Smoking: Who Cares More about Money than Public Health?

[asterism]

Honest question. Did a lot of bars/restaurants go under because of smoking bans?

Depending on the definition of a 'lot', yes a number of places shut down especially in lower income neighborhoods where there would be a higher percentage of smokers. If the guys couldn't stop by the local 'pub' for a beer and smoke after work or just hang out there at night, they picked up a six pack or a bottle and went home to their own den or whatever. For a smoker, it is tough to just hang out and relax or have fun in places you can't smoke. It's just like people who really like to drink or who are addicted to alcohol aren't going to frequent places they can't get a beer or whatever.

The irony is that people who drink heavily are doing their bodies as much damage as tobacco does and definitely pose as much or greater risk to others, but there is rarely any call for bans on alcohol in restaurants or bowling alleys or sports stadiums or whatever.

But then a person having his one cigarette of the day will annoy a non smoker where a guy having his one beer that day generally won't annoy a non drinker. So I guess there is that.

The smoking ban is not to protect the health of the smoker, it's for the non smokers. The difference between alcohol and cigarette smoking is you can't get second hand drunk. Drinking only affects the users health and has no bearing on the people around him/her.

A good point. How much second hand smoke threatens the health of anyone?

 

[Immanuel]

There used to be 5 Ryan's Steakhouses in our area, now there are none. I think there are only two left in the whole state. Whistle Junction is gone, all of them. 4 International Buffets have closed. 3 IHOPs are gone, the Perkins is gone, all but 1 Waffle House are gone. The two country clubs used to have thriving weekend service and the cigar crowd would retreat to the couch areas after dinner (they had absolutely excellent ventilation systems and zero complaints). They bucked the law claiming it didn't apply to them (because they were private clubs) and had the support of their own employees. But the anti-smoking advocates successfully got the regulators to snuff out the cigars. It turns out that the dynamic changed, and they were no longer trendy and kitschy. Being nothing special anymore, people quit coming as much which made it unprofitable.

Gotta love the regulation that decided it would be better for a waiter to be saved from second hand smoke even if it means they have to find a lower paying job and smoke outside.



Ruby Tuesday used to do as much business at the bar as they did in the restaurant, now it's empty. Outback's bar is only dinner overflow seating now where it used to be one of the places people around here watched Sunday Football. The Applebee's here is 4 months behind on its rent. Places that used to cater to non-smokers are still doing fine, like Olive Garden and Longhorn.



Agreed.

1) Reason for ban: That is right, now that you mention it, I do remember that was the excuse.

2) Aren't you from the Lakeland area? As for local bars/restaurants that have closed, I do not pay a lot of attention to those details... of course, until I go to eat at Ryan's only to find out they too closed down. Of course with today's economy one pretty much figures, it was the economy that got them rather than the smoking ban.

Being unemployed for the time being, it is frustrating to see all the businesses that are gone now days.

3) Applebee's and Beef O'Brady's are the places I think about for Sunday Afternoon Football... um, what will happen to those places should the NFL Season be canceled? Damn! More competition on the unemployment line.

Immie

2. Yup. However it wasn't the economy that killed them, they were on the way during the peak in 2006-2007. Empty tables mostly due to people either choosing to stay home or going somewhere else. Different stroke for different folks, and smokers enjoyed having a cigarette inside with some pie and coffee after a meal. Non-smokers who were bothered by this had plenty of alternatives. Olive Garden in this area went smoke free in the 1990s to provide just that alternative.

3. It's gonna hurt them, that's true. The restaurant business is fickle, and it runs mostly on trends and habits. Once something forces a change in habit, that's the end. Extremely low margin businesses are always susceptible to this dynamic.

As for Casinos, I've been to 4 this year. Hard Rock in Tampa, the Rio, Bellagio, and Imperial Palace in Vegas. I never saw a full row of slots nor a full table game in any of the smoke free areas even when the general areas were completely slammed except for New Year's Eve at the Hard Rock when the whole place was completely packed (come to think of it, I smoked at a non-smoking table and nobody said anything, I just chose to not light another one when I noticed the sign). The poker room at the Hard Rock went smoke free a few years ago before it was closed for renovation. It went from an hour wait to almost half full before it closed. I don't know if smoking is allowed in the new room now but I know there wasn't a waiting list at all on Tuesday night.

