After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later

[Bowser]

So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

Poll to come.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by luv

Link?

Well over 100 empirical studies have attempted to examine the economic impact of smoking bans on the hospitality industry. Most of these studies purport to show that smoking bans do not have adverse economic impacts on bars and restaurants, and some actually claim to demonstrate that they improve their profitability.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/eco...oking-ban.html

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Here is the legit debate. BUT as I pointed out, if OSHA doesn't have an issue then I can't see how anyone can justify a smoking ban on air quality standards. If you disagree with OSHA's permissible limits, that's fine but take that up with them.

So if OSHA did have an issue with it, does that mean you would be fine with a smoking ban?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

No one else will say it, probably for fear of being banned, but you're coming off like a total douche in this thread.

Good day sir. I must get back to work.

Again, that's the point. If you or anyone else sees ME as being a douche and they support smoking bans.. they need to look in the mirror. I am absolutely being a douche, just like they are when THEY go along with stripping OTHERS of their rights. Hopefully people are self aware enough to see that.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

So if OSHA did have an issue with it, does that mean you would be fine with a smoking ban?

If ETS violated OSHA's permissible limits for the various chemicals in regards to PPM in workplace air quality.. then yes.. I would be fine with that.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/eco...oking-ban.html

If that's true, why wouldn't bar owners do it themselves?

[scott free]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The idea a business owner is not allowed to decide if a perfectly legal object can be consumed in his own establishment is absolutely asinine.

.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

So if OSHA did have an issue with it, does that mean you would be fine with a smoking ban?

They do have an issue with it. However, it's likely such a widespread variabled issue, that they find it easier to not tackle on a nationwide level.

[luv]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/eco...oking-ban.html

There were places in Springfield that closed. Of course, bars in outlying towns are doing great now. I'm going to go either way. I just think it's crummy that people have to impose their views on others instead of just using their right to choose.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/eco...oking-ban.html

Yes, the economic impact is generally negligible. That really isn't a point anyone should give a damn about.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If that's true, why wouldn't bar owners do it themselves?

Fear of losing regulars. A municipal ban will piss off everyone and patrons will go to bars outside city limits for a while, but some will eventually want to come back for one reason of another.

Owner banning smoking will just cause regulars to irrationally think the ban was a personal attack and they take their business elsewhere.

[listopencil]

There seems to be a gigantic hole in the argument for the ban. Supposedly it improves air quality but the EPA says that it doesn't. Supposedly the ban has no negative (and a possible positive) affect on profitability but bar owners (who rely on profitability) aren't willing to enforce a ban on their own. Why is the local government not allowing small business to make their own business decisions?

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If that's true, why wouldn't bar owners do it themselves?

Plenty of them here did. We had a city wide smoking ban that was lifted for some reason I can't recall. Only the dives(which I prefer FTR) went back to smoking. The rest stayed nonsmoking voluntarily. Then there was a statewide ban.

Hell some of the bars here still let you smoke, well really only one that ALWAYS does that I recall, but it's such a lame bar I would never choose to go there. There's a few others that will either let you smoke once in a blue moon when it's a slow night, or let you light up at close. However, this in no way enters the discussion as to why people want to go somewhere.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Fear of losing regulars. A municipal ban will piss off everyone and patrons will go to bars outside city limits for a while, but some will eventually want to come back for one reason of another.

Owner banning smoking will just cause regulars to irrationally think the ban was a personal attack and they take their business elsewhere.

Shouldn't that business be made up by the influx of people who will now patronize the establishment, because there was such a public mandate for a smoking ban?

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by listopencil

There seems to be a gigantic hole in the argument for the ban. Supposedly it improves air quality but the EPA says that it doesn't. Supposedly the ban has no negative (and a possible positive) affect on profitability but bar owners (who rely on profitability) aren't willing to enforce a ban on their own. Why is the local government not allowing small business to make their own business decisions?

ding ding

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Plenty of them here did. We had a city wide smoking ban that was lifted for some reason I can't recall. Only the dives(which I prefer FTR) went back to smoking. The rest stayed nonsmoking voluntarily. Then there was a statewide ban.

Hell some of the bars here still let you smoke, well really only one that ALWAYS does that I recall, but it's such a lame bar I would never choose to go there. There's a few others that will either let you smoke once in a blue moon when it's a slow night, or let you light up at close. However, this in no way enters the discussion as to why people want to go somewhere.

Why not leave it like that? The dives (which I love, BTW) provided a legal service.