Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Have you ever decided to go to a place because of a smoking ban?

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion/Politics

Have you ever decided to go to a place because of a smoking ban?

Old 03-24-08, 11:21 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
calhoun07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have you ever decided to go to a place because of a smoking ban?

Kansas City has enacted a smoking ban, and I have to say it's ABOUT TIME. There is a restaurant up the street from where I work that I went to shortly after I started and I could not stay...the place was just too smelly from the smoke. And I had never went back, though I enjoyed the food.

But today on the news they happened to feature that restaurant on the news as an example and some leathery faced old man was whining about it and saying he'd stop going. Hey, that's OK, OLD MAN, because I will START going.

So I was just wondering if there has been evidence to show that these places actually lose business after smoking bans are in place? Or do they gain business or break even from getting new business from non smokers who enjoy those places but avoided them in the past?
Old 03-24-08, 11:24 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Back in the 802, missing NYC
Posts: 5,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
virtually everywhere. I never went out to dinner before VT had the ban, now I love it. nor did I got to bars that often because it was the suck.
Old 03-25-08, 12:15 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd say that I haven't gone somewhere because of a ban, but that it greatly increases (by about 1000 times) that I will go out at all.
-ringding-
Old 03-25-08, 09:23 AM
  #4  
Admin-MemeCat
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,819
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
I think bars will probably lose customers with a smoking ban, while restaurants might actually gain customers. Smoking and drinking seem to go together, while smoking and eating makes people want to vomit.
Old 03-25-08, 09:37 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: La Crosse, WI
Posts: 15,556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, but I went to a city council metting or two because of one. It was to argue against it.
Old 03-25-08, 09:45 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mopower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Janitor's closet in Kinnick Stadium
Posts: 15,726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, I would go to bars more if smoking was banned in them.
Old 03-25-08, 09:55 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Absolutely
Old 03-25-08, 10:00 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,178
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
No. But I try to avoid going to DC bars since the city imposed a smoking ban. I try to stay in VA when going out. Sometimes I'll even go to non-smoking bars in VA since I have no problem with owners who voluntarily enact such bans as a business decision.

And yes, there is evidence that some bars in jurisdictions that have imposed these nanny-state bans do lose business/money. Montgomery County, MD is one example.
Old 03-25-08, 10:29 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have to say eating out anywhere in Lawrence is much better since the smoking ban is in place. There were places I did avoid because their smoking sections were always too close to the non-smoking section and I hated the inevitable drift, the fact that the smell lingered in my clothes and worst of all that my kids had to breathe in that garbage.
Old 03-25-08, 10:42 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes. I got tired of coming home with smoke-filled clothes. Now I'm more inclined to go out to places that previously allowed smoking.
Old 03-25-08, 10:48 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NORML54601
No, but I went to a city council metting or two because of one. It was to argue against it.
Just to be clear: The ban in dispute was on cigarettes. Other substances were never up for debate.
Old 03-25-08, 10:51 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,178
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by NORML54601
No, but I went to a city council metting or two because of one. It was to argue against it.

I'm surprised you weren't tarred and feathered.
Old 03-25-08, 11:07 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are absolutely some businesses that will be harmed... but I think the net effect will be a positive one. That's not very reassuring for the businesses that are harmed.
Old 03-25-08, 11:17 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smokers are a small minority and I'm glad they have to go outside and huddle to smoke. I like coming home and not having my clothes smell terrible. I think Delaware was one of the first states (after California) to enact a ban. Recently, MD and PA joined in as well.

The best was there was a talk show / roundtable show on the Philly Comcast station around the time the PA ban was going to be voted on or going into effect. They had a few people (doctors mostly) for the ban and one guy (a bar owner) against the ban. I don't know if they cherry-picked the guy but the guy sounded like a redneck, had a gravely smoker's voice and had a face that had aged poorly. He was a borderline caricature for why not to smoke.
Old 03-25-08, 11:22 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bill Geiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,924
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I smoke outside anyway. If I go to a place like Longhorn, which allows smoking in certain sections, then I'll smoke.
Old 03-25-08, 12:15 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 32,156
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 14 Posts
We were meeting some friends for a drink the other night. The wife is pregnant (obviously not drinking ) so we went to a non-smoking bar, even though they don't actually have a ban in place in Des Moines. It was nice.

Since there is a ban in place up here, we haven't had to worry about it for awhile. Makes me appreciate it even more.

Typically, I'd agree that the government shouldn't be in the position of protecting people from themselves (see seatbelt and helmet laws.) However, when it comes to restaurants and smoking, the government is already involved in granting permits, liquor licenses and health inspections, so requiring the establishment to be smoke-free as well (which is a serious health concern for everyone, not just smokers) I don't have any issues.
Old 03-25-08, 12:30 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My wife and I found that we go out more than we used to after the smoking ban was put into place at bars and restaurants. We used to not go out as frequently, and when we did, we wouldn't stay as long (smoking, particiularly in bars where it was all over the place, bothered my wife's eyes when she'd be wearing contacts). I never had that problem, but I hated the stench.

