Has the non smoking ban hurt your business?

[Super Wayne]

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
The economy had been tanking before most of the smoking bans were put into place, in my opinion.

Havent seen you in a while Mellers. Is it me thats been away or you? LOL Hope all is well for you.

I am restraining myself in this thread due to the fact that Ive written everything I can say about the issue more times then I can count. I can only hope that if the voters get their wits back about them that we can strike down this completely irrational, unneeded and ridiculous ban.

We dont always agree Mellers, as is the case here but its still good to see ya!

[Mellers]

Super Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Havent seen you in a while Mellers. Is it me thats been away or you? LOL Hope all is well for you.
I am restraining myself in this thread due to the fact that Ive written everything I can say about the issue more times then I can count. I can only hope that if the voters get their wits back about them that we can strike down this completely irrational, unneeded and ridiculous ban.
We dont always agree Mellers, as is the case here but its still good to see ya!

Thanks!! Good to see you too. I've been a way a while. I've had some great vacations, spent a lot of time volunteering, and having fun with friends. I'm living fully!

Yeah, I know we disagree on this. I'll admit I didn't feel this strongly 2 years ago, before I got sick. But rationally-speaking, 95% of businesses (my estimation) weren't allowed to have smoking within their private establishment, so I'm pleased that the 5% that I care about no longer can have smoking inside their establishment either.

As I've said before, I understand and sympathize with those against the ban. I can appreciate those who believe that "big government" is telling folks what to do. I've also appreciated those who have fully accepted the ban and have been creative in attracting new customers. My own favorite bar is full so often, it has trouble keeping up with demand. But they do so in such a friendly, sometimes apologetic way, that it's still my favorite bar (brew pub in New Brighton).

I think the economy masks the real issues of the smoking ban. Coupled with so many locals who refused to patronize places that went along with the smoking ban, and we have a multitude of reasons why any place isn't doing well.

Oh, well-let's just drink to good health, good times, and having enough money/leisure time to gripe about life!

[Mellers]

satmfs wrote:

<quoted text>
And we all know what your opinion is worth.

You disagree that the economy has worsened over the last four-six years?

[Mike]

Did Cheapersmokes actually say a lawyer would represent someone for free? What is he smoking? As far as bar closings, it isn't a license to print money. Because you serve liquor and let people smoke, it doesn't mean they automatically go away when you can't smoke. Obviously, they didn't like your bar that much or they'd be back. It's called "marketing." Any good business owner understands it. The rest just open their doors and hope for some luck.

[Cheapersmokes]

Mike, I only smoke Cherokees and I get PAID to do so!

A lawyer working for free is called pro bono and most law firms require their members to put in so many hours into that program every month.

It's very hard to market to your former customers who have decided to get together each evening after work at someones home where they can bring their own liquor and also smoke as much as they want. This also precludes paying the much higher prices and tipping the server's. This also results in fewer tax collections for the state in liquor and payroll taxes not to mention the decrease in sales taxes also! Can you inform all of us just where this state is going to makeup those reduced funds since I am sure that they will not cut payments to illegal immigrants one cent!

But I am sure that all of the bar owners would love to here your method on how to market to regain their lost business! Care to share it with us smart guy?:-)

Also don't you think that their is one lawyer who smokes and is sick and tired of this BS. Wouldn't they also like the recognition that goes with winning a major case. Ciresi thought he could walk into any elective office with his one half billion in fees.

[Steve Hettinger]

satmfs wrote:

<quoted text>
I have an even better idea. Start taxing anti-smoker whining. It wouldn't hurt your bar habits since you don't go to them anyway.

Your right. Only smokers have nothing better to do than sit at the bar and talk about bowling and pull tabs.

[Steve Hettinger]

Super Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
PROVE IT!!!!!!!
Seriously. Prove that statement. That is a fat **** lie and no proof has ever come nor does it exist.

