Smoking Ban Doesn't Pencil Out
You may remember that, when the I-901 (smoking Ban) campaign was in full swing last fall, advocates for the smoking ban both from government and advocacy groups promised that a smoking ban would increase sales at bars and restaurants in the state because all the happy, shiny wearers of Gore-Tex would suddenly flood the now-smoke-free bars. Roger Valdez, King County's tobacco czar, told me that for each smoker a business lost that four (4) nonsmokers would replace them.
I fully expected ban advocates and nanny statists to follow the pattern of other states with new bans and put out a press release as soon as state sales receipts became available and use them to claim that sales are up at bars and restaurants thanks to the ban and that smoking bans totally rock.
I was dubious of claims such as Valdez made. Turns out my skepticism was well-placed, because sales figures for the state came out three weeks ago and I have yet to see any of the governmental agencies and advocacy groups that pushed for the ban (and, let's be honest here, governmental officials were literally campaigning for I-901) coming out with a press release claiming how awesome the ban has turned out to be.
That's because bar and restaurant sales didn't go up in the first quarter of 2006, compared to sales as a whole. Bars and restaurants lagged the rest of the economy in Washington State, which, according to the state Department of Revenue, saw the largest jump in retail sales since 1990. Here are some of the percentage increases between 2005 and 2006 for the state and Seattle from DOR:
1st quarter 2006 statewide total retail sales increased 10.3 percent
1st quarter 2006 statewide total bar and restaurant sales increased 7.9 percent
1st quarter 2006 Seattle total retail sales increased 12.4 percent
1st quarter 2006 Seattle total bar and restaurant sales increased 5.8 percent
Translation: Statewide bar and restaurant sales went up about 20 percent less than you'd expect, compared to the economy as a whole. In Seattle, bar and restaurant sales went up about half of what you would expect compared to the rest of the economy.
I wonder if Roger Valdez or any of you antismoking Nazis out there would like to explain why bar and restaurant sales so badly lag the rest of the economy. I say that it is precisely because of the smoking ban and because nonsmokers don't go out as much to bars and restaurants as do smokers. In addition, friends of mine who work in bars say that nonsmokers are lousy tippers—right up there with the cheapskate Microsofties who leave baristas a 50-cent tip for making six lattes.
And, lest you think I am kidding, I know numerous bartenders and waiters who have seen their tip income go down several hundred dollars a month since the ban took effect last December. And, um, wasn't this ban supposed to be about helping workers? Nice work, nanny statists!
17 comment(s)
Stephany says:
When we listen to nannies, we get slapped. Who really believed there wasn\'t going to be a downfall. It will be a re-do. Bottom line is always above the Nannies.
On a regular basis, I have always tipped well, usually more than I should, and many a day am caught doing one of those \"random acts of tipness\".
Meaning, for those cheap ass tip freaks, I make up for it.
Though in debt myself, I believe in people, and anyone who serves me anywhere, deserves respect, and that is what a tip is for, not just for good service. Old days tips were for impeccable service, now we all know it makes ends meet.
Tip generously people. Oh, and yeah, the smoking ban will be removed, it takes time to reverse.
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 10 2006 @ 6:26PM
Bill Tubbins says:
Your pseudo-stat-nickpicking completely glosses over the reason for having the ban.
This smoking ban was about eliminating the health risks of second-hand smoke, and the right of the nonsmokers to visit any establishment without the need to hold their breaths and to dry clean everything they wore every time.
And before you or others start whining about the \"Nanny State\" and \"Smokers\' Rights:\" Smokers have the right to smoke, and they are not being told to quit smoking or have their fingers cut off; they are still allowed to smoke, just not in places that force the entire attendance to inhale the smokers\' exhaust.
We allow shooting clays at shooting ranges but you would never allow it up and down the street you live on. Those who claim the \"Nanny State\" catch phrase: let\'s see when I yell \"PULL\" outside your front door if you can remember your own spoutings. As in the case of NC-17 films, guns, and tobacco, things that some enjoy but negatively affect all others, and therefore these need to be restricted to the right place and/or time.
