Smoking ban: helping? hurting?

Three weeks into the statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and bars, I wonder about the impact: More or less traffic in restaurants? Bars busier, or less so?

Reading some discussion on the Hop Leaf topic here made me wonder. Perhaps it's too early to tell. Maybe the dreadful cold has had more influence.

But I'd be especially interested to hear from folks behind the bar and the kitchen door.

What are you seeing? Besides more clearly, without the haze in the atmosphere.

I've never smoked, but I've never minded "second hand smoke." (I'm sure it's not good for you, but there are probably 400 things that are worse for you that all of us are exposed to every day--car exhaust would be one obvious candidate--and none of those are being outlawed.) There needs to be a place where people who hate smoke can get away from it, but I liked when there used to be a place where people who didn't hate smoke could find a table when the non-smoking section was full. And/or dine with their friends who smoke without forcing those friends to do without. I think the way things were before January 1 was just perfect.

As someone who doesn't smoke I couldn't be happier about the new law, particularly as it applies to bars. I hated going to bars and then coming home smelling like an ashtray (and also having my clothes reek). Now I can come home just smelling like booze, much better IMO.

riddlemay wrote:...(I'm sure it's not good for you, but there are probably 400 things that are worse for you that all of us are exposed to every day--car exhaust would be one obvious candidate--and none of those are being outlawed.) ...

While not outlawed, car exhaust is quite heavily regulated.

It seems that in some instances regulations reflect both costs and benefits.

As an avid (and some-what ashamed) smoker, I don't like this law at all, while recognizing that it is the right thing to do, and willing to proceed accordingly. I try to minimize the smoke around my kids, so why shouldn't I extend that courtesy to others? I'm rarely comfortable arguing for more laws and regulations, though. So I am naturally betwixt and between.

I'll certainly spend less time in bars as a direct result of this law. Not much of a loss for the bar's till, but bad for its ambiance.

As an aside, I was in shock a couple weeks back when my Marlboros suddenly tasted different. I was further surprised to find out that I did not know that another new IL law mandates Fire Safe Cigarettes* (what an oxymoron). The cigarettes are somehow designed, in theory, to extinguish themselves when neglected. So if you fall asleep with a lit butt, you don't burn down the block due to your idiocy.

I must have read that, said, "Gee, that sounds like a good idea," and forgot about it. I didn't suspect the smokes would taste different. Kinda like when Coke changed its formula. A very off note, and consistency is what we junkies are after. Additionally, purely in the name of science, I've fallen asleep with FCS cigarettes twice and burned myself both times, so I'm not sure they do what they think they are supposed to do, anyways, you know.

-ramon

*Fire Safe Cigarettes are currently being phased in. You can identify them by "FSC" over the bar code.

I am very sensitive to cigarette smoke -- I'm not going to claim an allergy, but my eyes water excessively, my chest feels like it tightens up... I just despise the stuff.

I'm very, very happy to have it gone from restaurants. I've been 'burned' many times by a non-smoking section that is merely next to a smoking section, separated by no more than a booth divider. In one particular case a woman back to back with me was waving a cig practically in my hair. It's a flavor I just don't want anywhere near my food.

I'm also pleased to have it gone from clubs: I can enjoy the music more.

But I still think there needs to be a place for people to light up... just not near me. Bars without entertainment you're paying separate for should be permitted to allow smoking, perhaps casinos (I've heard they expect to lose revenue to ones over the Indiana and Iowa borders).

(surprisingly, pipe and cigar don't bother me as much, and ganja is relatively inoffensive -- none of which I want around my food, though)

JoelF wrote:It's a matter of personal rights, the government shouldn't get in the way, except when it affects other people.

Folks,

Let's remember LTHForum is a culinary chat board, the poll thread is up as it is topic specific as to traffic in restaurants and bar. The politics of smoking, or any politics for that matter, are non starter subjects on LTHForum

Thanks in advance,
Gary for the moderators

G Wiv wrote:The politics of smoking, or any politics for that matter, are non starter subjects on LTHForum

Fair enough -- I was just trying to explain my rationale for why it might be OK in bars, got a bit carried away. I'll pull that offending line out, if you'll delete the quote from my post.

