Smoking Bans are Good for Business
The New York smoking ban produced some surprising results.
Many other cities offer a similar degree of fun, excitement, good food, and intrigue, but with one notable difference: I can't hang out at a bar or nightclub without leaving there smelling like a dirty ashtray.
The smoking ban in New York was introduced in March of 2003. It affects bars, restaurants, and other establishments such as pool halls and bingo parlors.
Now my hometown of Philadelphia is considering a similar ban, and neighboring New Jersey may be doing the same at a statewide level. I say let's go for it.
Let me relax at a local bar with my friends on a Saturday night without having to shower as soon as I get home to remove the stench from my hair and skin. Let me enjoy an evening out on the town without the scratchy throat and the itching eyes. Give me a break from the exorbitant dry cleaning bills that I pay to get the smoke odors out of my suits, sweaters, and coats.
But enough about me. After all, I am just a customer, and I can choose to stay away from smoky bars. But consider the plight of restaurant and bar workers who have to endure a smoke-filled environment through every shift. If a factory had the air quality of the average bar on a Saturday night, OSHA would likely shut it down in an instant - and rightly so. Is it not unethical to expose employees to such an unhealthy environment? We see class action lawsuits being filed all the time on behalf of employees whose health has suffered from working in asbestos laden buildings. When will hospitality workers be similarly compensated for their forced exposure to dangerous cigarette, cigar, and pipe smoke? Better yet, let's just give them a break.
Smokers who oppose the ban often claim that they have a right to smoke. Excuse me, but their rights end where the next person's rights begin. Smokers have every right to smell bad if they want to. They have a right to destroy their own lungs, and they have a right to yellow fingers and teeth. But they do not have a right to force me to ingest their smoke, and they do not have the right to endanger the health of the bartenders and waitstaff who serve them. It is rude at best, and perhaps reckless endangerment at worst.
Bar and restaurant owners who oppose these bans fear that they'll lose customers if their patrons are not allowed to smoke. However, similar fears by their New York counterparts have proven to be unfounded.
An analysis of the New York smoking ban by that city's health department showed that business and tax receipts in bars and restaurants were up by almost 9 percent after the first year of the ban. In addition, it showed that employment in such establishments had increased by over 10,000 jobs (the highest such increase in more than 10 years), along with an increase in alcohol licenses. This is undeniably great economic news for New York's hospitality industry.
The study also found that New Yorkers are now breathing significantly cleaner air. One year after the ban took effect, levels of cotinine, a by-product of nicotine which is used to determine exposure to second-hand smoke, had decreased by 85 percent in non-smoking bars and restaurants.
These smoking bans are vitally important in terms of our health. Also, as demonstrated by the New York study, they will likely also boost business by attracting customers who, like me, prefer to avoid smoke-filled venues. And, perhaps best of all, it will give smokers another incentive to kick the habit and improve their own lives.
I encourage Philadelphia, New Jersey, and all other municipalities and state governments to follow through and implement these important measures. What do we have to lose but the soot in our lungs?
Published by Mary Shaw
Philadelphia-based writer, editor, and communications consultant. More info here: http://www.maryshawonline.com/ View profile
- Workplace Smoking Bans: What You Should and Shouldn't DoA large number of workers, all across the country, have been put in a difficult situation due to workplace smoking bans. If you are one of those individuals then there are a number of things that you can do.
New Jersey: Things You Need to Know from One Who Lives ThereNew Jersey. Is it really the "armpit" as many people think? People crack jokes and poke fun of this black sheep of America, but there's more to it than just the stereotypes.
Socialized Medicine Evolves in New JerseyBig brother is not only watching, in New Jersey he has decided to step on the toes of millions of competent parents and muscle in on the parenting of their children all for the...