Deal... and you prove to me that second hand smoke has no ill effect on somebody that is a non-smoker

[The Lab Rat]

Mike wrote:

Did Cheapersmokes actually say a lawyer would represent someone for free? What is he smoking? As far as bar closings, it isn't a license to print money. Because you serve liquor and let people smoke, it doesn't mean they automatically go away when you can't smoke. Obviously, they didn't like your bar that much or they'd be back. It's called "marketing." Any good business owner understands it. The rest just open their doors and hope for some luck.

I disagree.

A relative has a bar in a 2 bar town. They are losing around 1200 a week, as the "daily" customers that used to hang out and gossip all afternoon, now...come in, have a drink, chit chat, go out for a smoke, and don't come back.

It has NOTHING to do with marketing, when you basically have a "Captive Audience" and your STILL losing your hind end.

The Lab Rat

[Archie Anderson]

Senator Sheran, Rep Kathy Tinglestad, Rep Dan Severson, Dibble, Huntley,Latz, Governor Taxem Pawlenty and the Public funded non profits like the ALAMN that used smokers money to lobby the anti smoker elected representatives for the "SMOKING BAN" collect their paychecks every pay day because it is guaranteed by the taxpayers.
Now where is there a single concern for restaruants and bar owners that collect their paycheck from customers and hard work that the damn freeloaders have driven off at gunpoint.
Maybe the paychecks that the Government and non profit freeloaders collect as a matter of fact should be banned.

[Super Wayne]

Steve Hettinger wrote:

<quoted text>Deal... and you prove to me that second hand smoke has no ill effect on somebody that is a non-smoker

Oh? And we are pasing laws on "what ifs" now? No need for that pesky burden of proof. No need to find alternatives and explore options. Nope. I cant prove that its NOT unhealthy for non-smokers by by god lets ban it!!!!

Hmmmm, I bet we could have fun with this line of what?, rational thought?

[Super Wayne]

Here goes....

The arguement that a growing number of people are waging has nothing to do with smokers OR non-smokers. When either of these groups personally CHOOSE to frequent a privately owned establishment they there-by willingly accept the conditions, products or services that the owner of the establishment offers. IF they do not agree with or LIKE the place they can just as easily CHOOSE to leave and spend their money else-where. This arguement is about a business owners RIGHT to allow a perfectly LEGAL activity in his own establishment. This is something that the governemnt should have no authority to trample on and is a gross overreach and abusive example of goverment oversight and control.

IF the government had any balls and truely felt this to be as big a deal as warranting such restrictions as all out bans then they should do just that. Make smoking and tobacco illegal! Period.

Fact is; we have these same types of hazardous environments that exist in private industry ALL ACROSS the country. The company's rely on such conditions as part if not all of their lively-hood. From Welding and Chemical plants, to Refineries and, well, the list is truly endless. The presence of hazardous work environments is nothing new and yet similar bans have NOT taken place. Why is 2nd hand smoke different!?

I say, classify 2nd hand smoke as a hazardous chemical. Include an MSDS sheet in EVERY pack and throw the responsibility of 2nd hand smoke into OSHA's hands. From there they will do as is done with EVERY other chemical and hazardous material. They will measure the air quality level with an industrial hygenist. They will order engineered air exchange or fume extraction equipment as needed until the PPM of 2nd hand smoke is within guidlines. They will require signs on doors and even license fee's to be paid. They will require special monitoring of staff and even guests as needed and can even go so far as to require the owners to provide respirators to employees and guests as desired. Hell even allow waivers to be signed......

Point is, a BAN should have been the absolute LAST step! But nope. not when its a governance by emotions and pandering to special interests. Not when the actual health impacts were irrelevanet to these people to begin with. They didnt test. They didnt verify information. They proved nothing but the fact that they are weenies.

Is this how we should make decisions? Can we at least not "LOOK" into alternatives and options prior to enacting bans and trampling on the lively-hoods and RIGHTS of private business? Seriously?

