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

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

Non-smoking anything is a much better experience overall. I definitely make strong efforts to avoid anyplace that is not smoke free.

Reply

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

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

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

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