“We Are Barely Surviving”
“We are barely surviving” was the testimony of one bar owner on day one of hearings last week on Board Bill 46 to create a smoke-free St. Louis. 75% of her customers are smokers.  Her business is barely making it as it is. Take away her smoking customers and she won’t survive.
During the 3 hours I was at the hearing she was just across the aisle from me. Throughout the testimony of those speaking in favor og BB46 she’d say things like “stay home.” Her bar targets 25% of the population and is barely getting by yet she wants non-smokers to stay home. When your business is focused on a niche market but isn’t doing well, telling a bigger audience to stay home just seems like bad business.
Just as I will not step foot into an establishment that permits smoking I would imagine there is a group of smokers unwilling to go to a place were they can’t smoke indoors. I’d imagine this being around 5% of both smokers and non-smokers. Do smokers drink more than non-smokers? Perhaps but I know many non-smokers that drink plenty.
But non-smokers don’t stay home, they just go to places that are not heavily smokey. Again, I don’t go into spaces where smoking is permitted. Two places I’d like to visit again, Tuckers & Joanies, have non-smoking sections upstairs over smoking areas. Might as well make it all smoking because the air is the same. Pathetic.
Those restaurants that are viewed by smokers & non-smokers as a smoking establishment to the point that 75-90% of the customers are smokers likely will not survive when St. Louis or Missouri finally goes smoke-free. They are going to hold onto that niche clientele until they go broke (lack of non-smoking customers) or the law says smoking is no longer permitted indoors.
If more than 25% of your customers smoke indoors you need to rethink your business plan. Improve your outdoor options. Begin preparing for the day when indoor smoking in public places in St. Louis is no longer permitted. Or you can fight it and in a few years return to your old space to see what opened after your niche business closed.
The Board of Aldermen’s Heath & Human Services committee will continue hearings on BB46 at 1pm on July 9th in Room 208 in City Hall.
– Steve Patterson
I have lived in a number of provinces and states in North America and Missouri is by far the most backward when it comes to smoking. It feels like the citizens don’t understand it’s a health concern. I suppose its sort of an extension of the stereotypical American mentality…”I have the right/freedom to do want I want and screw everybody else even if it kills them.”
Removing smoking from public spaces is an easy way to help improve and promote the health of a population. Clearly there is still a large segment of the population here that doesn’t understand that smoking is bad for them, perhaps the example will help. Any place I have lived that underwent this transformation found an eventual increase in business due to all the non-smokers that now felt comfortable to visit the local bar or spend a night at the Casino.
What happens to specifically smoking-only establishments, such as cigar shops and tobacconists? Will they be non-smoking too?
What if you opened a cigar bar that offered adult beverages?
For every law there’s a lawyer to find a loophole.
Well, I searched the UR archives, and found the answer. Apparently tobacco shops will also be smoke free. Isn’t that a bit much? Won’t this law just put them right out of business?
Has anyone heard from the international coffee house owners? It appears that most Bosnian-styled coffee houses/lounges have lots of smoking going on. Are they aware of the pending law?
Why not outlaw tattoo parlors as well? Tattoos are a health hazard. What else is dangerous? Alcohol. Aren’t there as many alcohol related health problems as tobacco related ones?
Sure, there’s no such thing as second hand blood alcohol content, but innocent people pay the price for other’s drinking all the time.
I’m not a smoker and avoid smokey places, but I think as long as tobacco is a legal product, you should be able to use it in public places. Owners of businesses should be able to set their own standards. You can say go outside, but when it’s 5 degrees outside in January, that’s not very practical.
As a nonsmoker, I would be glad to have all restaurants and bars smoke free. But I’m not a smoker or a bar or restaurant owner. This law impacts them a lot more than it impacts me.
This law seems to smack a little bit like “tyranny of the majority”.
If a place is a smokey bar or restaurant, non-smokers can simply go elsewhere. What’s the big deal? If a restaurant or bar wants to go smoke free, more power to them. Why can’t we just leave things the way they are?
