Study says smoking bans don't hurt bars and restaurants

Smoking bans in other states don't have any net economic effect on bars and restaurants, according to a study released Tuesday.

[Bob]

If many businesses are going smoke free, why is a ban even needed? Smoking businesses aren't trying to force other business to allow smoking.

[Bob]

Illinois has had a ban for over three months now and the small bars are still waiting for all these new non smoking customers to replace their regular customers. Where are they? Quite a few bars got tired of waiting and now just ignore the ban.

[Bob]

Another "study" by smoke ban advocates. I'm sure it's totally unbiased LOL. Once these people get their ban, they'll move on.to other states. They have absolutly no concern about local businesses. All these "studies" seem to lump "bars" and "restaurants" into one category. They are totally different in nature. Restauranrts gain business with customers no longer lingering after a meal for that cigarette and coffee, or more people call in for orders to go. After over 3 months, several bars in my area got tired of waiting for all these new non smoking customers and now just ignore the ban to try to get their regular customers back.

[Delores]

This whole rationale is obviously flawed. If you push smokers outside bars and restaurants, MORE teens will see people smoking. If you allow smoking in bars, most teens will not see the smokers smoking. It is therefore farcical to believe that keeping people smoking outdoors in plain view will keep teens from seeing people smoke.

[Greg]

Only 12-15% of Americans still smoke (and 90% of that minority say they want to break their addiction to the tobacco drug). So, WHO is fighting smoke-free air (to which we ALL have a long-standing right)? Try the TOBACCO PUSHERS and their "friends", the only people who keep fighting against smoke-free air. We must ban smoking everywhere, indoors and out, and then BAN THE TOBACCO DRUG. Toxic tobacco smoke is the mother of all chemical weapons, killing 65,000 INNOCENT Americans (i.e., innocent people who breathed toxic tobacco smoke from addicts' lighted tobacco) each year. This genocide must be stopped.

[Danno]

It used to be that the Tobacco Lobby would say anything and everything to support their points. Now it's the anti-tobacco movement that will lie and liew and lie to support their goals. They will say you need to move smoking outdoors; then you need to ban it outdoors because children will see. They say that there should be local control; then they say you need statewide bans. They say preemption clauses are bad; then they say preemption clauses are good. And so on. Let's face the facts here, folks! The anti's have become bigger liars than the Tobacco Lobby.

[DJDan]

The American Cancer Society is running those Christmas-time commercials again, where the narrator says that starting January 1 Illinois will be "smoke free." These ads ran during Christmas Season 2007. The cancer society is already starting to run them for Christmas 2008. The commercial shows little kids hanging up Christmas wreaths with ashtrays on them as ornaments.

Why, during the month of May, the ACS has decided to run ads designed to run during the Christmas season is anyone's guess!

I am sick and tired of advertisers commercializing Christmas earlier and earlier every calendar year. It used to be that there were no Christmas ads on TV until after Thanksgiving. But running Christmas ads in the month of May is a new low. It's too bad it's the American Cancer Society doing it! Shame on them!

If the ACS wants to run ads in May, it should shoot a new commercial in a studio where the studio employees film ashtrays on something other than Christmas trees and Christmas wreaths.

[PJR]

It is ALL about Property Rights. NOTHING else.

You pay a hundred thousand dollars for a property, but these fascist busy-bodies won't let you use it as you wish.

[Delores]

If the ACS commercials say, beginning January 1, that smoking will be banned in Illinois, the commercials are misleading the public into believing the smoking ban is not already here. More shame!

[DJDan]

The American Cancer Society is running those Christmas-time commercials again, where the narrator says that starting January 1 Illinois will be "smoke free." These ads ran during Christmas Season 2007. The cancer society is already starting to run them for Christmas 2008. The commercial shows little kids hanging up Christmas wreaths with ashtrays on them as ornaments.

Why, during the month of May, the ACS has decided to run ads designed to run during the Christmas season is anyone's guess!

I am sick and tired of advertisers commercializing Christmas earlier and earlier every calendar year. It used to be that there were no Christmas ads on TV until after Thanksgiving. But running Christmas ads in the month of May is a new low. It's too bad it's the American Cancer Society doing it! Shame on them!