This smoking ban was, mind you, NOT about boosting sales of bars and restaurants. So what if the sales did not go up as much as everything else? That\'s an observation without relevance to the core purpose of the ban. Plus, your crying foul over this is a rather premature propaganda for the smokers. The smokers have been only away since November. Give the formerly ostracized nonsmokers a little time (more than 4 months) to re-pattern their entertainment habits to include, yeah, visiting bars that used to be complete nicotine and tar bombs, will ya?
Your mention of \"hundreds of dollars less in tips\" may draw a tear, but for your argument\'s sake those are only anecdotal, so spare us the unsupported pseudostats. Your use of the percentages to claim \"vigarette ban slows sales\" is also only speculative: why is it ONLY cigarette ban that could contribute to the slowdown? Why not throw in the skyrocketing gas prices? General sales include staples such as gas and food (gas prices being another reason that general sales went up, no doubt) but bar/restaurant sales are mainly for non-essential, entertainmen purposes. So when expenditures for life necessities goes up, guess what? Bars and restaurant business will suffer. You work in a business related to people\'s desires to entertain, you will live or die by the trends in the amount of money people feel they have to throw around for fun.
There is also absolutely no reason to believe that general retail sale figures and bar/restaurant spending MUST go hand in hand at all times in the history of mankind. Do you have evidence that for the past 10 years, for example, general sales and restaurant sales are always perfectly coordinated? To cry wolf over one quarter is just statistically and journalistically unsound.
Finally, the fact that the population of this state approved the comprehensive ban has given me and just about anyone else I know a sense of freedom to go anywhere we wish, and that is priceless. It is also a sign of intelligent and enlightened civilization that the majority of us in the state of Washington have made a stand against a proven public health hazard.
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 10 2006 @ 9:14PM
horatiosanzserif says:
Well, if my \"nanny\" can help prevent lung cancer, I\'m all for her, Philip.
Posted On: Friday, Aug. 11 2006 @ 10:26AM
george says:
Other reasons for the slow down: gas price insanity and a general, unsettling feeling like we\'re all totally *#@$ed?
Enough to keep me home a few more nights a week. Sorry waiters. My money ain\'t going as far as it used to.
Posted On: Friday, Aug. 11 2006 @ 11:20AM
Seth says:
The smoking ban is \"a sign of intelligent and enlightened civilization\"?
Hoorah! Banning smoking in bars *is* a step forward in the inevitable march toward a utopian society.
I can\'t wait for future bans on running on the sidewalk, sunbathing without SPF 30, and having evil thoughts. And can eugenics be far behind? And soma?
Everything\'s going to be perfect soon, I just know it! And we\'ll all live forever and ever!!!
Posted On: Friday, Aug. 11 2006 @ 11:37AM
Stephany says:
Civil Liberties for Some Not All
This is not a case of smoking, second hand smoke and restaurant bottom lines.
This is about fair and equal Civil Liberties for all Citizens, not just for those who the Law makes happy that day.
The Restaurant owners, bar owners, bowling alley, you name it, all have also lost their right to run their places of business their way.
Before the Ban on Smoking Law was passed, there were many places of business that posted Non-Smoking Establishment signs on their doors, and patrons could choose whether or not to walk in through the door, the same went for a smoking establishment, patrons could choose to avoid it if they truly did not want to be in a smoking environment.
Having Rights in this country goes beyond what we typically want to talk about: Freedom of Speech. We have all have Freedom, and that comes in the form of Civil Liberty, in many forms.
The exposure of second hand smoke comes in other forms as well, and if one was to persue this more aggressively, they would look at the black smoke pouring from the semi-trucks daily on the freeways.
One would push for a Law to eliminate the archaic form of vegetation recyling: burn piles.
One would watch for the chimney of their home not to spew solid white smoke, for fear of getting a fine from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency.
One would stop burning yard debris for weekend yard clean up in the Spring and Fall, and stop to consider the millions of particles of carcinogens they are at that time omitting by choice (freedom to burn)into the atmosphere, their neighbors homes and yards, filling the air with toxic waste , and at the same time worsening Global warming.
