Smoking bans

[NavinRJohnson]

One thing I just can't get past...If this is such a no-brainer, why haven't more places gone smoke-free voluntarily? Why are bar and restaurant owners against it? After all, according to all of the arguments, they would have the overwhelming support of customers. They would most certainly draw limitless customers away from their competitors who allow smoking. The best and brightest wait staff, well aware of the dangers of second hand smoke, would be lined up a mile long to work for them, further damaging the competition. Yet, the rate of places going smoke free remains relatively slow. Why is that? Are these business owners just stupid? They can't recognize an opportunity? Do the not want to make their businesses more successful? They don't want to make more money?

[chapman]

I know they passed a smoking ban in Appleton a few years back, and bar and restaurant owners had been fighting it for awhile.  Some claimed to be losing as much as half their business, and I know there were a couple considering closing down. 

I do like it when restaurants go smoke-free.  I have refused to go back to restaurants where smoke filled the air because the "smoking" section was just one side of a room without anything seperating it from the "non-smoking" section.  I can tolerate smoking at the bar, but on nights where the smoking is heavy and I spend a long time there it makes me a little sick, and stinks up my clothes. 

I do think it depends on the city and the type of business though.  If Milwaukee was to have smoke-free bars, some smaller places might lose business, but you can't tell me the campus bars and most downtown bars would see huge losses, but I'm sure some smaller, isolated bars and diners would lose some business.
If anything it would be nice to go to a crowded bar and not be worried about getting burnt by a lit cigarette being waved around by a very drunk person.

[muhoosier260]

naivin, you say government isn't necessary and then say that the individual establishments won't budge on their own. So, government intervention is necessary then. If you're against smoking (which you said) then why do you defend smokers so adamantly? Often the smell test -no pun intended- for me with any type of issue is "who is this hurting?" When the immediate answer is "no one", it can be tough to say some type of intervention needs to be made. In this case, the answer is overwhelmingly "EVERYONE". So why isn't there intervention? In many instances there has been. Who would it be hurting to have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants? You might say smokers' rights to smoke/ the bar owners. I guess you have to take one side or the other and I say public health (ooooh, i said it-cringe!). I agree that its totally ridiculous that people can't make a decision to not eat McDonad's, however I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

To take a middle of the road stance, who would it be hurting if there was an enclosed designated smoking area?

[NavinRJohnson]

naivin, you say government isn't necessary and then say that the individual establishments won't budge on their own. So, government intervention is necessary then. If you're against smoking (which you said) then why do you defend smokers so adamantly? Often the smell test -no pun intended- for me with any type of issue is "who is this hurting?" When the immediate answer is "no one", it can be tough to say some type of intervention needs to be made. In this case, the answer is overwhelmingly "EVERYONE". So why isn't there intervention? In many instances there has been. Who would it be hurting to have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants? You might say smokers' rights to smoke/ the bar owners. I guess you have to take one side or the other and I say public health (ooooh, i said it-cringe!). I agree that its totally ridiculous that people can't make a decision to not eat McDonad's, however I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

Never said I was against smoking. I said I hate it and I think its rather stupid, but I am not necessarily against it per say. As far as defending smokers so adamantly - that's not really what I'm doing. If every bar in the city decided to go smoke-free tomorrow, I would give a rip what smokers thought about it. What I am defending, is a business owner's right to run his business. I am defending the concept of personal choice. I am defending the concept of a free market.  From a personal preference standpoint, I would love a smoking ban, but that doesn't make it right. My own philosophical and principle positions trump my personal preferences in this case. Why, because I have the choice to avoid places where I know people will be smoking. As far as who would be hurt by it, the bar/restaurant owners obviously feel they would be hurt by it, or they would support it and perhaps make the change voluntarily.

If this is such a public health crisis, I am waiting for someone to tell me why bars and restaurants that allow smoking aren't losing customers and losing staff, or why they aren't making this change voluntarily.

I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

Then go somewhere else! You provide another example of someone hiding behind this whole public health argument, when all you really want is what you want. Which is perfectly fine, but why don't you just use that as your argument? Again, let's call it what it is.

[🏀]

Of course people can always go someplace else Navin. I believe when people enter the bar 10-15% are smoking. However, 100% of the people there are effected by it.

Why haven't bars/restaurants gone smoke free earlier? Because they scared to lose business. To be the one nail sticking up, usually gets hammered down.