I get that many non-smokers prefer these rules, however I wonder where their beliefs in "freedom" and "choice" have gone when they advocate lack of choice and freedom as long as it's a decision they prefer. I mean we have literally legislated some businesses out of existence - not the perfectly legal activity, just the notion of a business catering to those who choose to partake.

I am a non-smoker. My preference is a non-smoking establishment. However, I get angry when non-smokers try to force their choice upon everyone else. When I was a kid, there was no such thing as a non-smoking area in a restaurant. Then it began to become standard for restaurants to have tiny sections set away (usually by the restrooms for some reason) for non-smoking sections. Then it went to about 50/50 smoking/non-smoking. Followed by the smokers getting pushed off into tiny corners. Now, if they can get a seat at all they are darned lucky.

For the record, I don't want anyone to think that I believe that there are not enough smokers to keep businesses who choose to allow smoking in business. I think there are more than enough. I do, however, believe that there are also more than enough people who choose non-smoking establishments over smoking permitted establishments to at least open the doors for those who decide not to allow smoking to find a niche in their industries.

I have lived in Tampa for nearly 18 years. I love Reno and the casinos there, but I have not once stepped foot in the Seminole Gaming Palace now known as the Hard Rock. I don't know, it just does not seem to be enticing for me. Reno had atmosphere.

Immie

 

[asterism]

1) Reason for ban: That is right, now that you mention it, I do remember that was the excuse.

2) Aren't you from the Lakeland area? As for local bars/restaurants that have closed, I do not pay a lot of attention to those details... of course, until I go to eat at Ryan's only to find out they too closed down. Of course with today's economy one pretty much figures, it was the economy that got them rather than the smoking ban.

Being unemployed for the time being, it is frustrating to see all the businesses that are gone now days.

3) Applebee's and Beef O'Brady's are the places I think about for Sunday Afternoon Football... um, what will happen to those places should the NFL Season be canceled? Damn! More competition on the unemployment line.

Immie

2. Yup. However it wasn't the economy that killed them, they were on the way during the peak in 2006-2007. Empty tables mostly due to people either choosing to stay home or going somewhere else. Different stroke for different folks, and smokers enjoyed having a cigarette inside with some pie and coffee after a meal. Non-smokers who were bothered by this had plenty of alternatives. Olive Garden in this area went smoke free in the 1990s to provide just that alternative.

3. It's gonna hurt them, that's true. The restaurant business is fickle, and it runs mostly on trends and habits. Once something forces a change in habit, that's the end. Extremely low margin businesses are always susceptible to this dynamic.

As for Casinos, I've been to 4 this year. Hard Rock in Tampa, the Rio, Bellagio, and Imperial Palace in Vegas. I never saw a full row of slots nor a full table game in any of the smoke free areas even when the general areas were completely slammed except for New Year's Eve at the Hard Rock when the whole place was completely packed (come to think of it, I smoked at a non-smoking table and nobody said anything, I just chose to not light another one when I noticed the sign). The poker room at the Hard Rock went smoke free a few years ago before it was closed for renovation. It went from an hour wait to almost half full before it closed. I don't know if smoking is allowed in the new room now but I know there wasn't a waiting list at all on Tuesday night.

I get that many non-smokers prefer these rules, however I wonder where their beliefs in "freedom" and "choice" have gone when they advocate lack of choice and freedom as long as it's a decision they prefer. I mean we have literally legislated some businesses out of existence - not the perfectly legal activity, just the notion of a business catering to those who choose to partake.

I am a non-smoker. My preference is a non-smoking establishment. However, I get angry when non-smokers try to force their choice upon everyone else. When I was a kid, there was no such thing as a non-smoking area in a restaurant. Then it began to become standard for restaurants to have tiny sections set away (usually by the restrooms for some reason) for non-smoking sections. Then it went to about 50/50 smoking/non-smoking. Followed by the smokers getting pushed off into tiny corners. Now, if they can get a seat at all they are darned lucky.

For the record, I don't want anyone to think that I believe that there are not enough smokers to keep businesses who choose to allow smoking in business. I think there are more than enough. I do, however, believe that there are also more than enough people who choose non-smoking establishments over smoking permitted establishments to at least open the doors for those who decide not to allow smoking to find a niche in their industries.

I have lived in Tampa for nearly 18 years. I love Reno and the casinos there, but I have not once stepped foot in the Seminole Gaming Palace now known as the Hard Rock. I don't know, it just does not seem to be enticing for me. Reno had atmosphere.