If a place is a non-smoking bar or restaurant, smokers can simply go elsewhere. What’s the big deal?
^ Exactly. Can’t we just all get along?
Smoke screen? St. Louis Neighbor needs to read more carefully. The Board Bill specifically exempts tobacco stores.
Although this may not be a result of a smoking ban in St. Louis, I can tell you that there is an annoying side-effect of smoking bans in Toronto, where I now live.
Toronto became smoke free within 9 meters (27 feet) of any entrance to any building in 2006. Most smokers don’t follow that rule and huddle near the entrance of a bar or club, especially in the cold winter. The result is a cloud of smoke for pedestrians to walk past. In a city where there are scores more people walking than in St. Louis, this results in exposure to smoke on the street almost all the time. It is pretty gross in my opinion.
But St. Louis won’t have that problem if it follows through with the smoking ban, because not enough people walk the streets for it to matter. Coming home to the Lou from T dot has made me aware of the anachronistic attitudes towards public smoking. Even my own family members who smoke, don’t seem to care what their smoke does to my health.
I wonder if there isn’t some way to make a beneficial trade with smokers. They give us non-smoking public buildings and we give them…? That is a problem.
“…but I think as long as tobacco is a legal product, you should be able to use it in public places.”
What about guns?
See the second comment down the page. No wonder most professors discourage relying too much on the internet! Thanks PE for the clarification.
To JW, ban guns? Good point. In that case, a reduction does seem a move in the right direction.
“I wonder if there isn’t some way to make a beneficial trade with smokers. They give us non-smoking public buildings and we give them…?”
Cancer!
Is the banning of smoking in public places like the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent? Are efforts for an outright ban of tobacco products far behind?
I wasn’t suggesting banning guns, and banning smoking in publicly accessible and used places does not criminalize it, but rather regulates it. You want to smoke? Smoke at home. It’s perfectly legal to purchase and possess most pornographic material, as long as the purchaser is of legal age, but you seem to feel that “…as long as [legally purchased and owned pornographic material] is a legal product, you should be able to use it in public places.” Perhaps we should place a large projection screen in the Old Post Office Plaza and put on a heckuva flicker show, because as long as it’s legal…
…or, perhaps we should bring guns to the new City Garden and shoot us some blue jays, squirrels and pigeons, because as long as it’s legal…
“We Are Barely Surviving” is a simple statement of fact. There are multiple reasons why and why not – it’s not simply smoking, or not. Any business needs to attract (and hopefully retain) customers to succeed. Most businesses need to evolve over time as their customer base changes, and yes, it’s always changing. People age and they change how they spend their money. The economy changes and spending patterns change. Neighborhoods change and competitors open and close. Tastes change. Every business owner needs to choose how they want to serve their customers. Choose wrong, and you can easily go out of business.
Smoking is dangerous and is offensive to many non-smokers, me included. Unfortunately, smoking is also a legal adult activity that’s heavily taxed, which means money for cash-strapped governments. The best solution would be a national prohibition, but we all know how well that works with marijuana and how well it worked with alcoholic beverages. We’re dealing with addicts and people making poor choices here, so the reality remains that a certain portion of the population will accept the known long-term risks for the immediate pleasures. That leaves us essentially as hypocrites, taxing the product then trying to impose ever-increasing statewide or local restrictions!
The real argument then becomes majority rule versus the tyranny of the majority. I don’t disagree that the majority of the population doesn’t smoke, and a majority would probably support/vote for a smoking ban at the local, state or the national level. Where we get into murky territory is individual rights versus communal wishes. We’ve had a well-documented history of discrimination against immigrants and racial minorities. We continue to discriminate against gays and obese people. Now, the goal is to increase the discrimination against smokers. We continue to evolve our definitions of fairness. If we outlaw smoking, should we also outlaw gay bars? How about single motherhood? I’m pretty sure the majority, especially the moral majority, would vote for the concept, and they’d certainly the find “valid” reasons why they should!
