thoughtcrumbs : january 2000

Excellent! I loved it when Washington passed the same measure.

I think that no-smoking benefits me in every way...but a practically all-out ban strikes me as too much. I'd much rather prefer to see a tax-break to non-smoking establishments, or, alternatively, a costly "smoking license" for smoking establishments.

That way, restauranteurs can decide for themselves whether they want to pay the social cost of allowing smoking.

I fear the cost of the ban could be lots of indie entrepreneurs simply won't bother to open or run their restaurants anymore, since it's not the ideal smoking tavern they dream about running. The consequence: some soulless chain restaurant/tavern will come in and take their place.

I think David makes a great point. I've never thought of that. Did these ideas come up in the political discourse?

Regardless, I am quite relieved that I won't reak of tobacco every Friday night anymore. I might even forget that I've left San Francisco.

Dave, I strongly share your abhorrence for chain restaurants and understand that small businesses may be worried. However, letting individual businesses decide basically negates the power of the ban--for businesses to compete, they all need to be smokefree (or all allow smoking). Letting them decide piecemeal lets those that allow smoking to be more competitive to the patrons that want to smoke, hurting the businesses that made the healthy decision.

When everyone does it, smoking bans don't hurt business. Wikipedia has links to a few studies, including several NYC agencies, showing that receipts have stayed the same (or even increased in some industries).

What I'm more concerned about is the new state law (approved by the senate yesterday) that allows smoking in casinos. Onorato has now said he might veto the Allegheny County smoking ban because of the competition from casinos elsewhere in the state. Argh!

I'm not arguing against claims that bans "don't hurt business" --- But as far as I can tell, even that evidence isn't clear-cut. Outside of Wikipedia, googling will reveal many arguments claiming those analyses are wrong. Even if they're right, they concern only aggregate dollars spent in hospitality --- and say nothing about how many bars/restaurants have closed since the bans went in place. If a small indy bar, barely making a profit, closes and all of its patrons go to big name Bar X down the street, does society really win? (Googling will also turn up classic pictures of "For sale: Used ashtrays. 'Welcome to free america'" signs on a closed restaurant windows.)

But more importantly, I'm arguing that restauranteurs, particularly *independent* ones, are special --- They don't work for the money. I'm sure they make very little for the 15-18 hour days they put in.

Instead, they work for passion ---
They just want to recreate that smokey brasserie/tabac where they ate on the streets of Paris, where they fell in love for the first time. They want the smokey sushi bar in Tokyo where they could put back sake's after work. Restaurant owners' motivation is twofold --- to recreate that experience, and to spend time with regular customers who need that experience too.

My fear is that the smoking ban will kill enough of the restauranteur's passion to make it not worthwhile. It's even worse if you believe Anthony Bourdain that your average restauranteur is a chain-smoking, binge-drinking, binge-eater that will cut off an employee's fingers if he presents a plate with the wrong number of asparagus shoots on it.

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Also, I think that if the evidence was so conclusive that smoking bans "didn't hurt" or "slightly increased" business, then the first people to advocate such a ban would be the restaurant owners.

The very fact that they are the primary opposition to such bans seems to suggest that these claims are extremely risky, or untrue.

-david

I am happy to live in an increasingly smoke free environment in Oregon and haven't been aware of any change or decrease in our economic climate that I can blame on non-smoking fanatics.

My bigger concern is my role as an employer. I am not allowed to discriminate against a smoker when I hire for a position- even though someone who reeks of tobacco can and does drive customers away. It also raises the cost of health insurance for both employers, individuals and governments (that's you the tax payer) to support and provide health care for smokers in excess of the average.

No easy solution, but eventually we might tax tobacco beyond the reach of all but the richest die-hards, finally bankrupt Phillip Morris, and subsidize some other crop in the South.

I'm all in favour of smoke-free establishments, but I still want my addicted friends to be able to smoke somewhere. So can they do that outside or is that also banned?

The very fact that they are the primary opposition to such bans seems to suggest that these claims are extremely risky, or untrue.