Immie

The non-smoking areas were initially set in a corridor between the entrance and the restrooms so that a non-smoker who was bothered by smoke could theoretically never have to walk through a wall of stink - which is how that whole thing started by the way, the smell and not the "adverse affects." Millions of people choose to live and work in very polluted areas of the country. Smog bothers them, but not enough to actually move to protect their health. I've never run into anyone who has avoided a bonfire due to the health risks associated with that smoke. Who chooses to not fly due to the poisonous jet exhaust? Nobody.

 

[The T]

None of that waiting 20 years to croak stuff huh?

My meaning is that some idiot gets tanked and behind the wheel...

Precisely... arguing that someone who goes out and gets drunk never affects anyone else is silly. I could have been less of a dick about it, but I can't resist when the libs who always tell us how much smarter, how much more enlightened they are than us neanderthals... and then they post this incoherent drivel that requires reading between 30 lines just to glean the meaning.

Yep. They can't be honest. It is said brevity is the soul of wit. I have yet to see one Statist be brief of anything. Muddying the waters with BS is more their style.

 

[Foxfyre]

The point is -- AGAIN -- that with smokeless ashtrays and modern ventilation systems, second hand smoke is a minimal risk to anybody when compared to all the dangerous substances and situations that seem to still be under the radar of public indignation.

And while -- AGAIN -- I personally prefer a smoke free environment, I value recognition of, respect for, and protection of unalienable rights, including the rights to one's own property, far more than I value every place I go into being smoke free.

The government certainly can make any rules it wants re smoking or non smoking in public buildings and places. And since we all HAVE to share those facilities, a non smoking environment certainly is the way to go.

But in my opinion, a private business should be able to make its own rules whether it will or will not permit smoking or any other legal activity. If there is a chance that somebody will run into a whiff of second hand smoke, require a warning at the door. But the government should not be the one to make the call of what non lethal legal substances will and will not be used in that building.

 

[The T]

The point is -- AGAIN -- that with smokeless ashtrays and modern ventilation systems, second hand smoke is a minimal risk to anybody when compared to all the dangerous substances and situations that seem to still be under the radar of public indignation.

And while -- AGAIN -- I personally prefer a smoke free environment, I value recognition of, respect for, and protection of unalienable rights, including the rights to one's own property, far more than I value every place I go into being smoke free.

The government certainly can make any rules it wants re smoking or non smoking in public buildings and places. And since we all HAVE to share those facilities, a non smoking environment certainly is the way to go.

But in my opinion, a private business should be able to make its own rules whether it will or will not permit smoking or any other legal activity. If there is a chance that somebody will run into a whiff of second hand smoke, require a warning at the door. But the government should not be the one to make the call of what non lethal legal substances will and will not be used in that building.

Exactly.

 

[8537]

You've completely missed the point....This is about the priorities of the nanny-staists and their huge blind spot for the potential externalities of their do-goodery.

You stated that the smoking bans were to enrich the ruling class. I can only get the points you actually make.

First, they slap massive new taxes on tobacco, ostensibly to fun health programs for the sainted chiillldrrreeennn, then they outlaw using the product -on private property no less- upon which they seek to gain the tax windfall.

Right. So what's the problem? Whose being enriched?

 

[8537]

BTW... You could get very dead as a result of someone's drinking habits in a BAR/RESTAURANT. It happens every day.

You can not get dead from someone drinking in a bar.

you CAN get dead from someone drinking and driving - which is why it is illegal to drink and drive.

 

[editec]

I never supported the bans in the first place. I hope they get overturned.

If I feel an establishment is hazardous to my health, I won't patronize it. I'll vote with my dollars rather than ask the government to interfere on my behalf.

Immie

Smokers are still contributing to the constant increases with the cost of health care for everyone else.

No that's a lie.

I've done the math.

Smokers cost Medicade (care) on average less than non smokers.

Why?

Because they die early.

PLUS as an added benefit, they cost Social Security less, too.

Throw in the BILLIONS they pay in sin taxes?

Smokers are the most generous citizens in the USA when it comes to paying more than their fair share of taxes.

I know you can find hundreds of place where they'll tell you different..including the government itself. They're lying to yas'

I don't know how they did their math, but by using the government's own medicade and medicare numbers to determine who is dying or ill (and on medicade or medicare) from smoking related diseases, SMOKERS cost less on average than non smokers.

Again...because they die earlier and more qucikly once they get sick.