[terry]

i just have one question...when lobbying for a ban all the nonsmokers were saying ..if we didnt have to put up with the smoke we would frequent the bars..
where in the heck are they>?>>>>all they did was put people out of work..
by the way..im a nonsmoker

[terry]

satmfs wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW, the Democrats pushed for the statewide ban for years. They weren't able to impose one until they gained a majority in the legislature the last election cycle. They weren't able to get one passed previously due to the Republicans who blocked it. When the Dems lose that majority over the next couple of years starting in November, the ban will be repealed the first time a repeal is introduced. Count on it.

i think your in for a shock when the republican blood bath begins this november..

[Sarah D]

terry wrote:

i just have one question...when lobbying for a ban all the nonsmokers were saying ..if we didnt have to put up with the smoke we would frequent the bars..
where in the heck are they>?>>>>all they did was put people out of work..
by the way..im a nonsmoker

Most of the bars that are being hurt are working class bars.

The anti-smoking zealots wouldn't be caught dead in a working class bar.

[satmfs]

terry wrote:

<quoted text>
i think your in for a shock when the republican blood bath begins this november..

Would that be the Republicans with the historically low single digit approval ratings? Wait, that's the Democrats.

[St Paul Girl]

Would anyone mind if I backed my car into a restaurant so my car exhaust could flow easily into the area where people are eating and drinking?

Carbon Monoxide:

5,000 ppm - chimney of a home wood fire
7,000 ppm - undiluted warm car exhaust
30,000 ppm - undiluted cigarette smoke

[satmfs]

St Paul Girl wrote:

Would anyone mind if I backed my car into a restaurant so my car exhaust could flow easily into the area where people are eating and drinking?
Carbon Monoxide:
5,000 ppm - chimney of a home wood fire
7,000 ppm - undiluted warm car exhaust
30,000 ppm - undiluted cigarette smoke

I wouldn't mind it at all since I can go somewhere else where the establishment owner wouldn't allow your car exhaust. Any other idiotic scenarios you want to try?

[Mellers]

St Paul Girl wrote:

Would anyone mind if I backed my car into a restaurant so my car exhaust could flow easily into the area where people are eating and drinking?
Carbon Monoxide:
5,000 ppm - chimney of a home wood fire
7,000 ppm - undiluted warm car exhaust
30,000 ppm - undiluted cigarette smoke

I find it funny that people don't understand the seriousness of cigarette smoke. My doctor (and family) are pretty sure my asthma is a result of cigarette smoke. We'll probably never know what was the cause of my Leukemia but it's classified under a general "environmental" cause. Seeing that smoking was allowed in more places when I was a kid than it is now, well, it makes me think.

And I like how some don't (or won't) get your rhetorical question. Hard to dispute the numbers.

[Sarah D]

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it funny that people don't understand the seriousness of cigarette smoke. My doctor (and family) are pretty sure my asthma is a result of cigarette smoke. We'll probably never know what was the cause of my Leukemia but it's classified under a general "environmental" cause. Seeing that smoking was allowed in more places when I was a kid than it is now, well, it makes me think.
And I like how some don't (or won't) get your rhetorical question. Hard to dispute the numbers.

Then scream at your family for smoking around you when you were a child.

What has that got to do with bars and restaurants where people CHOOSE to go?

[Super Wayne]

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it funny that people don't understand the seriousness of cigarette smoke. My doctor (and family) are pretty sure my asthma is a result of cigarette smoke. We'll probably never know what was the cause of my Leukemia but it's classified under a general "environmental" cause. Seeing that smoking was allowed in more places when I was a kid than it is now, well, it makes me think.
And I like how some don't (or won't) get your rhetorical question. Hard to dispute the numbers.

What part of this dont the anti-smoking nut jobs get!? Where is anyone stating that second hand smoke or smoking in general is NOT dangerous. Unhealthy and even nasty?

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Its choice. Its private business rights. Its about a govrnance of opression and over-reach.

Your statement and point is irrelevant and nothing more then an attepmt to divert attention from the real. Factual, solid and proven arguement.