I really, really hate smokers

[Boris Godunov]

Both in NY and California did not have any proven financial hardship due to their bans, as far as I know. If the Illinois situation is true, it's the exception rather than the rule.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's the same way up here in Prince George. It just doesn't make sense. It gets down to -40 here in the winter. Businesses should be allowed to cater to smokers too, and not force them to smoke outside.

[rah]

In the NY and California they usually only cover resturants and I'll concede that one in general. That's a big difference. I'm talking other businesses.

[Deity Dude]

Here's some data I found:


"The following are some examples: the Dallas Restaurant Association funded a study that showed a $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales ranging from 9 to 50% in Denton, Texas. A 2004 study by Ridgewood Economic Associates LTD funded by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association found a loss of 2000 jobs, $28.5 million dollar loss in wages, and a loss of $37 million in New York State product.[65] A 2004 study for the National Restaurant Association of the United States conducted by Deloitte and Touche found a significant negative impact. The restaurant Association of Maryland found sales tax receipts for establishments falling 11% in their study. Carroll and Associates found bars sales decreased from 18.7 to 24.3% in the Ottawa, Canada area following a bar smoking ban. [66] The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association reported that liquor sales were down over $67 million dollars while sales for home consumption increased and asked for the bar smoking ban to be amended in Ohio.[67]"

[Boris Godunov]

No, the NY ban is on all bars, restaurants and most places of business. I think the CA ban is even more strict?

[Boris Godunov]

Here's some data I found:


"The following are some examples: the Dallas Restaurant Association funded a study that showed a $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales ranging from 9 to 50% in Denton, Texas. A 2004 study by Ridgewood Economic Associates LTD funded by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association found a loss of 2000 jobs, $28.5 million dollar loss in wages, and a loss of $37 million in New York State product.[65] A 2004 study for the National Restaurant Association of the United States conducted by Deloitte and Touche found a significant negative impact. The restaurant Association of Maryland found sales tax receipts for establishments falling 11% in their study. Carroll and Associates found bars sales decreased from 18.7 to 24.3% in the Ottawa, Canada area following a bar smoking ban. [66] The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association reported that liquor sales were down over $67 million dollars while sales for home consumption increased and asked for the bar smoking ban to be amended in Ohio.[67]"

You could at least link to Wikipedia, which is where that came from, so we could see your strategic omissions.

From the same article:

Many studies have been published in the scientific literature on the economic effect of smoke-free policies. The majority have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with bans and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses.[61] A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.[62]

Studies conducted by the affected businesses themselves such as bar and restaurant associations often find a negative effect. Criticisms of the studies finding no impact include lumping in fast food and other unaffected businesses in the numbers, excluding businesses that closed during the study time frame, pointing to marginal growth while other businesses fair far better in surrounding communities, cherry picking data that supports their assertions, withholding negative data,[63] and replacing negative data with opinion polls.[64]

cherry-picking.

[Deity Dude]

I didn't think people were really interested in the ENTIRE article, including the negative impact in various foriegn countries, the history of the ban etc. Sorry, I was just posting some of the negative data in New York because someone had said there was not a negative impact in New York.

BTW there are millions of studies on the net showing this trend. But to me it is all beside the issue. Bar owner's, casinos etc should be able to make whatever policy regarding smoking they want, post it and leave it up to the patron to decide if they want to go or not.

[DanS]

I'm a non-smoker, but have never had a problem being around smokers.

That said, I also own a condo in an early-60s era building. I used to have a neighbor who chain smoked and sometimes it was unbearable in my apartment.

Also, even though I didn't agree with banning smoking in bars in DC, now that it has been done, I appreciate that it makes a positive difference in my enjoyment of going and grabbing a brew.

It does seem like I'm becoming less tolerant of smokers now that I'm no longer forced to bear with the smoking.

[Boris Godunov]

I said there was no proven negative impact in NY, and I stand by that, because what you presented was cherry-picked data pushed by people with an agenda. As the part prior to what you posted said, a comprehensive review of studies shows that there is not a negative financial impact of bans. How could you not think it relevant to include a section that refutes the claims made by the studies in the part you did quote?

The rationale for the bans are not about the patrons, but the employees. That's the way it was in NY, as the law allowed bars to have closed-off, ventilated rooms where people could smoke, IF no employees were required to go into said rooms.

[Ben Kenobi]

The rationale for the bans are not about the patrons, but the employees. That's the way it was in NY, as the law allowed bars to have closed-off, ventilated rooms where people could smoke, IF no employees were required to go into said rooms.

So an employer cannot be straight up with his employees and tell them that the expectations of the job is that they would have to work the smoking room?

Honestly, I don't see why employers shouldn't be permitted to make these arrangements provided they inform the applicant. If the applicant chooses to accept the position after being informed of the requirements, then there's no ground for complaints.

I've seen the smoking bans. They've all been motivated by a desire to 'stick it to smokers'. I've seen that smug attitude by non-smokers and I'm really puzzled by it.

[Boris Godunov]

So an employer cannot be straight up with his employees and tell them that the expectations of the job is that they would have to work the smoking room?

I was addressing the misperception that the aim of the bans was to somehow defend patrons, which is not always the case. I did not address the soundness of that rationale one way or the other.

I've seen the smoking bans. They've all been motivated by a desire to 'stick it to smokers'. I've seen that smug attitude by non-smokers and I'm really puzzled by it.

As has frequently been demonstrated, your perception does not equal actual fact. I'm not aware of any wording of a smoking ban that indicates a desire to "stick it to smokers." A citation would be helpful. In the case of both Oregon and NY State, the bans were enacted primarily as means of addressing a public health concern and its associated costs, which was the exposure of employees to potentially toxic substances. Now if you want to argue that employees of bars and such shouldn't have the same protections as other employees do against exposure to carcinogens/toxic substances, or that no employees are entitled to such protections regardless of substance, that's a different matter.

The notion that such laws, which have been enacted in diverse places and cultures throughout the world, are generated from a petty vendetta is both logically absurd and a factually insustainable argument.

[snoopy369]

So an employer cannot be straight up with his employees and tell them that the expectations of the job is that they would have to work the smoking room?

Honestly, I don't see why employers shouldn't be permitted to make these arrangements provided they inform the applicant. If the applicant chooses to accept the position after being informed of the requirements, then there's no ground for complaints.

I've seen the smoking bans. They've all been motivated by a desire to 'stick it to smokers'. I've seen that smug attitude by non-smokers and I'm really puzzled by it.

That's not how employment law works, Ben. We don't say "You can make your employees dig coal from the ground twenty two hours a day with no gas masks, if you tell them that's what they'll be doing ahead of time", do we?

Employment law enforces standards on everyone, because if those standards weren't enforced it would be harmful to employees. You should not have to choose between your health and taking a job - and do not doubt that some would have to. Not being willing to work half of the restaurant would inevitably mean a decrease in employer flexibility, and you know they'd select for people who were willing to.

[Boris Godunov]

So long as my employer notified me before accepting a job that the place was full of asbestos, it should be OK!

[Sprayber]

My state is considering another 50 cent increase in the tax on cigarettes. On a certain level I feel some sympathy for smokers in that they are a cash cow for local governments and they are treated as outcasts but my sympathy only goes so far.

[Boris Godunov]

Just consider it a stupidity tax.

Given that the costs of smoking to the public are quite large, I don't have any objection to hefty cigarette taxes.