In my mind, it all boils down to the range of choices available to all of us. Does anyone or any one group have the right to define the environment they find to be acceptable every place they want to go? Or should we be happy to have only 25% or 50% of our choices meeting all of our criteria? We’re a diverse nation. We can’t agree on political parties, religion, barbeque, pro sports teams, how to drive or recreational drugs. No one is going to go hungry or not be able to order a drink in their perfect environment somewhere in the area. It’s the assumption that the majority is right and needs to impose their will on the minority that really scares me on this issue . . .
As a homosexual I have to state that there is no equivalency between gay rights and “smoker’s rights”. Homosexuality does not cause cancer in homosexuals nor does it cause cancer in people near homosexuals. It is incredibly insulting to compare the two. It is incredibly insulting to use my struggle as a weapon against people who would want to defend others against the ridiculous behaviors of this “discriminated group”.
If smoking just harmed smokers it wouldn’t be as big of a deal however, Jimmy Z must know about second hand smoke. The fact that this crucial detail was somehow missing from his human rights campaign is quite astounding. The fact that non-smokers must pay a price eliminates the victimless nature of smoking.
Second hand smoke, which this bill is aimed at eliminating in public places, completely destroys your argument. Unless you want to give people the right to cause cancer in others just by standing next to them.
“It’s the assumption that the majority is right and needs to impose their will on the minority that really scares me on this issue . . .”
Welcome to Democracy. There are times when majority rule is good and times when it is bad. Minorities need to be protected, but habits and addictions generally do not fall under the Civil Rights Act. No more than people who like to collect postage stamps or people addicted to meth.
An African American being jailed for being African American is completely different than a smoker being barred from spreading carcinogens in a public place.
I mean, honestly, do you prefer it the other way around, Jimmy? The opposite of the majority imposing its will is the minority imposing its will. The only other alternative is to have no government at all……or, in an even more ludicrous scenario, 100% concensus on every issue.
But who am I to grudge your extremist maxims, Jimmy? Go on and organize your “smoker pride parade”; the extra exercise will help them in their future battles with cancer.
There is no tyranny. That is laughably ridiculous. I’m laughing right now. Smoking is not illegal. No American government I am aware of is attempting to make smoking illegal. There is no hypocrisy in imposing a tax on something that is subject to banned use in public areas, yet perfectly legal to purchase and possess, and use where not banned. None. You want to smoke? Smoke at home. Smoke at your friend’s house. Smoke at your cousin’s house. Smoke in your car. Smoke on your roof. Smoke in your yard. Smoke at a smoke shop where it’s expected that those who choose to smoke will be present, and those who choose not to smoke will very unlikely be present. Put burn holes in your own clothes and upholstery, carpets, furniture, and not those belonging to others. Burn your own skin with the red-hot embers. Give yourself emphysema, and leave others out of it.
St. Louis is known as a drinking town with a baseball problem. There are corner bars all over the city. I can walk to easily a dozen of them within ten minutes of my house.
There are a few smokey hangout type places where as soon as I walk in, I turn around and leave. They’re typically older places, with an older clientelle, sitting at the bar, the bartender and the three or four regulars drinking and smoking. Not my cup of tea, but to them, a lifestyle.
They enjoy each other’s company. They might be unemployed, night shift workers, or retired. They might meet like this daily to drink, talk, and smoke. It’s social contact time for them. My mom was once a person like this. This bar regular status was a big part of her social life.
We, the non-smoking majority, are going to take this lifestyle choice away from these people? How is that not oppression and discrimination?
As a worker at a club in Illinois we saw a 35% drop in customers when the smoking law went into effect the bar sales,tips and even the bathroom attendent saw a big drop in the money spent there. The other employees also commented on it by having to work more hours to make up for this law. However we all agree that we should have the right to smoke and not be pushed into making this law stick, all owners will have to work 3x as hard as before just to make the profit you made this time last year. A lot of problems with other people asking for the manager to comp their meal or drinks because when they went into the bathroom it was like walking into aforest fire all the smoke and butts on the floor and the risk of a fire in the wastecan which did happen 7x in a week. Please way this issue carefully it will cost the owners money to make a place outside to smoke like FAST EDDIES IN BON AIR did.
