i wrote a senior year thesis on this subject two years...

there is virtually NO concrete proof that smoking bans are the sole cause of small business closures or decline in profits or attendance.

the ONLY "evidence" provided is by business owners making claims for themselves.

You simply can NOT blame a bar closing on the passing of anti-smoking laws. Bars are notorious for being unstable investments...

I'm guessing that the majority of whiners supporting the smoking ban don't really give a damn if all the bars close anyway. So even if there was supporting evidence showing that bar business would suffer it wouldn't really matter.

Yea...Uh....DUH!. Because I am really certain those that those who oppose smoking in bars are going to present 'Evidence" that shows that smoking bans lead to closing down bars. Who else is going to defend bars but bar owners?

Smoking should be allowed in bars.

I agree Handsome, Bring back smoking in bars!. In my Bars Days I was always lookin for the drunk chicks who were wiling to put something in their mouth that was hot and nasty(cigarettes?). Bring back smoking in bars!

It would be as hard to come up with "concrete proof" that the smoking ban is responsible for a bar closing as it would be to prove that the downturn in the economy, or an increase in operating costs, is "the sole cause." And if the smoking ban is "only" half of the reason for a bar closing, i.e. it pushed them over the edge, that still seems like a problem.

btw, what does "virtually no concrete proof" mean? Was there any concrete proof, or not? I take it this was a high school senior thesis?

I notice all the comments here seem to focus on "Assault on Small Business" as opposed to "An Affront to Freedom", which it is. Which is by far the worse part of it.

Instead of an outright ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, why can't the city mandate air quality standards that if met, would allow a bar to allow smoking and a restaurant to allow a smoking section.

In other words, in the business is willing to invest in a ventilation system that keeps air quality at an acceptable level, then they can continue to allow smoking. Everybody wins.

Why do cities insist on banning instead of mandating air qaulity targets under the health code?

Regarding lack of evidence one way or the other, Austin's ban was implemented a few years ago despite vehement protests from bar owners. Bear in mind that Austin claism to be the Live Music Capital of the World, yet is still small enough that iconic bars and their business are well-known. In initial interviews of bar owners, they said they noticed a decline in business. Apparently that was just part of the usual media approach to controversy: "If we ask the right people in the right way, we'll get the right answer". In actuality, folks have adjusted quite nicely, if not cheerfully, and no bar has gone out of business due solely to the smoking ban. It's now a non-issue, economically. The biggest losers in Austin were the few, large bars that thought they were proactive ban when they installed expensive air filtering equipment in advance of the ban, only to be told that they had just wasted their money - no smoking, despite that five- and six-figure investment.

It is the special interest groups who want smoking bans..the people who very seldom patronize the hospitality industry on any given day.
These special interest groups and the politicians know that 80% of the adults don't smoke and that is where the votes are.
If a person doesn't like a smoking venue?? Don't go.
A smoking ban means it is against the law to use or permit a legal product on 'private'property.
Is this the American way??

It is the special interest groups who want smoking bans..the people who very seldom patronize the hospitality industry on any given day.
These special interest groups and the politicians know that 80% of the adults don't smoke and that is where the votes are.
If a person doesn't like a smoking venue?? Don't go.
A smoking ban means it is against the law to use or permit a legal product on 'private'property.
Is this the American way??

Snowbird, you're right - back to the Austin example, many people were quoted as saying, "I haven't been to bars to hear live music in years due to the smoke. I will surely go out now!" They didn't, and still don't; that was the one thing the bar owners got right when they derided those claims of future business.

I hate going to movie theaters. #1 reason: kids. Whether it is screaming infants or teenage punks with cell phones and laser pointers. So I stopped going completely and enjoyed movies at home. Then I heard about those theaters that cater to adults -- you know the ones: 18+? So now if I feel like going out to a movie, it will only be to one of those places, because I refuse to try to watch a movie surrounded by trashy brats, but I know I cannot bend the majority to my will. Sure, it is not as convenient for me to go further than my local multiplex, but that is just how it is.