Mid April 2007 Storm Pounds Northern/Central New JerseyNew Jersey really is a beautiful state, but when a strong storm blows through or tends to stay quite a while, it can get fairly nasty. The Noreaster brought with it, heavy rain...- How New Jersey is Slowly Becoming a State for the Upper Class!Slowly over the past few years New Jersey has slowly been squeezing out the lower and middle class groups
- Belmont, California Smoking Ban Offers Overkill Rather Than Common Sense
- Smoking Ban: It's Not a Ban to Take Away Our Freedom, but a Ban to Save Our Lives
- Smoking Cessation and Nicotine Products for Smokers - Over the Counter
- Confronting Smokers on Cigarette Butt Litter: "Rebuttals"
- Nicotine Addiction Vs. Cigarette Smoking Addiction
- Cigarette Nicotine Addiction and Remedy
- Smoking Bans: Unconstitutional or Unhealthy?
12 Comments
Post a CommentWhile I'm at it - who the hell are you and other anti smoking non-smokers to come up with things to help "smokers kick the habit"? Who is forcing what on who here.
As for your not wanting to be in a smoke filled room that's fine - but the ban has now taken away my right to be in a smoke filled room and that's what I want.
Smoking is a bad habit - I know I am a smoker. Maybe I'll quit soon - maybe I won't. However, I have a few points.
1. People know when they apply for a job with an AT WILL EMPLOYER if there will be smoking in the establishment. If they don't like it well they could work elsewhere
2. Bars and Resturants should have the right to decide if they want to be a non-smoking establishment or not. I think many bar owners would agree that smoking bans are Bad Business for them
3. I agree some smokers can be discourteous - however don't let them be the example for us all
4. I am a smoker and my rights an opinions count to. I think people forget that sometimes
5. You are condescending and really don't show a knowledge for both sides of the issue.
One other thing, related to your article's content. The Surgeon General is not limited in the number of warnings that can be placed on cigarette packs ... nor does he have to ask a tobacco company's permission to add a new warning to cigarette packs. With all the hoo-hah going around about second hand smoke, I actually wrote to the Surgeon General to ask him why there was no second hand smoke warning message among his other warnings. Answer? Because the risks to nonsmokers exposed to second hand smoke has never been scientifically proven. You really need to pick up a Newsweek published years ago - and read an article they published titled, "The New American Crybaby."
I can't say I agree with everything you say in your article. But I wholeheartedly agree with the premise of your article title. Smoking bans are good for business ... the online business. It has been quite a while since I strolled through a mall or lingered for any great length of time in an establishment that treated me like a leper. For the last three Christmases, I've done all my shopping online. And I suspect that a whole lot of other smokers do their shopping online as well. Heck, a grocery store not too far from me even allows me to order groceries online and have them delivered. God bless the Internet.
thats good how people care whats happening to people who be aroub=nd people who smoke. :)
I realize this was published well over two and a half years ago, but I sincerely hope that you have grown up a little since this statement:
"Smokers who oppose the ban often claim that they have a right to smoke. Excuse me, but their rights end where the next person's rights begin. Smokers have every right to smell bad if they want to. They have a right to destroy their own lungs, and they have a right to yellow fingers and teeth. But they do not have a right to force me to ingest their smoke, and they do not have the right to endanger the health of the bartenders and waitstaff who serve them. It is rude at best, and perhaps reckless endangerment at worst."
That being said, I want you to stop driving... walk everywhere ... why?... because auto exhaust is worse than cigarette smoke.
Don't believe me?... sit in a room for two hours with a crowd of smokers... your hair smells bad... you might have eye irritation.. lung irritation if you are not acclimated to the smoke...
THEN:
"...they do not have a right to force me to ingest their smoke..."
I'm speechless. I have absolutely NO idea in which dictionary you looked up the word "force". I have never heard of a definition that allowed for your own actions to count as someone else's force. This is very interesting.
I agree with George and Mark. And yeah the reason why there are more alcohol licenses is because when a smoker ends up going to a non-smoking establishment, they end up having to buy more drinks because they can't have a freakin smoke. So, yea the government is doing it to make more money and increase alcohol sales. lol
Government control is out of control. When I go for my wine or beer, I want to smoke my cigar or pipe. People who don't like it should go to kiddie parks or just stay home.
Businesses need to decide what is good for themselves; its not the governments right, duty, or obligation; and you have the right to choose which bar you goto - smoking or nonsmoking. If there is sufficient demand for "clean air" bars and restaurants, then the market follow.