Bar owners want compensated for smoking ban

[lilcountriegal]

Thoughts on this?

I know bars have to be losing money with the smoking ban. I'm a smoker who recently visited NYC (who has a city wide smoking ban in bars). I KNOW bars lost money on myself and my sister that night. We found many nice little bars playing music, cheap enough for us to stay a while, but since we were both smokers, we'd have one beer then leave so we can smoke a cigarette heading to the next bar.

(For those non-smokers: alcohol makes you crave cigarettes)

=============================================

TORONTO -- Ontario's bar and pub owners are asking for $500 million in compensation from the provincial government if a provincewide smoking ban is put in place.

"We know it's going to cost a lot of money to our industry if the government does implement the ban,'' Barry McKay, head of the Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada, said Tuesday.

"There will be collateral damage to our industry. We feel if they insist with going ahead with a ban, knowing full well the damages that are going to be caused, they should be prepared to pay some compensation.''

A provincewide smoking ban would mean a loss of $180 million in beer sales for bars and pubs every year, says the coalition.

With a minimum investment of $250,000 in a small bar, and factoring the loss of revenues for businesses that survive a smoking ban, potential losses will be in the region of $500 million, the group estimates.

The Ontario Tobacco Control Act, passed in 1994, allowed municipalities to restrict smoking in workplaces and public places.

Since then, 73 of 446 Ontario municipalities have implemented smoke-free bylaws in restaurants or both restaurants and bars.

The Brewers Association of Canada has found that in municipalities where smoking bans have been implemented, beer sales have dropped by roughly six per cent on average, said McKay.

"Invariably, there is a difference in the region of six to seven per cent between banned areas and no ban areas, and that equates to a lot of beer,'' he said.

At least 900 small bars across Ontario will be forced to close if all municipalities follow the no-smoking trend, the coalition says.

The group is demanding the $500 million in compensation from the Ontario government because provincial legislation is allowing municipalities to implement smoking bans, said McKay.

"It would be totally impossible for us to go after 20, 30, 40 municipalities,'' he said.

In last fall's Ontario election campaign, the Liberals promised to implement a provincewide ban on smoking in public places and workplaces.

Link

 

[wonderwench]

Correct issue; wrong solution.

How about letting business owners decide to which customers they wish to cater?

If a bar owner wants to target smokers as a clientele, then let them do so. The government has no business deciding a bar's business strategy.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Even though I'm a non-smoker I thought this was one of the stupidest laws to come out in a long time. Bars, like any other business, have the right to serve whomever they choose just like customers have the ability to decide whether they want to be a patron there or not.

 

[jimnyc]

The bars are paying for the business and they should make the rules. If you don't like smoking, just don't patronize that establishment.

 

[wonderwench]

It's really so simple. The best way to vote is with one's pocket book. If you don't like a service or product, don't buy it - and patronize businesses for which you do.

 

[Psychoblues]

This is one of those ideologies where I agree with a "hands off" policy by government. Let me share with you a short but very true story.

Last year I went to California, not the liberal southern part but the much more conservative Sacramento part. I went to visit for the last time my very good friend that I served in Viet Nam with and has remained a lifelong friend that was dying of throat and respiratory system cancer. Ironically, I was standing in the smoking area outside the third entrance to the hopital in which he was confined and yes I was smoking along with a few others.

Because this hopital is small and the area around it is relatively uncongested the parking lot is in full view from this "smoking area". A woman pulled into the parking lot and stood looking towards the area in which we were standing. She began her march towards us in the "smoking area". She marched past the first entrance door that was quite available for her, then passed the second entrance that was even more easily accessible than either the first or the third entranceway. She stopped just as she got to the smoking area and retrieved a hankerchief from her bag and immediately began to cough and curse us as she proceeded through the entranceway.

Being the polite Southern type that I am, I didn't say a word. But the man next to me wasn't so accomodating. He began to curse the woman pointing out that she had just passed two doors where she wouldn't have been subjected to cigarette smoke and proceeded to call her all kinds of names that questioned her heritage and intelligence and ultimate intent. I just thought to myself, "Where else could this happen but here in California?" But I fully recognised the dilemmas of both. That's my story.

Certainly any business has it's target customers and should be allowed to cater to them. Understanding that catering to one clientele may very well eliminate other potential clientele is a dilemma all businesses are beset with. It's a choice thing and I believe in choice. Don't you?