Do you know why I am saying this? To all you scum out there that bring your unruly brats to an "R" rated movie, or something showing after 8 (you know who you are), should I seek a government mandate to make your behavior illegal? Should I try to punish you because I don't like the choice you made?

RE Ignore_Lander...
I go to movies at least once a month (would go more if there was anything more worth seeing).
I have never experienced the horrors you describe. I don't know what theaters you are attending but perhaps you should try one of these: Cinemark at Webb Chapel, NorthPark,
AMC 24 on NW Hwy and Loop 12, Inwood, Angelica,
Magnolia all have been totally trouble free for me. AMC Legacy is good but sound is way too loud for my comfort.

Back to smoking, I'm a non smoker and hate smoke filled bars. I avoid them unless there's a band I really want to see and then I wear jeans and t shirt. This should definitely be the bar owner's call. This was a free country.

If they can ban smoking in bars, next up on the agenda should be banning the LoveSac (TM) in theaters. I have concrete proof that attendance at the Inwood will increase by at least 2 patrons per month (me and my gf) if they get rid of those damned fart sponges.

RoB, who was it that coined the term "sabre tooth crotch crickets"? Let's not forget about those little beasts lurking in the moldy folds of the Lovesac..... brings new meaning to Interactive Theatre.

Ex-Smoker-

That makes sense, and when I served on the City's Environmental Health Commission, we actually came up with a similar idea and originally presented to council which was quickly mowed down by LaMiller. The recommendations of the EHC- a city council appointed committee that researches and then advises on all manner of environmental health related issues in the city of Dallas, were rejected after something close to nine months of research, presentations by experts on either side, health care professionals, restaurant owners and more headache than one could possibly imagine for a volunteer post. And if anyone here can recall correctly, our commission advised to have restaurants install separate ventilation systems for smoking and non-smoking sections, a practice that many restaurants had began. But there was also objections to even that idea from the business and restaurant communities, because of the high cost of installing the systems.

In this case, this very issue- to ban or not to ban smoking, and if ban, to what extent- seems to be a zero-sum game on both sides, and that is unfortunate. There are many ways to share this particular loaf of bread but neither side wants to hear what concessions they might have to make in order to get a bite of their own.

In our case in Dallas the first time around, instead of industry-wide lobbying for separate ventilation, we got whining about expenses (which will always be the Number One case when talking about a government regulation of private industry), but they lost and smoking got banned in all restaurants in Dallas.

Seeing that writing on the wall, had restaurants and bars (and their business associations) begun a system to support one another in installing- and beginning quantifiable research for making the case for air quality, etc.- then this time around, they could have gone to the City Council and showed actual DATA (not emotions and not phony-baloney health risk issues from people who don't even go into bars) to make their case.

I am an ex-smoker. I've mentioned this before on other posts regarding this topic. Do I like to sit around and breathe in somebody else's cigarette smoke? No. I would prefer that people not smoke, but I also prefer that people not have bad breath when they talk to me and I can't do anything about that. Still, it's my choice to sit in a smoky bar. But as my good friend Sharon Boyd points out, people have to eat. There's a public environmental health issue to associate with restaurants and smoking and maybe it's best if the two didn't mix (in absence of a seperate ventilation system, that is), but in bars, people don't have to drink, they can live without imbibing so why does it matter if people also smoke in there, it's a matter of public choice.

"In other words, in the business is willing to invest in a ventilation system that keeps air quality at an acceptable level, then they can continue to allow smoking. Everybody wins."

Plano tried that a few years back and the ventilation systems don't work.

Here is my opinion on bars: if bars had been non-smoking when I was a young adult, maybe I would be interested in them now. I wanted to go out to hear live music and outside of Denton, it was next to impossible to find anywhere with breathable air. My friend and I would go hang out in non-smoking restaraunts instead of bars.

