Really. Then how can you dispute the research that we have done all over the U.S. when smoking bans were forced upon bar/restaurants? Take time to read this:
Your claims of money grab, 30% loss of sales, restauants closing, are pathetic straw men or just crying wolf.
Those aren't my claims and they are all true. How do you keep from walking into walls with your hands over your eyes so you won't see the hard truth?
If you are a conservative, and being here on FR, I'd hope you are, how about this? How about we let free, taxpaying adults make their own decisions? Post a sign that an establishment welcomes smokers and let those workers who CHOOSE to work there work there and those patrons who CHOOSE to patronize the place patronize the place.
What are those dangers for non-smokers? I'd like to know what you propose to protect me from.
Really. Then how can you dispute the research that we have done all over the U.S. when smoking bans were forced upon bar/restaurants? Take time to read this:
Your comments here are not unreasonable given that you've been taught to believe shs is a deadly danger. Please understand, though, that what you believe is not correct. Every single study ever done--except one--on environmental tobacco smoke shows a statistically insignificant result of exposure to shs/ets even after 40 years of working AND living with smokers. This is fact. It's true that a small percentage of the population have extreme adverse reactions to shs. That is also fact. That those people should have smokefree places to patronize is a given, and if the market is allowed to work as it always does, that would be a done deal. If the 75% of the population that doesn't smoke were clamoring for smokefree restaurants and bars, business owners would be providing them voluntarily and those businesses that have been forced to go smokefree wouldn't be suffering. They are--another fact.
Smokers do NOT want to smoke "anywhere and everywhere." That's a made-up soundbyte directly from the anti-smoker handbook. We understand that many people simply do not like smoke, for whatever reason, and we don't want to be in places we are not welcome. However, there is no reason on earth that we, the most inventive, entrepreneurial country that's ever existed, cannot find a fair way to accommodate everyone.
Your claims of money grab, 30% loss of sales, restauants closing, are pathetic straw men or just crying wolf.
"Patrick White, owner of Fiddler's Green on San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf, said he feels sorry for Delaware bar owners for what they are about to endure. "They're foolish people to do that," White said when told of the new law.
"White owned nine bars in California until the law went into effect there. He now has four. Fiddler's Green was sued by the city when smokers continued to light up despite the law. White fought the suit until his legal fees reached $120,000. Then he gave up." --The News Journal, 05/17/2002
"When Arvin City Manager Tom Payne's bar caught the attention of public health officials, he considered closing it or retiring from his city position so he could work full time at the bar in an effort to receive an exemption from California's no-smoking laws.
"Before the controversy, Payne said he had about 60 to 75 patrons per day. After the smoking issue arose, the number decreased to 50 to 60 people per week. Payne said he is losing money, but he is not ready to quit. "I can't afford to continue losing money like this, but I don't want to be driven out by a regulation like that," he said."--The Bakersfield Californian, February 17, 2002
"WEIMAR, Calif., May 11 -- Suzy Thompson, a former bartender who has seen the decimation of her industry as a result of California's statewide smoking ban, is using her newly acquired free-time to plan a protest at the State Capitol in Sacramento."
"ESCONDIDO, Calif., May 11 -- Ray Alto, owner of the Fireside Lounge, immediately noticed the negative effects of California's statewide smoking ban on his establishment. Since January 1, the day the ban took effect, revenues at the Fireside have been on a downward slope. "I kept hearing that the drop-off in business would be temporary and that non-smokers would be coming out in droves to frequent my establishment, but that's just not happening," said Alto. As revenues plummeted 70%, it became obvious that non-smoking customers were not going to replace his smoking clientele. Consequently, Alto had to lay off three employees in order to stay in business."
"LANCASTER, Calif., May 11 -- As the smoking ban indiscriminately takes its toll on California's bars and taverns, the Calico Saloon is no exception to the perils of this unnatural disaster. The small bar in Lancaster has experienced more than 30% in decreased revenues which forced the staff to downsize by nearly half."
"SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 30 -- A survey released by the American Beverage Institute found California bar and tavern owners have lost an average of 26% of their revenues since the smoking ban went into effect January 1. In addition to lost revenues, more than 50% of those surveyed noted an increase in angry customers which resulted in decreased tips and increased barroom conflicts"
"CALIFORNIA, March 12 -- In an opinion editorial published in the Siskiyou Daily News on March 12, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, John Block, criticized California's smoking ban claiming that it infringes upon the rights of small business owners and challenges freedom of choice. The headline read: "California's smoking ban probably more harmful than smoke itself."
"Block claimed that while the law was intended to protect employees, "it will only harm many hard-working Americans." He also stated: "Quite simply, the ban brings into question the things that make America great -- the freedom to make individual choices and the option to participate in a healthy free enterprise system." Block continued: "...bar and tavern owners rely on the preferences of their customers. The smoking ban strips these business people of the freedom to allocate their resources to meet their patrons' needs rather than the needs of the government and advocates of a smoking ban." Block concluded: "... the ban on smoking is a step down the path to over-regulation and anti-business attitude. The government needs to get its priorities straight."
"ONTARIO, Calif., May 7 -- Joe Costa, co-owner of Royal Cut, an elegant restaurant and bar, is disgruntled with the smoking ban. Costa feels that in addition to encroaching upon bar revenues, the smoking ban is also an infringement upon a citizen's right to choose how he or she wishes to live their life. Since January 1, Costa's bar has lost 24% of its business as a direct result of the smoking ban. Costa explains that he had to restructure his bar by laying off his cocktail waitress and cutting back the amount of hours his bartender works."
Yes, smoking bans are good for business in California, alright.
"...the San Francisco Department of Public Health's Tobacco Free Project recently found only 40% of stand-alone bars to be in compliance with California Assembly Bill 13..."--Prevention Research Center, October 27, 2002
When I "cry wolf," there really is one.