Owning slaves was majority rule. White-only restrooms was majority rule. No Italians need apply was majority rule. Beating up fags (and getting away with it) was majority rule. Prohibiting interracial marriage was majority rule. Prohibiting gay marriage is still majority rule. “A moment of silence”, aka school prayer, is majority rule. Don’t ask, don’t tell is majority rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans is a classic case of relatively-recent majority rule (that was eventually overturned in court). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White chronicles why AIDS was used as a justification for continued restrictions on the gay lifestyle. If you don’t want second-hand smoke imposed on you, just walk away. If you don’t want to work around smokers, don’t apply for a job where they allow smoking. If you’re not comfortable around guys kissing, don’t apply for a job at a gay bar (but go ahead and join the Army).
Does the government have the right (and the duty) to protect us from ourselves? YES! The fundamental problem with tobacco is that our government doesn’t have the cojones to regulate it like every other dangerous drug. Using the same logic, we should be giving huffers, crack addicts and meth heads the same rights to pursue their addictions in the privacy of their homes, just not in public places. We could tax those drugs and make a lot of money – these poor folks are just as addicted as smokers are. But no, we continue to maintain a bizarre double standard, increasing the taxes while at the same time limiting the places where tobacco consumption is still tolerated! Either it’s as dangerous as the anti-smokers say (and it should be banned completely), or it’s not! What next? Banning White Castle? For having little nutritional value and the smell, both coming and going?! Bring back asbestos, just make sure there’s a warning label on the package?!
I’m well aware of the potential danger of second-hand smoke. I’m even more aware of my gag reflex and the way being around smokers make my clothes stink. I would have no problem putting tobacco in the same category as heroin and methamphetemenes, and classifying it as the addictive and dangerous drug that it really is. I’d view DEA raids on tobacco farmers in the same way I view DEA raids on pot farms, as a necessary, if somewhat ineffective, enforcement tool. But I’m also well aware of the heavy hand government can have, especially if majority rule is the ONLY criteria. The majority seems to be able to find the justification for too many bad decisions, as well as many, many good ones.
“The majority seems to be able to find the justification for too many bad decisions, as well as many, many good ones.”
That’s about the most either empty, or contradictory statement I’ve heard in days.
Okay John W, but please weigh in on the social contact issue for smokers in smoker-friendly bars. How are we not limiting their liberty and pursuit of happiness?
We’re not, because social contact, liberty, pursuit of happiness and smoking are 100% severable, that’s how. If one cannot socialize without cigarettes, how does one work in a non-smoking environment, assuming the vast majority of people do? How can one attend classes in school and socialize w/o cigarettes? Attend church services? Meet with anyone else on a social basis who doesn’t smoke and objects to it? Are schools, churches, banks stores, 95% of workplaces, and libraries limiting the liberty and pursuit of happiness… or is it that no social contact is possible in such places because smoking is prohibited?
Here is what I don’t understand – this bar that Steve writes about. I’m sure its South City Bar and she is probably right. 75% of her customers are smokers. I fail to see what the problem with this business is. Lets face it, this is a place that most of you wouldn’t go…yet you believe that smoking should be banned in it. The city of St Louis has over 250 smoke-free bars and restaurants within the city borders. Those that want smoke-free have plenty of options. A ban will not cause them to go our more. In fact, if you do the St Louis Metro Area (not including Illinois) there are 862 smoke-free establishments. If you went out every night to a different restaurant – it would take you over two years to go to all smoke-free establishments. Ban or no ban, people will smoke so why not let them have a place to do it in.
All this about majority rule – in fact a majority of people are against a ban. I don’t believe this is a majority rule issue.
