Starbucks 'Trenta': How The New Size Compares To Your Stomach
Famous Death Row Last Meals
A study has shown that a smoking ban in restaurants and bars have increased sales in New York. Prior to this, some have argued that a smoke free establishment might drive away potential customers who smoke, but the numbers have shown otherwise. It's either that, or the absence of smoke is drawing more customers who prefer to dine in a smoke free environment.
I've always been one to argue for a smoke free environment, and am glad that California has instituted it. It's just not appetizing sitting in a cloud of second hand smoke while trying to enjoy a meal. I also hate how my hair and clothing smells after leaving the smoke filled area. However, I do have some friends who like to smoke either before or after a meal, and due to the non-smoking laws, they have to exit the restaurant to smoke. This puts me, a non-smoker, in an annoying position, because it means that if I want to continue my conversation with my friends, I have to go outside as well.
In the end, I think the pros outweigh the cons in this situation. As a society, we can all benefit from having less second hand smoke.
Jane Seymour's Modest And Modern Style
Broke Stars: 11 Celebrities Who Went Bankrupt
LOOK: Amazing Underwater Photos Of Dogs
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought
PHOTOS: How You Can Get The 'Miracle' Dress
Man Says Starbucks Discriminated Against Him Because He Has Half An Arm
Chris Brown, Grammys 2012: Embattled Singer Slams Critics
Janice Dickinson's Outrageous Style
Ford's clever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ad features phantom model
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
Photos Of Dead Lacrosse Player's Injured Body Shown To Jury
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later
Van Gogh's Starry Night modded into beautiful interactive light and sound show (video)
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
'Hooker Teacher' Forced To Resign, Now Can't Find Work
Lauren Scruggs Goes On Ski Vacation
WATCH AND LAUGH: Cops In 2-Hour Standoff With Empty Car
Woman's Dead Fiance Is Behind Her Disappearance: Cops
Stephen Wiltshire Draws Cities From Memory
PHOTOS: Remembering The People's Ballerina
We Meant There WERE Nukes In The Fire
11-23-2005 @11:51AM B said... As somebody opposed to excess government regulation, I don't think there should be laws prohibiting smoking in resturants. However, as a non-smoking patron of bars and resturants, I'm much more willing to go out if I can do it in a non-smoking enviroment. If resturants were smart, they would ban smoking in thier establishments and market that fact heavily. This could be done without government regulation. And, of course, other resturants could make themselves "smoker-friendlly" and get the customers driven away by other resturants. Everybody's happy.
Reply
11-23-2005 @4:18PM Crystal King said... Serious foodies might want to consider how smoking completely alters your sense of smell and taste. It's the reason why you don't find scented candles in restaraunts (or shouldn't). You don't want anything in the way of the experience. Non-smoking in any sort of bar or eating establishment is not only good for your health but also your overall sense of the hopefully tasty morsels you are also consuming.
Reply
11-23-2005 @5:40PM Finished.Law.School said... Non-smoking anything is a much better experience overall. I definitely make strong efforts to avoid anyplace that is not smoke free.
Reply
11-24-2005 @9:54AM Mark said... Get new, non-smoking friends. :)
I think the argument that smoking bans will drive down business falicious. Smokers are afraid to admit that the bans may actually encourage non-smokers to go out to eat knowing that they won't have to put up with second-hand smoke. For most restaurants, there are probably more potential non-smoker patrons than there are smoking patrons.
Reply
11-24-2005 @1:50PM Dave said... I suggest reader check out the real facts. The satistics used to claim that a smoking ban in New York City was good for business is a fraud and very misleading.
The city looked at revenue numbers form April 2002 to September 2002 and compared these numbers with the same period in 2003. The problem? On September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center Twin Towers were leveled causing many businesses to close for miles around and tens of thousands to loose their jobs for months.
They compared bar and restaurant revenue just 6 to 12 months after the disaster with revenue 18 to 24 months after the disaster and because revenue increased they attribute this to a smoking ban. It doesn't take a economics major to comprehend that as the clean up moved forward more businesses were re-opened and employees re-hired.
This is what the nannies hang their hat on to prove smoking bans are good for business?
I'm constantly amazed at the lack of investigating and checking of facts by anyone in the media when presented with supposed facts on how successful smoking bans are.
Reply
11-26-2005 @2:39PM Bob said... Dave,
While you do bring up a valid point, your conclusions are completely off. Other studies done over different time periods have shown that laws prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants on a large scale have not had any negative impact on sales.
Reply
11-26-2005 @8:16PM Dave said... Bob,
You simply gloss over the fact that New York City officials and those in favor of smoking bans who use these New York numbers knowingly and purposely mislead voters and the general public. This is a fact!
The first study you cite does NOT tell us what happened to individual bars and taverns. It doesn't indicate business failures it simply measures total tax revenue of bars and restaurants only which could simply mean that with smaller bars and taverns closing larger places were able to raise prices due to less competition.
Taverns, bingo parlors and other gambling facilities are not even mentioned. This study like all the rest simply adds up total sales and concludes no effect. I would also mention that the very people who were supporting the ban are the very people who collected the data and reported the results. This is hardly an unbiased study. Stanton Glanz who is paid millions by drug companies is cited 3 times and had a major role in the conclusions the El Paso study came to. This is a common theme in all these supposed unbiased studies.
The second study you cite again is flawed because it only looks at restaurant revenue and again Stanton Glanz, a drug company shill was cited in the study. No bar revenue is
noted. Not taverns, bingo, gambling revenue. Just restaurants.
Show me one study that cites every class of business that sells alcohol, includes all business closures both before and after the ban and breaks down on an individual basis, beer, wine hard alcohol sales, bingo revenue, gaming revenue both before and after the ban took effect by someone not tied to nor who has accepted money from drug companies.
Reply