The bottom line is, forcing smoking bans on bars helps everyone. Non-smokers can go to every single bar without the worrying about crappy lungs, hard to breathe, and smelling like crap. Smokers, a minority, have to take it outside. Hopefully, after traveling outside every 20 minutes in the freezing weather will help them change their minds.

[Chili]

naivin, you say government isn't necessary and then say that the individual establishments won't budge on their own. So, government intervention is necessary then. If you're against smoking (which you said) then why do you defend smokers so adamantly? Often the smell test -no pun intended- for me with any type of issue is "who is this hurting?" When the immediate answer is "no one", it can be tough to say some type of intervention needs to be made. In this case, the answer is overwhelmingly "EVERYONE". So why isn't there intervention? In many instances there has been. Who would it be hurting to have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants? You might say smokers' rights to smoke/ the bar owners. I guess you have to take one side or the other and I say public health (ooooh, i said it-cringe!). I agree that its totally ridiculous that people can't make a decision to not eat McDonad's, however I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

Never said I was against smoking. I said I hate it and I think its rather stupid, but I am not necessarily against it per say. As far as defending smokers so adamantly - that's not really what I'm doing. If every bar in the city decided to go smoke-free tomorrow, I would give a rip what smokers thought about it. What I am defending, is a business owner's right to run his business. I am defending the concept of personal choice. I am defending the concept of a free market.  From a personal preference standpoint, I would love a smoking ban, but that doesn't make it right. My own philosophical and principle positions trump my personal preferences in this case. Why, because I have the choice to avoid places where I know people will be smoking. As far as who would be hurt by it, the bar/restaurant owners obviously feel they would be hurt by it, or they would support it and perhaps make the change voluntarily.

If this is such a public health crisis, I am waiting for someone to tell me why bars and restaurants that allow smoking aren't losing customers and losing staff, or why they aren't making this change voluntarily.

I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

Then go somewhere else! You provide another example of someone hiding behind this whole public health argument, when all you really want is what you want. Which is perfectly fine, but why don't you just use that as your argument? Again, let's call it what it is.

Damn right I do not want to be subjected to smoke when I am in a bar and a restaurant. And since I am a member of the public, my health is a public health matter. And if you can tell where I can find a smoke free bar in my neighborhood on the East Side of Milwaukee I will go there. Since there isn't one, I really can't go to a smoke free bar now can I.

[NavinRJohnson]

The bottom line is, forcing smoking bans on bars helps everyone.

Everyone? THEN WHY, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DO BAR OWNERS OPPOSE IT EVERY TIME GOVERNMENT TRIES TO IMPOSE ONE ON THEM?

We both know why, because they feel it will hurt their business. But hey, as long as you can have a beer without having to smell like smoke afterwards, who cares about them? The important thing is that you enjoy yourself. Be careful though, at some point they might get around to banning something that does impact you.

The real bottom line is that forcing unnecessary regulations on anyone, HURTS everyone!

[Chili]

The bottom line is, forcing smoking bans on bars helps everyone.

Everyone? THEN WHY, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DO BAR OWNERS OPPOSE IT EVERY TIME GOVERNMENT TRIES TO IMPOSE ONE ON THEM?

We both know why, because they feel it will hurt their business. But hey, as long as you can have a beer without having to smell like smoke afterwards, who cares about them? The important thing is that you enjoy yourself. Be careful though, at some point they might get around to banning something that does impact you.

The real bottom line is that forcing unnecessary regulations on anyone, HURTS everyone!

Unnecessary is the key word. Since bar owners will never do it, it should be imposed. The foie gras ban in Chicago is unnecessary because that is ridiculous. But clean air in public places is not.

[NavinRJohnson]

Damn right I do not want to be subjected to smoke when I am in a bar and a restaurant. And since I am a member of the public, my health is a public health matter. And if you can tell where I can find a smoke free bar in my neighborhood on the East Side of Milwaukee I will go there. Since there isn't one, I really can't go to a smoke free bar now can I.

I see, now we as American's have the inalienable right to have a tavern that meets all of specific criteria within walking distance of our home. I missed that one in the bill of rights. I'd like to have a different Mercedes for every day of the week, but my pay checks don't support that yet. I better call my Congressman.

Since you asked...

Oakcrest Tavern
4022 N. Oakland Ave., Shorewood,

Cuvee
177 N. Broadway

Café Brucke
2102 N. Prospect Ave.