Roughly 20%-25% of the adult population still smokes, some willingingly, many out of addiction. The big reason the government doesn’t criminalize tobacco use is that 20%-25% of the population would instantly become criminals and a huge black market in tobacco products would pop up. Amendment 2 in Colorado was passed by the majority to outlaw any state or local rights for the gay community (what, ±10% of the population), and to remove laws already passed in Denver, Boulder and Colorado Springs. This was obviously a bad decision by the majority, as was the recent defeat of California’s Proposition 8. The outcome of both initiatives, at the polls, was the tyranny of the majority, the majority telling the minority that what they want is wrong and should be illegal, just because “we said so”!
When it comes to tobacco, we need to separate the health issues from the yuck issues. We, the majority, can convince ourselves that tobacco is bad enough to ban in public, but not bad enough to ban for private use, simply because we don’t like it. If second-hand smoke is really that much of a killer, first-hand smoke should be making smokers drop like flies – it’s obviously not – nursing homes are full of people who’ve smoked for half a century, plus. Life is full of choices, many of them slightly dangerous (like walking across the street), and it’s impossible to protect everyone from everything that can potentially kill them. As humans, we’re supposed to be intelligent. Avoiding danger, individually, is a part of living daily life. Don’t want to be around smokers? Walk away!
But, if, as we all seem to agree, tobacco is a real killer, then why the hell can pretty much anyone walk into any convenience store or gas station and buy a pack?! If it’s a known carcinogen and a highly-addictive drug, outlaw it, figure out how to get the existing addicts their daily/hourly fix (prescription?), and agressively prosecute tobacco possession by ANYONE under the age of 21 or 25, increasing the threshold every year. Don’t be hypocrites – solve the real problem!
Steve, your comments make no sense. First off – all business targets some part of the population. If you opened a bar in Ladue – you would target a weathier (and probably non-smoking segment). If you opened one on the northside, your target market would be black (and like the southside, most likely smokers). Your sympathy is neither required or wanted. Now my questions still stands – why do you care if this small southside tavern allows smoking.
You can’t compare a bar with a library or a school. A bar is a private business. Smoking and drinking is an established lifestyle, just like being gay. No one denies people being gay, yet we are talking about denying the smoker/drinker lifestyle.
Would this rule apply to VFW Halls, union halls, and other private clubs? I am tending to agree with Tony P on this. There are hundreds of options for non-smokers. Smokers are the ones with fewer choices as it is.
If I want to open a bar that allows smoking, and you want to open one that doesn’t, it would seem the two businesses would be more complementary than competitive.
Aren’t there more pressing issues to address?
I think the biggest issue in the smoking ban is the complete disregard for rights of the business owner. I don’t want to hear anything about ‘smoker’s rights’ or ‘right to clean air’ or whatever.
Someone who owns a business should have the right to make their own smoking policy, plain and simple. Just as someone who owns their house has the right to smoke inside, they should have the same right to do that in their own place of business. If the owner wants to cater to the smoking crowd, who is the government to tell them they aren’t allowed to? If an ordinance required a sign on the outside to disclose that it’s a smoking establishment, that would be fine with me. The argument that a restaurant/bar/etc. is a public health risk has a major flaw – it IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE. Since it is private property, shouldn’t the owner have the right to allow smoking if he chooses, the same as his home?
I can compare them, and I will. If a ban is enacted, people will soon become accustomed to the new standard, and life will move on. Smoking was once allowed in places that we’d now never even think possible, yet it was. Open containers of beer or liquor were once permitted in vehicles (even for the driver!), and now we’d never even think that was possible, yet it was. If enacted, people will move on. The businesses that claim to lose percentages of profit will gain it back.
Smoking is stupid, and smokers are stupid for smoking. I believe there is strong reasoning behind a ban, however surprisingly this will sound to you, I’m actually not for sweeping bans. I believe the strongest argument against a ban is the one that maintains the property owner’s right to choose his or her patronage, and not the attempts to deny the hazards of smoking to non-smokers.
It’s interesting that such a rigid defense of smoking in public and some well articulated arguments can be read here, while it’s undeniable how profoundly stupid it is to smoke.