I'm not sure which side of the issue I'm on, but I find this argument weak. The argument presumes that people 1) always act rationally, 2) are motivated primarily by their financial interests, and 3) that they can predict the consequences of a change.

By your own argument, independent restauranteurs may not be working for the money, but out of their passion for the food and the environment. Hence they might very well fight a law that would be revenue neutral (or even revenue positive).

In support of point 3), consider the mass entertainment industries. They've repeatedly opposed technological advances (such as VCRs), on the basis that these advances would kill their business. Yet, when society has decided that the change is appropriate, the industries have continued to thrive. (Point being: the parties that should understand the business the best don't always predict the outcome correctly.)

I leave support of point 1) as an exercise for the reader.

Back when Oregon voters were deciding whether to increase the minimum wage, the restaurant people were all squawking and shrieking that they'd all go out of business. The measure passed, the minimum wage went up, and a lot of restaurants failed--so what? A lot of restaurants fail all the time. Preemptive scapegoating of the gummint might make the owners feel better, but the fact is that the restaurant business is tough. It's not that the sky isn't falling, it's just that it's been falling for a long time already, and is going to keep falling with or without minimum wage hikes and smoking bans.

Of course, france just passed a no smoking ban for the entire COUNTRY. If France can do it, then pittsburgh can too.

Hopefully they won't pass onorato's amendment to let bars with less than 30% food business allow smoking. It's got to be all or nothing, or else it won't work.

I'm not terribly worried about the casino, personally. Do we really think that all smoking burghers are going to flock to the casino (of all places) because of smoking? perhaps initially, but I'd doubt it.

I assume all you folks who object to "reeking" after a night out never attend campfires or bonfires. Your clothes and hair "reek" a great deal more after these events than they do after an evening in a smoky bar. Maybe they should be illegal,too! Wouldn't want to get you namby-pambies all upset, would we?l

(a) Wood smoke smells very differently from tobacco smoke.

(b) At a campfire, you can pretty easily stay away from the smoke, yet still remain social. That's utterly impossible inside a bar. It is somewhat possible, however, on an outdoor patio.

However, campfires are *terrible* for air pollution (not to mention forest fires), and thus are, in fact, banned in many places.

well then, the idea of smoke-free bars is so popular, someone could have made lots of money opening them. If, as the antismokers say, a majority of the public wants them, thye'd be a huge success, right?
But, no! It had to be done by (heavily greased) legislation, giving the lie to the idea that these bans are popular. Truth is, most bar customers either smoke or are tolerant of those who do. And if bras were allowed to decide for themselves, guess which ones would do better business and be more popular? That's right..and ths smoke Nazis just couldn't stand that.
Oh, by the way, one of the major funders of the antismoking "movement" is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which, by odd coincidence, is also a major funder of anti-drinkng legislation. They'd really be quite happy to see your local pub go out of business.

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

To the anonymous commenter whose post I've removed: I may not have agreed with the previous comment about taxes, but your rebuttal resorted to an ad hominem attack.

To the other commenters: I can understand that some of you believe the smoking ban is an undue restriction of business owners' and consumers' freedom, and that you're upset about the upcoming changes. I'd certainly be upset if the ban, having gotten this far, were overturned. But I'm excited that I can soon enjoy Club Cafe and Soulcialism smoke-free. Don't poop on my parade.

Of course, we're not supposed to poop on your parade, but you feel the necessity to poop on ours. Typical of the "freedom for me but not for thee" logic permeating our society.

Yep, that's because it's my blog. Cheers.

It's because some engineers have been gathering up Q in order to make magical hovercrafts that violate conservation of momentum.

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19125681.400;jsessionid=NMGHKBGMCGMM

Did you notice the spinach grower was called "Natural Selection Farms"? It's so perfect!

I've just discovered the local farmer's markets in Seattle myself, but I can't frequent them. They're really too expensive. At least up here, the farmers seem to charge just as much as PCC or Whole Foods! Have you got the same problem there, or are they more reasonable?

-Trev