It really makes sense if you look at the numbers who die from smoking v non smoking related diseases and how much is spend on them in aggregate.

 

[8537]

I never supported the bans in the first place. I hope they get overturned.

If I feel an establishment is hazardous to my health, I won't patronize it. I'll vote with my dollars rather than ask the government to interfere on my behalf.

Immie

Smokers are still contributing to the constant increases with the cost of health care for everyone else.

No that's a lie.

I've done the math.

Smokers cost Medicade (care) on average less than non smokers.

Why?

Because they die early.

PLUS as an added benefit, they cost Social Security less, too.

Throw in the BILLIONS they pay in sin taxes?

Smokers are the most generous citizens in the USA when it comes to paying more than their fair share of taxes.

I know you can find hundreds of place where they'll tell you different..including the government itself. They're lying to yas'

I don't know how they did their math, but by using the government's own medicade and medicare numbers to determine who is dying or ill (and on medicade or medicare) from smoking related diseases, SMOKERS cost less on average than non smokers.

Again...because they die earlier and more qucikly once they get sick.

It really makes sense if you look at the numbers who die from smoking v non smoking related diseases and how much is spend on them in aggregate.

Smokers die earlier - but the extended, chronic illnesses caused by smoking are very expensive to treat while people age.

 

[rightwinger]

The point is -- AGAIN -- that with smokeless ashtrays and modern ventilation systems, second hand smoke is a minimal risk to anybody when compared to all the dangerous substances and situations that seem to still be under the radar of public indignation.

And while -- AGAIN -- I personally prefer a smoke free environment, I value recognition of, respect for, and protection of unalienable rights, including the rights to one's own property, far more than I value every place I go into being smoke free.

The government certainly can make any rules it wants re smoking or non smoking in public buildings and places. And since we all HAVE to share those facilities, a non smoking environment certainly is the way to go.

But in my opinion, a private business should be able to make its own rules whether it will or will not permit smoking or any other legal activity. If there is a chance that somebody will run into a whiff of second hand smoke, require a warning at the door. But the government should not be the one to make the call of what non lethal legal substances will and will not be used in that building.

Having a Smoking Section in a restaurant is like having a Peeing Section in a pool

 

[KissMy]

Of course, this means that EVERY person who favored indoor smoking bans now FAVORS removal of the ban in Casinos because of the money. All of them. It was ALL a ruse.

WOOOOOOOOOSH!

The point is that all the self-righteous twaddle about "public health" is far less important than making sure the loot keeps a-rolling into the coffers for the ruling class.

Of course, all of the bar and restaurant operators put out of business by their pious proltroonery can go suck a big chili dog.

Honest question. Did a lot of bars/restaurants go under because of smoking bans?

Obviously the smoking ban is costing them revenue. Who knows which straw broke the camels back. Bottom line is the ban cut into the politicians gravy train casinos bottom line so they get an exemption. The regular Joe bar & restaurant owner takes a big hit because they are still bound by the ban. Now they will lose business to the states politically connected casinos & neighboring states.

 

[Annie]

Sent to the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives Wednesday was HB1965, a bill that would lift the ban on smoking in all gaming facilities established close to another state that is yet to pass a smoking ban.

I find that kind of funny. What does nearness to other states have to do with the bill? Why should businesses near the border of say Missouri be given preferential treatment over a place of business say in Springfield near the interior of the state?


Immie

Well people out by where I live are unlikely to travel to IN to gamble or eat out. However move 10 miles south or east, different story. IN has seen their border restaurants, bars, and casinos boom since the ban went into effect. Now around here, it's more of a mixed bag. Many have given up going to bars, they drink at home. Restaurants have reported that alcohol sales have fallen dramatically, people eat and leave.

My personal opinion is similar to your own. Seems that some restaurants wanted the ban, indeed implemented it before it took effect. Others not for it. Probably a function of owner and what they want. Weird concept, that. I'm for the owner to make the choices.

 

[RDD_1210]

BTW... You could get very dead as a result of someone's drinking habits in a BAR/RESTAURANT. It happens every day.

You can not get dead from someone drinking in a bar.

you CAN get dead from someone drinking and driving - which is why it is illegal to drink and drive.

They know that, they just like to be assholes when they have no other argument to go with.

 

[kiwiman127]

I see Tea Party favorite Jan Brewer is assaulting smokers and fat people using Big government tactics.