Brocach
1850 N. Water St.

Ardor
607 N. Broadway

Have a beer on me. Never heard of them? I'm surprised, given the overwhelming demand for smoke-fee bars.
It took me exactly 30 seconds to find those. I'm sure there are others. I guess your problems are solved, huh?

[🏀]

Navin,

You have a great argument, and I can see that the decision was not as easy as I may have thought it to be. However, I believe that it isn't as simple as saying, here are the smoke-free bars. Bars/Restaurants compile a reputations for certain aspects, and if I were a bar owner, I would absolutely be against any smoking ban.

[NavinRJohnson]

Unnecessary is the key word. Since bar owners will never do it, it should be imposed. The foie gras ban in Chicago is unnecessary because that is ridiculous. But clean air in public places is not.

Wrong! The key word (well, key words) is public place. A private business is not a pubic place, its a private business.  They could kick you or me out any time they want. There are dress codes, drink minimums, you name it. If you don't like it you are free to go elsewhere. If enough people go elsewhere, they will either have to change their ways or face going out of business. You suppose to tell them what is in their best interest. I prefer to allow them to sink or swim on their own. You believe its government's job to tell people to what's best for everyone. I prefer to let people make their own decisions.

[Chili]

Damn right I do not want to be subjected to smoke when I am in a bar and a restaurant. And since I am a member of the public, my health is a public health matter. And if you can tell where I can find a smoke free bar in my neighborhood on the East Side of Milwaukee I will go there. Since there isn't one, I really can't go to a smoke free bar now can I.

I see, now we as American's have the inalienable right to have a tavern that meets all of specific criteria within walking distance of our home. I missed that one in the bill of rights. I'd like to have a different Mercedes for every day of the week, but my pay checks don't support that yet. I better call my Congressman.

Since you asked...

Oakcrest Tavern
4022 N. Oakland Ave., Shorewood,

Cuvee
177 N. Broadway

Café Brucke
2102 N. Prospect Ave.

Brocach
1850 N. Water St.

Ardor
607 N. Broadway

Have a beer on me. Never heard of them? I'm surprised, given the overwhelming demand for smoke-fee bars.
It took me exactly 30 seconds to find those. I'm sure there are others. I guess your problems are solved, huh?

Those are not "East Side" bars. Also - Brocach is not "non-smoking" bar. They have a non-smoking area. It is nice place.

[NavinRJohnson]

Those are not "East Side" bars. Also - Brocach is not "non-smoking" bar. They have a non-smoking area. It is nice place.

Do you have access to a car or cab fare? Again, you are looking for the government to provide you with what you want, not what you need, and you have completely discredited any public health arguments you may have tried to make. That's not why you support a smoking ban, so go ahead and admit it. I could really go for a fish fry. But man its getting cold out there, and I really don't feel like going out. I think the state should force my favorite restaurant to deliver one to me.  After all, thats what I want. Fact is, I could have one delivered here within the hour, but I'm not because it won't be very good, or the type I want. But, I could have it and the government had nothing to with it.  Sounds like and extreme argument, but guess what, that's your position.

[Chili]

Those are not "East Side" bars. Also - Brocach is not "non-smoking" bar. They have a non-smoking area. It is nice place.

Do you have access to a car or cab fare? Again, you are looking for the government to provide you with what you want, not what you need, and you have completely discredited any public health arguments you may have tried to make. That's not why you support a smoking ban, so go ahead and admit it. I could really go for a fish fry. But man its getting cold out there, and I really don't feel like going out. I think the state should force my favorite restaurant to deliver one to me.  After all, thats what I want. Fact is, I could have one delivered here within the hour, but I'm not because it won't be very good, or the type I want. But, I could have it and the government had nothing to with it.  Sounds like and extreme argument, but guess what, that's your position.

We disagree. And most people in this state disagree with you. Yes I could take a cab. No I would not drive since drinking and driving interferes with others rights to safe roads. And I think you are confusing my stance on this issue with my beliefs. I support a smoking ban because smoke is bad for my health. But to say that I think the government should tell people what to is flat out wrong. I never said ban smoking.

[NavinRJohnson]

I support a smoking ban because smoke is bad for my health. But to say that I think the government should tell people what to is flat out wrong.

Then stay out of places where you know people will be smoking. If most people agree with you as you suggest, then you will not be alone, and smoke free bars will be the rule and not the exception without any action having to be taken by any body of government.

