confirm the disastrous effects on Ottawa's hospitality industry of the 11 month old, 100% smoking ban.
For the first 10 months of the ban (September 1, 2001 to July 1, 2002), all licensed establishments in Ottawa recorded an average decline in beer sales of 10.5% when compared the same 10 months one year earlier, more than three times the average decline of 3.3% across 12 municipalities in southern Ontario. None of the reporting municipalities (Windsor, Hamilton, Toronto, Mississauga, Oakville, Peel Region, Sarnia, Kingston, Cornwall, London, Belleville, and Niagara Falls) have a similar ban except Oakville which introduced its ban on June 1, 2002.
The 10.5% percentage difference translates to almost 160,000 less cases of beer sold in Ottawa establishments than before the ban. If Ottawa had simply been at the 3.3% provincial average decline, the loss would have been roughly 50,000 cases.
But the massive difference of 7.2% more than the provincial average decline equates to a loss in sales of 108,877 cases or 2,613,048 bottles. Selling at an average of $3.80, the loss is $9.93 million (including almost $1.7 million of taxes). Servers - who depend on tips - lost about $1.5 million. The total impact of the ban on beer sales alone, therefore, is $11,419,020.
These losses do not include lost revenues from liquor and food sales, lost revenue to bar and restaurant suppliers, lost revenue to entertainers, lost revenue to the amusement and vending industry (video games, coin-operated pool tables etc.), lost revenue at Rideau Carleton Slots and lost revenue to non-licensed restaurants (e.g. coffee shops relying on smoking workers from office buildings).
To assess the full impact of the ban, one also has to consider the $3 million the city has spent on enforcing it (including the $1.2 million tax bail-out of charity bingos), the $4 million which those same bingos will lose from direct revenues, lost tax revenues from reduced personal income, lost provincial and federal corporate taxes and lost municipal taxes from the30 or so establishments that have been forced out of business.
Conservatively, very conservatively, the total impact is likely over $25 million.
Contrary to the unfounded claims of some councillors, the situation is worsening. Beer sales for May and June of this year show a full 14% decline over the same period one year earlier.
This, despite the fact that an estimated 200 new patios have been opened this year in an attempt by bar and estaurant owners to avoid economic ruin, and the fact that the population of Ottawa has grown over the last year.
"While city council has deliberately ignored the bar owners who have been trying to tell them this for over a year, we trust they will now accept these numbers, act quickly to end this disastrous ban and replace it with the ventilation-based compromise solution which we've been calling for, and which they know the vast majority of Ottawans will support," said Jill Scott, president of PUBCO and owner of the Chateau Lafayette. "It's clear to us why they and their consultants, KPMG, have suppressed the findings in the aborted study of the pub and bar business. The figures released today are for all of the 1,200 licensees in Ottawa and, obviously, the 300 or so pubs and bars that are overwhelmingly dependent on beer sales will be much harder hit than the average restaurant, where food sales generally support the business."
"We can't think of any better, more concrete evidence that our industry is suffering than the data we're providing today. We are, however, hoping to secure the beer sales numbers for Western Quebec which, we suspect, will further prove what our members have known from the outset, that smoking bans unnecessarily hurt business.
"We also hope that today's information will be provide a powerful argument for bar owners and elected officials in other jurisdictions that are considering the introduction of 100% bans rather than ventilation-based solutions," Jill Scott concluded.
"The ban is the only credible factor which explains the sharp decrease in sales," said PUBCO general manager Barry McKay. "The pro-ban supporters have shamelessly used every possible excuse - September 11, a hi-tech slowdown, the supposed dishonesty of bar owners, even the ridiculous claim by city officials that the massive losses sustained by the bingo industry are due to a "provincial trend", when the city's own figures clearly show the bingo revenues going into free fall commencing only on August 1 2001, the very date that the smoking ban was introduced.
"The facts are, that Ottawa has a relatively low unemployment rate, the highest income in the country, and skyrocketing real estate prices. This city is not the economic disaster our politicians are claiming. What's more, our largely anti-business politicians have hidden survey results, blocked access to information requests and are now refusing to disclose the numbers KPMG collected. Presumably, in this latest example of "the ends justifying the means", the results of the aborted KPMG survey would have detailed just how serious the situation is for members of our industry. In PUBCO's view, taxpayers paid for the study, so they are entitled to see and judge the results for themselves.
"We have at least a $25 million impact that appears to be worsening.
Councillor Munter - at about the same time he was posing for a self-congratulatory self-promoting, tax-payer sponsored newspaper ad - described the effects of the ban and opposition to it as "a fuss".
We tend to take - and we would hope voters will take - the livelihoods of hundreds of taxpayers and scores of locally-owned businesses a little more seriously than that" stated McKay.
For further information, including the twelve page spreadsheet with month by month, city by city beer sales data from the Brewers of Ontario, contact: Barry McKay (613) 851-1800
How about Atlantic City, New Jersey? Great night life, caters to "ADULTS" and you can smoke just about everywhere. I have never heard of a place there that you can't smoke. Check it out. Atlantic City on the Boardwalk is gorgeous!
Thanks for the tip, but, been there, done that. For gambling we'll stick to Vegas.
Can't beat Vegas either. I was just suggesting, just in case you wanted to stay on the East Coast. :)
I love the use of passive language. Vola, you're "in a restaurant". Not "you are in a gentleman’s restaurant. A restaurant that that gentleman, or lady, has chosen to allow, or not allow, as is his want, smoking." The rights of property owners, what ever they choose, is always a non issue with these people. I don't smoke, but this, zoning, the takings, land taxes.....it is all connected. You are either for the right of a property owner, or not. You can't give the government a little, because that sets precedent and they will take it all, as they have done.
These groups do not care who they stomp on. If there is smoking, they will work with the City Councils and the Mayor to have it diminished. They could care less how each business is hurt. All they know is there is going to be no smoking and the owner be damned.
NOW is the time for the business owner in Chicago to speak up. Not wait until it becomes a bill to be voted on by the lawmkers. They should get their foot in the door now, and tell them that they won't stand being told how to run their business. People think "Oh, it will never happen to me." Well, it does happen, and then it's usually to late.
The anti's sure think we all should just roll over for them, don't they? They have another thought coming.
And I mean it: we refuse to spend our money at a bar/restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. I feel sorry for the business owner, but they should stand up for themselves and their livelihood and their customers. Just to bow down to these special interest groups is getting a bit ridiculous. It's time for someone to tell them OFF!
Oh, they'll get around to the bars soon enough. Incrementalism works--BOIL THAT FROG!!
The ONLY business not hurt by smoking bans is the Anti-Smoker cabal because smoking bans ARE their business.
That's a pretty good sentence, Max. Smoking Bans ARE Their Business. Yep!
He said that being exposed to eight hours of secondhand smoke is equivalent to "smoking a pack or two of cigarettes, involuntarily."Yeah, a pack or two or three or four. Heck, lets just say a carton.
These idiots have no shame when it comes to making things up to support their fascist agenda.
Fascist Agenda. Exactly. They are traveling all across the U.S. like flies on ..........you know.
What they do conquer, they leave in devestation. But they could care less. This is what they are all about. Chipping away at the freedoms of Americans. And it's not just Americans who smoke. Because this will trickle down to everyone else.
Boil that frog!
So long as we're making up statistics, why not a dozen packs? A hundred packs? Hell, make it a billion-trillion packs!
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.