Arizona Proposes Medicaid Fat Fee

Arizona's governor on Thursday proposed levying a $50 fee on some enrollees in the state's cash-starved Medicaid program, including obese people who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen and smokers.

The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time the state-federal health-care program for the poor has charged people for engaging in behavior deemed unhealthy

Arizona Proposes Medicare Fat Fee - WSJ.com

So here we Brewer telling people that have to be thinner and they must not eat in a unhealthy manner or smoke, it's going to cost them! She actually wrote wrote legislation controlling people's lives.

I expect all the anti-Big Government types and Michelle Obama haters to chime in on these facts. Brewer is making a law about obesity and the far right slammed Michelle Obama hard for her simple comments about child obesity

 

[rightwinger]

I see Tea Party favorite Jan Brewer is assaulting smokers and fat people using Big government tactics.

Arizona Proposes Medicaid Fat Fee

Arizona's governor on Thursday proposed levying a $50 fee on some enrollees in the state's cash-starved Medicaid program, including obese people who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen and smokers.

The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time the state-federal health-care program for the poor has charged people for engaging in behavior deemed unhealthy

Arizona Proposes Medicare Fat Fee - WSJ.com

So here we Brewer telling people that have to be thinner and they must not eat in a unhealthy manner or smoke, it's going to cost them! She actually wrote wrote legislation controlling people's lives.

I expect all the anti-Big Government types and Michelle Obama haters to chime in on these facts. Brewer is making a law about obesity and the far right slammed Michelle Obama hard for her simple comments about child obesity

She only wants poor people to be thinner....not the fat cats

 

[Foxfyre]

The point is -- AGAIN -- that with smokeless ashtrays and modern ventilation systems, second hand smoke is a minimal risk to anybody when compared to all the dangerous substances and situations that seem to still be under the radar of public indignation.

And while -- AGAIN -- I personally prefer a smoke free environment, I value recognition of, respect for, and protection of unalienable rights, including the rights to one's own property, far more than I value every place I go into being smoke free.

The government certainly can make any rules it wants re smoking or non smoking in public buildings and places. And since we all HAVE to share those facilities, a non smoking environment certainly is the way to go.

But in my opinion, a private business should be able to make its own rules whether it will or will not permit smoking or any other legal activity. If there is a chance that somebody will run into a whiff of second hand smoke, require a warning at the door. But the government should not be the one to make the call of what non lethal legal substances will and will not be used in that building.

Having a Smoking Section in a restaurant is like having a Peeing Section in a pool

But if it's your pool, and you're stupid enough to do it, you should be able to pee in it if you want to.

 

[rightwinger]

The point is -- AGAIN -- that with smokeless ashtrays and modern ventilation systems, second hand smoke is a minimal risk to anybody when compared to all the dangerous substances and situations that seem to still be under the radar of public indignation.

And while -- AGAIN -- I personally prefer a smoke free environment, I value recognition of, respect for, and protection of unalienable rights, including the rights to one's own property, far more than I value every place I go into being smoke free.

The government certainly can make any rules it wants re smoking or non smoking in public buildings and places. And since we all HAVE to share those facilities, a non smoking environment certainly is the way to go.

But in my opinion, a private business should be able to make its own rules whether it will or will not permit smoking or any other legal activity. If there is a chance that somebody will run into a whiff of second hand smoke, require a warning at the door. But the government should not be the one to make the call of what non lethal legal substances will and will not be used in that building.

Having a Smoking Section in a restaurant is like having a Peeing Section in a pool

But if it's your pool, and you're stupid enough to do it, you should be able to pee in it if you want to.

Fine......just don't charge the public to use it

 

[Foxfyre]

Having a Smoking Section in a restaurant is like having a Peeing Section in a pool

But if it's your pool, and you're stupid enough to do it, you should be able to pee in it if you want to.

Fine......just don't charge the public to use it

No, you just advise your customers that the rules allow peeing in the pool and let THEM make the call whether they want to risk that.

 

[Annie]

But if it's your pool, and you're stupid enough to do it, you should be able to pee in it if you want to.

Fine......just don't charge the public to use it

No, you just advise your customers that the rules allow peeing in the pool and let THEM make the call whether they want to risk that.

I agree. Seems to me that perhaps there would be a mini-boom possible if restaurants, bars, etc., advertised themselves as 'smoke free' or 'smoking allowed' or 'you gotta be smoking to enter.'

Those that survive would be determined by size, themes, etc.