I know other non-smoking couples who feel as we do. Many smokers don't realize how much it makes clothes absolutely stink when you're in a crowded, smoke-filled bar for hours. If they want to go home smelling like an ashtray then that's great, but I'd rather not.
Old 03-25-08, 01:08 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ft. Wayne, Indiana
Posts: 3,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can't believe there are people out there who think it's okay to take away a business owner's right to allow something that is perfectly legal. Federal, State, and Local governments shouldn't have the right force these bans on anyone. If a business owner thought they'd make more money by banning smoking they should be free to do so. If they want to have no non-smoking section they should be able to do that as well.

In Fort Wayne a few years back they considered a smoking ban but then decided that restaurants could have smoking sections so long as they were completely sectioned off from floor to ceiling. So almost all the the places around here spent thousands of dollars to have an entire glass enclosed section in their establishment. But you know what? Non smokers still fucking bitched so the city government came back just last year and said we're enacting the smoking ban. Now that's fucked up, and it's been proven in my area that the smoking ban has had negative consequences on bars since there have literally been dozens who've closed their doors because of lack of business. Man I can't believe those business owners didn't go non smoking on their own since it's such a financial windfall.
Old 03-25-08, 01:13 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,178
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by kakihara1
I can't believe there are people out there who think it's okay to take away a business owner's right to allow something that is perfectly legal.

I can - after all, I've been posting in this forum for about 8 years now. What you see mostly above is generally how these things run with a few of us sticking up for property rights in a vocal minority.

It isn't surprising either. People usually think of themselves and their perceived rights before they think of the rights of others.
Old 03-25-08, 01:18 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: La Crosse, WI
Posts: 15,556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Draven
Typically, I'd agree that the government shouldn't be in the position of protecting people from themselves (see seatbelt and helmet laws.) However, when it comes to restaurants and smoking, the government is already involved in granting permits, liquor licenses and health inspections, so requiring the establishment to be smoke-free as well (which is a serious health concern for everyone, not just smokers) I don't have any issues.
If you really believed we shouldn't live in a nanny state you'd be in favor of de-regulating bars instead of adding more cause there's allready regulations in place.
Old 03-25-08, 01:46 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 6,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave7393
My wife and I found that we go out more than we used to after the smoking ban was put into place at bars and restaurants. We used to not go out as frequently, and when we did, we wouldn't stay as long (smoking, particiularly in bars where it was all over the place, bothered my wife's eyes when she'd be wearing contacts). I never had that problem, but I hated the stench.

I know other non-smoking couples who feel as we do. Many smokers don't realize how much it makes clothes absolutely stink when you're in a crowded, smoke-filled bar for hours. If they want to go home smelling like an ashtray then that's great, but I'd rather not.
Yes, they should be able to if they want to smell like an ashtray.

I think in general, restaurants would transition to non-smoking on their own. Given the current awareness of smoking. Even without a ban, I believe many would self inact a no-smoking rule. Don't need the government forcing the issue.

Before the bans, there were places that were no smoking. With the general trend, more and more restaurants would head that way anyways. Sure, not as many bars were non-smoking, but there are some. There is also a reason why the smoking bars were more popular and crowded. Despite many non-smokers saying they WOULD go out more, you guys aren't the typical bar types, and not what their business runs on.

Yes, smokers do know that it makes their clothes stink.

Btw, I don't smoke, and I prefer to avoid 'that' smell, but I think their rights and my ability to avoid places of such nature can coexist.
Old 03-25-08, 01:59 PM
  #22  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,956
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
I used to never go to bars, now I go several times a week. I might oppose smoking bans on philosophical grounds, but they certainly benefit me, personally.
Old 03-25-08, 02:17 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,969
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
In our county the restaurants have been designated as smoking (ages 18+) or non-smoking. Most of the restaurants made the decision to go non-smoking so they could continue to serve families. A restaurant/pub in our area went smoking although they do have designated smoking/non-smoking areas.
Old 03-25-08, 02:25 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
It isn't surprising either. People usually think of themselves and their perceived rights before they think of the rights of others.
You're right. That's exactly how I would characterize the pro-smoking argument.
Old 03-25-08, 02:27 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Draven
Typically, I'd agree that the government shouldn't be in the position of protecting people from themselves (see seatbelt and helmet laws.)
If smokers had hermetically sealed bubbles over their heads, I'd agree with you. But these laws are NOT designed to protect smokers from themselves. They are designed to protect non-smokers from becoming smokers-by-proxy, particularly employees that have to breathe in other people's fumes for 8 hours at a stretch.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.