As an American we have the choice to persue the so-called American dream, be a business owner, and this Ban on Smoking in public places removed rights of business owners as well.
Think beyond the smoking ban, and think broader than this.
Now take a deep breath outside and wonder what that brown stagnant air is filled with....that is going to kill you before someone\'s cigarette will.
BY the way, I don\'t smoke. I believe in the choice.
Posted On: Friday, Aug. 11 2006 @ 11:59AM
comic book guy says:
Apparently the smoking ban extends to comic book characters as well
http://www.tcj.com/messboard/ubb/Forum2/HTML/005388.html
Posted On: Friday, Aug. 11 2006 @ 1:13PM
Bill Tubbins says:
So-called Seth,
you are obviously NOT a member of the enlightened and intelligent civilization that I mentioned. I wish I could say I am sorry for you, but I am not.
In a true nanny state every smoker will have their fingers cut off, so stop whining like you really need a nanny, and go light up in your own room. No one will give a flying f#$k what you do there.
Hyperboles that go from smoking ban to eugenics and empty sarcasm that has no meat to it only reveal your lack of a substantial argument. The more you say, the less enlightened and intelligent you sound.
Where do YOU live so I can come for a round of shooting clays or your pet or whatever happens to be in your driveway? When you hear \"PULL\" that\'d be me, exercising my rights to do whatever I darn well please because it\'s my right. That\'s what you want to do to me in a restaurant when you force me to inhale your exhaust, after all.
Everything has its proper place, whether firing guns or smoking cigarettes. If you don\'t like the ban, just remember that significantly more than 50% of your fellow Washingtonians (the other half, the \"enlightened and intelligent\" half, remember??) approved of it. Perhaps you might find other states with less enlightened and less intelligent citizens more hospitable. Don\'t bother to send postcard.
Posted On: Saturday, Aug. 12 2006 @ 12:37AM
Bill Tubbins says:
Stephany,
throwing kneejerk phrases like \"Freedom of Choice\" ignores the fact that no one\'s choice to smoke is being taken away.
My choice to go into any establishment without fear of the smoke has been restored. Apparently more than 50% of the state\'s voters feel the choice to go anywhere without smoke is more important. Sorry if you don\'t like it.
If a smoker\'s \"choice\" can negatively impact others, and those said others don\'t like it, then we have a conflict. And that\'s why we vote on it. Settling these conflicts through voting is the democratic way to come to grips with opposing interests.
There\'s no reason to cry over loss of freedom: everyone had the freedom to vote. Freedom for doing everything possible under the sun is simply not a viable option if that \"something\" can physically hurt others.
It\'s legal to drink, and it\'s legal to drive, but is it then our born right to drink and drive? How about you starting a rally for the drunk drivers\' rights, that their freedom of choice to start up after getting smashed has been taken away??
Posted On: Saturday, Aug. 12 2006 @ 12:49AM
Stephany says:
Bill,
With all due respect I had a friend ran down by a drunk driver, and because of the loss of her life, you now have a law in place that lowered the legal alcohol limit to .08.
Enlighten yourself, and don\'t forget 50% of the people also tried to vote Bush out of office. The so called enlightened other 50% got him into office. Good or bad, the stats in Washington state with voting is most always 50/50. Ever paid attention to that?
The killer of my friend was sentenced and got out early, and a few months later was arrested for a DUI again.
Having an intelligent conversation is one thing, regarding Civil Liberties, but drop it when you want to bring up drinking and driving as if I want to promote that in a \"rally for drunk drivers rights\".
Have a nice day. You are not worth another reply.
Go THINK. It isnt illegal yet.
Posted On: Saturday, Aug. 12 2006 @ 8:04AM
Stephany says:
In case anyone is interested in the side topic that spurred from \"Tubbins\" commentary:
http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_081506WABsusan_west_pleaSW.251c757.html
Woman with history of DUI arrests makes plea deal on new charges
04:23 PM PDT on Tuesday, August 15, 2006
SEATTLE - A Bellevue woman convicted in 1997 of vehicular homicide while driving drunk has plead guilty to DUI.