I don’t think anybody here is defending smoking as a good choice. I smoked cigarettes for 17 years and quit. For my health and for my family it was a good choice. However I still smoke cigars (don’t inhale for what its worth) and am comfortable with the risk. However it is still a choice that people make. Ten years ago the argument was valid that non-smokers didn’t have any choices. A decade later, hundreds of establishments cater to those that want smoke-free. Even those that allow it, usually contain it to the bar.
But again – I don’t buy that second hand smoke is a health risk hype. There is plenty of research that shows that SHS is not a health risk. If you care to dispute me – let me know what you think of the study done by the World Health Organization and the UCLA study.
I went in Stella Blues about 6 months ago, they were smoking behind the bar and over the ice, and i just didn’t feel like dealing with it. So, I wrote on my CC receipt, “Wish you were smoke-free” and left. I have never been back since, but I live right down the street. If they would have made an announcement they were going to be smoke-free I would have gone back and probably even tried their menu. Like most of South City, I am waiting for the day when I can start grabbing dinners and drinks in a smoke-free world. Until then I’m content just continuing to buy most of my food at the grocery store and enjoying soda and beer at my house.
I’d like to point out that if that lady who testified had been interested in capturing me as a customer (even in the future when all bars are smoke-free) she surely did a poor job of telling people what her business was. She also testified making her place sound like a miserable establishment. She said most of her customers smoke, and that sometimes she would say to them, “I should make a nonsmoking section” as they all blow smoke in her face – her point was that her place was a very smoky place. Mmmmm, sounds yummy to me to sit there and get to know those regulars.
What bar does Conway own? Irregardless of his desire to question everyday Joes as though they were on the witness stand at the trial of the century, I sure would like to patronize his establishment when St. Louis goes smoke-free. However, most good lawyers I know would do their research first, and then question the public on the specifics. It was obvious Conway knows nothing about this issue, other than his own bias and how to successfully turn-off the desire of the public to get involved in their community. Most of his bills favor big money, anyway, which is why the public is not much of a concern to him. It must be interesting at the very least – considering his strong-willed opinions he forcefully pushed out into the hearing chambers, which could light up the audience with laughter and tears at the same time. I noticed though he sort of floundered when the Mayor testified. It seemed as though he lost his nerve at the same time he recalled some alliance he must have made during some other negotiation, causing him to tighten his lips and wait patiently for the hearings to end.
Do you mean Conway or Oertmann? I didn’t know Conway was a tavern owner, but Oertmann is.
Here’s another question…if a business owner thinks he/she knows how best to run his/her business, then what role is it of government to change the formula?
Rules re. noise, building code, handicapped access, and hours of operation are all things that impact the world outside your front door.
But once you’re inside, isn’t that the domain of the business owner and the customers?
Jason
Conway doesn’t own a bar – but he is against a smoking ban. I was actually surprised how much the Alderman did question the mayor. They put forth the economic questions to the mayor. All he said is that he would be interested in seeing the economic data.
One other question – why don’t you just spend your time and money at the already smoke-free establishments in St Louis – there are well over 250 of them?
It’s not surprising that some aldermen oppose the smoking ban. Have you ever been to a fundraiser? There are lots of smokers present. Would political events prohibit smoking?
My friend had said he did, but he must be wrong. The reason, though, that I don’t spend my time and money in already smoke-free establishments is that I really don’t enjoy driving around. There aren’t many smoke-free places in my neighborhood. There is Amsterdam Tavern, which doesn’t have any food, and is really only hopping when there is a good game on. The Royale is a bit pricey for my tastes, and not really the type of place I enjoy most. I’d love it if I could walk up to Morganford and frequent all those presently smoky places, when, of course, I don’t have to sit in smoke.
The problem with the economic argument is that there are more nonsmokers than smokers. I’m one of them. My friends and I call each other and try to figure out a “good place to go”. We’re pretty tired of going to the same-old smoke-free places, so we usually end up just going to one anothers’ house and playing games and having drinks. It saves money, of course, but we’d much prefer to hit up the “hole-in-the-walls”, if it weren’t for the smoke. People like me and my friends, I think, are typical of a lot of people in the area. We want to go out and enjoy the city, but we stop-short more often than not. I also like to take out my laptop and do things when I have a few beers. But, I’m not about to begin subjecting my expensive computer to smoke. Even taking it to MoKaBe’s is a pain in ass because of the smoke. I like the layout though, and the coffee is OK. I tried Hartford a few times, but its way to intimate a place to sit for a few hours and get some things done.