 

[wonderwench]

That reminds me of an incident in Berkeley a few years ago. I rarely wear articial scents, but one day I dabbed on a bit of my favorite perfume. I went to the ATM near my office. After collecting my cash, I headed back, passing a woman standing near the curb. She then proceeded to chase after me for four blocks. When I stopped to enter my office, she gave me a lecture about how I was violating her personal space by wearing "chemicals".

Oy vey. She's the one who chased me me down the street.

LOL!

 

[Moi]

I am a non-smoker; however every once in a while when my angelic sister in law let's me, I sneak a puff or two. I ain't addicted, never will be.

I can't stand having to walk between so many smokers to get into my building, hate it when people smoke on the train platform (and usually ask them to move out of line) and will not let anyone smoke near my son.

But to tell a bar owner that he/she can't allow it is another thing. I suggested having smoking bars and non-smoking bars as the solution rather than outlawing smoking entirely. Apparently my suggestions fell on deaf ears.

 

[jon_forward]

I as of yet have not been discriminated against because I smoke[bar/cafe] but have had a few non-smokers crawl up my ass because I was doing harm to my self and others by puffing tobacco. they get very pissed off when I tell them that it takes me around 6 minutes to smoke one cig...can you hold your breath that long?a very polite way of telling them to fuck off

 

[lilcountriegal]

And so it starts.....

=======================================

Smoking cops now have to kick butts to keep their jobs in California.

Riverside County wants to cut back their skyrocketing workers' compensation insurance costs, and is kicking off the effort by banning smoking for anyone who wears a badge.

The sheriff's department has been ordered to no longer hire deputies who smoke and the ban could extend to all offices of county government.

Those in favor of the ban cite the numerous health risks associated with smoking and that the majority of workers complain come from public-safety personnel.

"About 17 percent of the people in California smoke, so statistically about 17 percent of the deputies that we would hire without this ban would smoke, and we hope to see somewhere in that range a reduction in workman's compensation claims," Roy Wilson of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (search).

Riverside County isn't the first locality to enact this type of hiring ban — Florida and Massachusetts have passed similar non-smoking mandates.

But these types of bans have civil libertarians fuming, saying what a person does in their own home is their business.

"I think that government has to be restrained," said Ramona Ripston, of the American Civil Liberties Union (search). "And if we're not careful, they'll just encroach in too many areas of our life and what about being free, you know? We want to be free in America."

Link

 

[5.10 leader]

As a non-smoker I am going to adopt a selfish position, initially, and say good on them, let's stop smoking full stop.

But, of course, that is a stupid viewpoint. If any government is able to dictate to a sizeable proportion of the population, ostensibly on issues of health, then the principle has been established allowing them carte blanche to apply a ban to other activities.

Alcohol contributes to many deaths throughout the world, similarly AIDS, mountaineering, skiing, motoring, etc etc. Ultimately, where does one stop in protecting people from themselves?

 

[lilcountriegal]

Ultimately, where does one stop in protecting people from themselves?

That is exactly the problem as I see.

As a smoker, I am mad. As a citizen, I am outraged. I would like to see this decision reversed quickly and fiercely. If it continues, it will snowball. If we keep chipping away at individual freedoms, where will the chipping stop?

 

[5.10 leader]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
That is exactly the problem as I see.

As a smoker, I am mad. As a citizen, I am outraged. I would like to see this decision reversed quickly and fiercely. If it continues, it will snowball. If we keep chipping away at individual freedoms, where will the chipping stop?

You are right, that is why I have divided loyalties. I would be happy to see smoking stopped (as a non-smoker) but appreciate the possible ramifications.

I fail to see why we cannot revert to the old system of smoking and non-smoking bars, at least as we used to have in the UK. Then if a bar owner wishes to permit smoking or ban smoking throughout his premises, then that is his commercial decision. I would prefer to frequent a non-smoking bar; as a smoker you would probably adopt the opposite viewpoint. It should, imo, be left to market influences to make the decision.

 

[wonderwench]

Yep, Freedom of Choice is a grand thing. The problem we have in present day is that too many people neglect to add the corresponding component of Individual Responsibility to the package.

 

[5.10 leader]

And this is where the French seem to manage to achieve a great deal more than we do. If their government puts through unpopulat legislation, they sure as hell find out about it in no uncertain terms.