[Chili]

I support a smoking ban because smoke is bad for my health. But to say that I think the government should tell people what to is flat out wrong.

Then stay out of places where you know people will be smoking. If most people agree with you as you suggest, then you will not be alone, and smoke free bars will be the rule and not the exception without any action having to be taken by any body of government.

No, I will take the inherent risks of going out. Should I have to, no. But I do.

[rocky_warrior]

With a quick search, looks like the data for El Paso came out to show...there was no effect on bar revenues...I don't know why the bars keep fighting it.

None of the regression models for restaurant, bar, or mixed-beverage revenues or for such revenues as percentages of total retail revenue over time showed any statistically significant changes after the smoking ban was implemented (Table). In addition, the results did not change when revenues were adjusted for inflation, and adjusting for changes in price did not change the results
...
Despite claims that these laws especially might reduce alcoholic beverage revenues (2), the mixed-beverage revenue analyses indicate that sales of alcoholic beverages were not affected by the El Paso smoking ban.

Full Article

[rocky_warrior]

Also, some information from the Minnesota House of Representatives

Therefore, if there is any conclusion to draw from this literature review, it is that most studies find that smoking bans leave restaurant, bar, or gaming revenue unaffected. However, as in most things in real life, there are no sure bets, and in some cases, a few owners or even entire communities may see an overall decline in revenue. Also, more independent research might help policymakers more fully judge the economic effects of bans on smoking.

[muhoosier260]

so then i have to do research whenever i want to go to a bar if i want to be positive there isn't smoking there? the same argument for the non smokers can be made as you are making for the smokers. Smoker: i have a right to do this activity wherever I want. Non-smoker: i have the right to not be subjected to this activity wherever I am. The fact that you're suggesting non-smokers go to the FEW places (relatively-i'm talking Milwaukee) that do have bans reflects the odd subjugation of the majority that is in effect right now.

[NavinRJohnson]

The fact that you're suggesting non-smokers go to the FEW places (relatively-i'm talking Milwaukee) that do have bans reflects the odd subjugation of the majority that is in effect right now.

No, it reflects that people are whiners, but when you get right down to it, they don't really care that much. My only real position on this, is that people are free to vote with their wallet/feet at any time, and the government does not need to tell people how to run their businesses any more than they already do. If people actually do that, this matter will take care of itself and there will be nothing left to argue about. If you aren't willing to do that, then it obviously is not that important to you and you should probably just hold your breath and drink your beer. Finally, people should stop pretending to support smoking bans  in the interest of public health, when they in reality want to see such a ban in the interest of their own personal convenience. I have no problem with that, I would suppport it for that reason as well if not for my own philosphical conflict, but one more time, let's call it what it is.

[mu-rara]

I don't like a smoky bar, so I patronize a smoke free bar.  Why not do the same?  If more people did that, there would be more smoke free bars..problem solved by market forces.

[muhoosier260]

as long as we have people who choose to be so stubborn about this issue and insisting that its their way or the highway then i suppose nothing will change. When you have lawmakers like Wisc. state senate maj. leader Decker-who coincidentally received the most donations from the "Tavern League" of any state senate member, and 2nd was Breske, his partner in crime on striking down this bill- who are unwilling to compromise with anti-smoking lobbyists how could anything change? you want to talk about whining? This guy breske is saying just b/c he worked in a bar his whole life and it doesn't bother him any, therefore it shouldn't bother you. This guy is an elected official, what a joke.

[NavinRJohnson]

as long as we have people who choose to be so stubborn about this issue and insisting that its their way or the highway then i suppose nothing will change...what a joke.

Couldn't agree more.

[NavinRJohnson]

I don't like a smoky bar, so I patronize a smoke free bar.  Why not do the same?  If more people did that, there would be more smoke free bars..problem solved by market forces.

Dude, I spent the better part of my day trying to make that point. I should know better though, because I learned a long time ago, logic and/or basic economic principles have no place on these boards. This is where I get off. Back to basketball, where the arguments are completely irrational.

[muhoosier260]

as long as we have people who choose to be so stubborn about this issue and insisting that its their way or the highway then i suppose nothing will change...what a joke.

Couldn't agree more.

way to take something out of context. the "what a joke" is referring to the lawmakers who back your position smartass. overall nice attempt at an educated response though.