Jason –
From the tone of your post, it sounds like you think that owners of smoking establishments ought to make them smoke free in order to satisfy the desires of you and other non-smokers.
Who do you think should be the ones to make that decision? You and your friends, the business owner(s), or the St. Louis Board of Aldermen?
Again, the tone of this debate seems to be heavily weighted in favor of the will of the majority. That is not how this country is supposed to work.
The other irony is, when you speak of wanting to go to “hole in the wall” places, many of these are unique in terms of their personality, some including smoking.
Should they change their personality in order to suit the desires of a different clientele? They are what they are and it has worked for them for years. So why change?
I can think of a lot of places where smoking should be prohibited. Schools, day care centers, hospitals, doctor’s offices, government offices, grocery stores, fire stations, any public building, offices with over a certain minimum number of employees, but a corner tavern? Nahh. Too much big brother for me.
Well Jason – I’m not sure what to tell you. If you want Coffee – try Shaw coffee – they are non-smoking. If you want bars and restaurants than try the Grove – they are mostly non-smoking bars. You can look up list on Sauce or tobacco-free kids websites. They list over 250 smoke-free venues. Funny isn’t it – the only place that is a reasonable walk for me is Mr B’s and its too smoky so I choose not to go. They serve smokers and if a ban is imposed, they wouldn’t survive. It wouldn’t be an option for me ban or no ban.
As for the economic arguement – it’s pretty clear. We have had four economist weigh in on a smoking ban in St Louis. They have all predicted that St Louis would lose a lot of bars and it would hurt the restaurants. The market is doing a pretty good job of giving everybody an option – including you.
I find it ironic how it can be argued that business has the right to decide on whether they want to be smoke free or not when the tavern’s kitchen and who can be actually served liquor (something legal) is regulated by law. Simply put, A business owner is obligated by law to maintain its premises with the safety and welfare of its employees as well as its clients in my mind. Smoking has no special place in the constitution nor outside the jurisdication of the laws that are made of it. Nor is their any such right to make money as please. The moment an establishment has made a payroll check and/or accepted paying customers is the day that the business accepted a multitude of responsibilities.
As far as making a buck, yes, that is an arguement I’m willing accept and willing to agree with (being a non-smoker it will be someone elses buck instead of mine). The owner must also accept the premise that he or she might have someone one day, either an employee or former client, file a lawsuit against them. I’m surprised that someone hasn’t tried it yet considering our sue happy society, what healthcare cost and the pile of information that would support such a claim (or at least it hasn’t made the news).
When a minority group makes up 75% of a bar’s customers, it is proof that a smoking ban in unnecessary. Clearly this bar is a place frequented only by smokers, friends of smokers and people who don’t mind smoke, so making this establishment smoke-free would be undermining the bar’s entire business model.
The existence of a bar like this shows that smokers are being concentrated into smoker friendly establishments, meaning that there are less smokers available to pollute other restaurants and bars. This phenomenon explains the increase in non-smoking establishments over the last ten or so years.
Putting a universal ban on public smoking is either an insult to reality or an act of selfishness on the part of non-smokers, depending on which way you look at it. Nonsmokers either ignore the fact that second hand smoke is no longer a daily threat to them because of the many non-smoking establishments available, which is a denial of reality, or else they selfishly force public places to cater to their wishes.
No well-informed person with a good conscious should be able to support a smoking ban.
Also, while I am at it, I am sick of all smokers being treated like children. It may be a bad health decision, but some people enjoy doing it and it is their own choice. This may be hard to believe, but some people many people enjoy smoking enough to do it despite the health risks. If you drive a motorcycle, eat unhealthy food or drink alcohol, you might understand.