Posted On: Tuesday, Aug. 15 2006 @ 5:11PM
Gloria says:
Every time I hear \"Well, I have a right to not have to put up with smoking!!\" I wonder how many of those people ever told a business owner: \"Sorry, I won\'t come here because you allow smoking. Get rid of it and I might come here.\" I wonder how many people who say they can finally, finally go out now that smoking has been banned ever told the manager of a non-smoking business that they patronized: \"thank you for not allowing smoking\".
Non-smokers vastly outnumber smokers in this state. Businesses are in business to make money. It\'s the fact that instead of using their vastly superior economic clout to convince business owners that it\'s in their best interest to disallow smoking, a certain percentage of the population insisted on having a law to do it for them that makes this a \"nanny\" issue.
Comparing smoking in a nightclub to someone shooting skeet on your street is ludicrous. You and your neighbors have every right to say \"Hey, not in my neighborhood!\" but the smoking ban isn\'t \"Hey, not in my neighborhood\", instead \"and not in yours and not in yours and not in yours, either, too bad if you want it.\"
Posted On: Wednesday, Aug. 16 2006 @ 1:04AM
Melissa says:
BTW, I used to be a server. At restaurants, smokers are notorious for spending ages at your tables and leaving lousy tips...plus you get the added bonus of lung and allergy problems from the second hand smoke. I know that personally, I would go to bars more often if there was no smoking. As it stands now, I have to spend a day or so recovering from the aftereffects of the smoke. Maybe if people who smoked weren\'t such inconsiderate, selfish asses, they would understand that what they are doing is affecting those around them. Why people feel that it is a personal freedom issue to let people with this particular addiction blow their smoke in everyone\'s faces is beyond me. It is really a personal reponsibility issue. People should have at least a modest amount of respect for those who have to breathe around them. If they cannot, I guess, there will have to be a law. It is their own fault.
A \"smoking nazi\"
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 17 2006 @ 3:39PM
jess says:
Just for the record, you don\'t have a \"right\" to vistit my bar. That\'s just plain nonsense. Go to the one down the street that fits your life style. I can\'t make money off of you. I don\'t want you in here. Get lost, not rightous.
Jess
Posted On: Sunday, Aug. 20 2006 @ 10:10PM
michelle says:
You\'re right-- businesses should be allowed to offer asbestos and nonasbestos sections.
Oh and for the love of all that is holy, its the first quarter people (the DOR is about 6 mos behind in data collection, also.
furthermore, the \"anti-smoking nazis\" did argue that bars would benefit in the long run!!! so lets wait it out a bit longer and take other things into consideration. You appeared to gloss over the fact that the researchers at the dept of revenue said that the bar industry is historically quite volitale and they cannot causally relate the smoking ban to the drop in sales.
Posted On: Wednesday, Aug. 30 2006 @ 6:02PM
Chris says:
Excuse me people but are you all off your rocker? since when does the goverment have the right to police PRIVATE property? If i own a bar it\'s my right to choose how it\'s run not the goverment\'s. and in all honesty the shooting the clays issue your bringing up Tubbins isn\'t the real issue is it? trying to confuse the ppl to your point of view wont always work and in all honesty if you were that enlightened and worried about people\'s health you would be on this holy crusade of maybe oh i don\'t know...possibly the motor vehicle\'s or the factory\'s spouting this harmful gunk in our air. The second point is that smoking is legal and i see no point in it being banned anywere. if you don\'t want to be \"forced\" to breathe in these harmful affects than go make your own buisness and run it your way. The sales issue even though a good point still will need time to confirm it. 6 months is all i think it deserves though so dont flip out. Lastly do you honestly think our politcal representitves really care about your health? no the only thing they care about is your vote and thats why were having this issue.
A non-smoking teenager
Posted On: Friday, Feb. 16 2007 @ 6:29AM
Pharma David says:
I personally didn\'t start having allergy problems until I moved into a home with central heat and air in my teens. Not to mention at school in the spring and early fall, the windows were open. WBR LeoP
Posted On: Monday, Mar. 19 2007 @ 11:45PM