Civil disobedience can achieve remarkable results.

 

[jon_forward]

whats next? you cant work for us because you eat bacon and eggs? I am NOT a fan of the aclu but where are they at when I NEED them? must fall on the side of none smokers.....peta has got to be loving this

 

[Annie]

I sit here writing with a zinfidel in one hand and a cig in the other, putting both down to respond.

I have to go with the majority that I see here, saying the bar owner should have say, smoking or not, seperate sections or one or the other. Then the people can decide. IF I was a non-smoker and believed that second hand smoke might harm me, I WOULD ONLY PATRON ESTABLISHMENTS THAT BANNED SMOKING. IF I am a smoker, I WOULD ONLY PATRON ESTABLISHMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO SMOKE.

Now becoming realistic, I guess that the non-smokers would need to decide whether or not they wish to mingle with smokers, I don't see a problem with smokers caring whether or not to mingle with those that do or not.

With the above said, when I was last in NY there was no problem going to bar/restaurant and smoking, DC for that matter either. Last in LA in summer 2001, and no restaurant or bar allowed inside smoking, but all had adequate outside smoking areas, the weather being kindly. My friends and I, some smokers, some non, had not a whit of trouble getting gourmet entrees in outdoor seating. (coming from a Chicago gal.)

Chicago Mayor Daley, an avid non-smoker, is treading carefully through this landfield. This is not LA, as NY is not. In the summer, the bans may work, but in the winter, I have no problem with Lobstergram.com or some other upper strata home purveyor of great cuisine, where my friends and I will be comfortable and able to have a great time.

 

[lilcountriegal]

I may be mistaken, but I believe the smoking ban in bars in NYC is fairly recent (within the last year or two?)

I'm actually curious as to how the people living in and around the city responded to news this was going into effect.

Jim? Moi? Janeen? You guys are the only three I know in or around the NYC area. What was the reaction?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
I may be mistaken, but I believe the smoking ban in bars in NYC is fairly recent (within the last year or two?)

I'm actually curious as to how the people living in and around the city responded to news this was going into effect.

Jim? Moi? Janeen? You guys are the only three I know in or around the NYC area. What was the reaction?

I don't know a single person who was in favor of it...from smokers, non-smokers, bar owner, bar worker and bar patrons. In fact, Mike seems to the be only one who is in favor of it.

I don't live in the city, just work there. Janeen doesn't live or work in NY she is in Jersey and I am pretty sure you can still smoke there.

 

[jimnyc]

The NY smoking ban went into effect the middle of last year.

I used to go to a bar across from where I worked like 2-3 times per week religiously. After going there for 5+ years we became pretty friendly with the bartender (he worked 6 days a week, 16 hours a day). They are part of a group of people that are working on getting the new law repealed. The bar saw immediate and drastic losses. A large group of patrons just never returned. Other regulars returned and have to go outside whenever they want to smoke - and then tip less as if the bartended is somehow responsible for upholding the law. Even others ran up high tabs and went out for a smoke, never to return, screwing the bars out of their money.

The bars overall haven't taken a hit that will force them to shutdown, but mostly all faced losses as compared to previous years. New customers have shown up, but they are mostly after work drinkers that linger for an hour and disappear. A large portion of the previous patrons were regulars that would spend hours there day in and day out. A very large customer base has been lost.

Owners took a hit. Bartenders & waitresses took a hit. Smokers took a hit. I think it hurts NY overall. Less income to that many establishments cannot be good for the state. Shoot, there were a bunch of bars that had on premises 'legal gambling' (the machines where you can pick a number from a bouncing ball). The revenue from this raked in millions per year for the state lottery system. A bunch of the bar owners got together and unplugged the machines. They said "take away our business, we'll take away yours". Good for them.

People are still bitching over 6 months later. As I stated previously, I've only been in a bar once since the ban took effect (not entirely true, I was at another bar a few months ago in Westchester that had outside seating, and smoking was allowed). Everywhere you go people are still trying to light up, and getting pissed of when they can't.

The only people I see content with this law are the rabid anti-smoke people. Even the casual drinking non smoker didn't mind the atmosphere! Those who complained the most, rarely, if ever, patronized these establishments previously. Bar owners have stated that they haven't seen a huge increase in the non-smoking patron, at least not enough to cover the missing smoking patrons.