If the ACS wants to run ads in May, it should shoot a new commercial in a studio where the studio employees film ashtrays on something other than Christmas trees and Christmas wreaths.

[Delores]

If the ACS commercials say, beginning January 1, that smoking will be banned in Illinois, the commercials are misleading the public into believing the smoking ban is not already here. More shame!

[melodylane]

Smoking is unhealthy for everyone. If smokers don't care,it is fine if they do it in their own homes. I choose to not visit their homes. If they don't want me to visit, fine. If they take my right to walk down a smoke free street or visit a store or restaurant as they leave their dangerous after "smell" that is another story. I fought and will continue to fight that stink.

[Ron]

"Study"? As if there is only one? There are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF STUDIES THAT PROVE THAT SMOKE-FREE AIR HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD FOR PEOPLE AND FOR BUSINESS (well, except the tobacco creeps, if you can call selilng their deadly drug a "business"!)

[PicassoIII]

Hey roboblogger (or whoever posted this)
Get your links straight. The article linked covers the MI state proposed smoking ban.
No mention of this 'study'
Where's the beef....

[generalsn1234567]

"Supporters of the legislation said studies show that smoking bans in other states didn't have any net economic impact on bars and restaurants. They applauded Bishop for allowing a vote despite his opposition to the bill. Legislative efforts to enact a ban date back nearly a decade." I wonder what bars they "studied" It sure wasn't any that most of us go to. I'd wager that most of these fanatics have never entered a bar.

[generalsn1234567]

They've been badgering lawmakers for a decade??? No wonder they are passing it, just to get them to "go away. They need to have the bans expire after one year just to keep thse people busy LOL.

[generalsn1234567]

Ron wrote:

"Study"? As if there is only one? There are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF STUDIES THAT PROVE THAT SMOKE-FREE AIR HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD FOR PEOPLE AND FOR BUSINESS (well, except the tobacco creeps, if you can call selilng their deadly drug a "business"!)

It sounds like the same "study" being repeated tens of thousands times.

[generalsn1234567]

oops "of times"

[Angry Smoker]

Greg wrote:

Only 12-15% of Americans still smoke (and 90% of that minority say they want to break their addiction to the tobacco drug). So, WHO is fighting smoke-free air (to which we ALL have a long-standing right)? Try the TOBACCO PUSHERS and their "friends", the only people who keep fighting against smoke-free air. We must ban smoking everywhere, indoors and out, and then BAN THE TOBACCO DRUG. Toxic tobacco smoke is the mother of all chemical weapons, killing 65,000 INNOCENT Americans (i.e., innocent people who breathed toxic tobacco smoke from addicts' lighted tobacco) each year. This genocide must be stopped.

It takes a really ignorant person to even think this. Yes, I am a smoker & I have rights too. If I want to smoke, then let me. If you don't like it, then don't come to places that are known for smokers. I don't go out too much anymore, but when I did, you non-smokers are the ones at the bars asking to bum a smoke. My opinion is "the owner should be the one to ban it or not, it should not be up to the governor to make this choice." Oh, and by the way, isn't our so called governor getting ready to be impeached for taking money for service?

[PicassoIII]

Could they be referencing this study?
http://www.topix.com/health/smoking/2008/05/s...
http://www.huliq.com/58863/smokefree-laws-hav...
(The only one i could find from last week).
Highly misleading:
"'Smoke-Free Laws and Employee Turnover,' was the first of its kind to examine the impact of smoke-free laws on the restaurant labor market."
"The study examined payroll records of a franchisee of a national full-service restaurant chain that operates 23 restaurants in the state of Arizona, a state where several communities have adopted smoke-free laws."
Right there; they ONLY looked at restaurant employment, the study did not include bars.
Not to mention it was a large national chain;
no smaller, privately owned, independent businesses.
The businesses most likely to suffer.

Not to mention studies looking at employment figures (as opposed to business receipts) HAVE been done.
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/ISPR/fall05.pdf
This study clearly shows that while restaurant employees may even benefit, bar workers will not.
For every restaraunt job created two bar jobs will be lost.