I think once a few years pass the association between bars and smoke is broken the bar business may be better than ever.

The simplest solution is that each bar decides whether or not to allow smoking. Then each bar/restaurant will be required to put out front a large neon sign visible from the street that clearly says either "Smoking allowed" or "No Smoking"

Apply for a job at facility that allows smoking the Application must have printed in red on the front "You are applying for work in a smoking facility". Your picture will be taken with that application held up next to your face, so that if you accept the job and then months later complain about the smoke you will be shown the photo and application and asked "What part of this didn't you understand"
you will also forfeit any right to sue.

After the first year of the Illinois ban, here in Chicago, where real crime is an issue, the only complaints about small neighborhood bars have been from neighbors of bars that comply with the ban. The ones ignoring the ban have had NO customers, workers, or neighbors complain.The ban fans obviously never enter the placeas they love to try to control

That is a famous trick of the anti smoking cartel.
The non-smokers will flock into these venues where the smokers were.
The politicians and the hospitality industry believed them.
They pull that trick all over North America
Guess what..they didn't show up.
After the smoking ban is passed..it is to late and the antis laughed all the way up their sleeves.
We trick them again Harry tee hee
Having said that, who in their right mind would believe anything the anti-smoking cartel would say.

"They pull that trick all over North America
Guess what..they didn't show up."

They showed up in Cali. Since the smoking ban the bar business there saw an improvement.

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole thing. I don't care any more. Its like Steve Martin once said, "Do you mind if I smoke?" "Why no. Do you mind if I fart?" So what I will do from now on is fart when someone is smoking next to me at a bar. Hey DUDE, I have every right to offend you too. And even better.....my farts don't cause cancer. God Bless America!

Toots, I would imagine your farts cause decapitation and spontaneous combustion. Remember everyone, Toots isn't just a nickname, it's what she does. A lot.

Smoking bans have had devastating effects on pubs in Ireland and the UK. Look it up.

So what happens? If you're uninformed enough to believe that secondhand smoke has a long-term health effect on bar patrons, then it must have a health effect on their kids as well. So many smokers avoid bars (or spend less time in them) and smoke instead at home during those hours -- in the presence of their kids. Brilliant!

Toots,
If smoking annoys you, then what in hell are you doing in a bar that allows smoking? Sounds pretty damn stupid, if you ask me. Or don't you believe in free will?

All I care about is that I can't get a hookah at Al-Amir anymore.

I believe in free will, I'm free to fart in your face.

PLENTY of people would like to hang out in bars but can't justify, or enjoy for that matter, breathing in secondhand smoke. My husband and I are two people who find ourselves limiting our outings more and more over the years to those venues we know to be non-smoking. We have been looking forward to the day when we can go hang out again at the Old Monk and not have to breathe in someone else's cigarette smoke. It depresses us that the ban may be postponed, and we'll be holding our money back from a number of places we'd like to go if it is.
The science is pretty straightforward when it comes to the damaging effects of secondhand smoke. If I choose to have a martini, and you know it's not the most healthful thing in the world, well, hey, my drinking it has no effect on you (assuming I'm responsible enough to not drink and drive). So yeah, stay out of how I choose to have a good time. But if you decide to have a smoke while you drink, well, if I'm your neighbor at the pub, I am most certainly affected by your choice. Do us a favor - step out for your smoke, and come join us again when you're done. No big whoop (I've done it many, many times), and I say my rights to clean air troop your rights to harm MY health along with yours by inhaling nicotine and smoke any day. I want to be at a bar as much as you - why should I sacrifice clean air rather than you sacrifice a smoke indoors?
And then there's the issue, of course, of the staff, who lack the "choice" of whether or not to inhale your secondhand smoke. they have to make a living. who protects them? well, they should not work in a bar, you say? um-kay, you hire them in your office, then, if that's the answer! or wherever else you think they deserve clean air, outside of your favorite hangout.