I am a non-smoker. Gave it up at age three when I took my first and final puff. It was quite singly the most foul tasting thing I ever placed in my mouth.

My wife told me that one of her coworkers went to a local fast food restaurant drive through (a LOCAL chain). One of the employees started to scream at the woman as she had a cigarette lit in her own vehicle. Then, the manager came out to her and started also telling her she should not be smoking at the drive-thru window.

I have this feeling that this law is not going to bring a lot if civility ...

JoelF wrote:I am very sensitive to cigarette smoke -- I'm not going to claim an allergy, but my eyes water excessively, my chest feels like it tightens up... I just despise the stuff.

I'm very, very happy to have it gone from restaurants. I've been 'burned' many times by a non-smoking section that is merely next to a smoking section, separated by no more than a booth divider...

Even though in this non-smoker's perfect world there would still be a place in bars and restaurants for people to smoke, I totally agree that the non-smoking areas in that world should be truly (and not just nominally) smoke-free. At least to the extent that they meet the test of not causing the symptoms you describe.

I have to believe that's possible. If you say you've been burned "many times," that logically means that there have been some times you've found the non-smoking section sufficiently separated from the smoking section to be (for all intents and purposes) smoke-free. If that can happen some times, it can happen all times. And I'd support a law that accomplished that.

Am I actually unhappy with the current law? No, as a non-smoker, I can't say that I am. It's not aimed at me, and doesn't "hurt" me in any way. I like the side-benefit that when I am with smoke-sensitive people, we now have the restaurant's whole range of tables to choose from. But I do wish smokers could be accommodated, too.

great law,

at the bars I am a regular at I have noticed no lack of customers. There is the hourly stream of smokers going out to their cars for a smoke, and then to return to their drinks.

It is a quality of life issue, I no longer have to smell cigarette smoke at the bar, or restaurants I go to, and my clothes no longer reek of smoke when leaving these establishments.

I also have started going to restaurants that were smokers havens, but now are accesible to people who hate cigarette smoke, or have kids that they do not want to expose to smoke.

Went to a private party at a bar last night. It was my first time in a bar since the state-wide ban went into effect.

Like JoelF, I would consider myself to be sensitive to smoke, in addition to just hating smelling like it afterwards.

It was wonderful to be able to breathe clearly and not reek of smoke afterwards.

I might be found in bars more often now!

abe_froeman wrote:I might be found in bars more often now!

See, that's a consequence that's rarely taken into account. Bar tenders allegedly think in terms of the ban discouraging smokers, but it might also encourage non-smokers to spend more time in bars and restaurants. In short, it could very well be a wash.

I remember when it was common for college classrooms and most business meetings to be foggy with smoke (to which I contributed). Recently, in Mexico, I had the experience of being in public spaces where lots of people were smoking. I actually found myself adjusting to it quickly, though I was shocked one night at Timo's to see an American girl grabbing a pull on her smoke between bites of food. That, I don't get.

What the ban may do is bring out the self-righteousness of non-smokers, and self-righteousness is always a drag.

David Hammond wrote:... and self-righteousness is always a drag.

Pun intended?

As a bartender, I can only say that I like it. The nights I've worked since the ban, in a small neighborhood corner tavern (ie, no food), I've had one slow, one moderate and one busy night. About the usual range for January, when it's typically slow anyway.

Other bartenders in other joints have reported no particular downturn in business. And at one place--the Old Town Ale House--the afternoon bartender reported it was insanely busy the first weekend of the ban. They had to turn people away at 7:30 on Friday and Saturday night because they were at their occupancy limit. This suggests to me that when one of Chicago's best--and formerly smokiest--bars goes smoke-free, people on their way out to dinner or a show will now stop and have a drink, since they won't be stenchified for the night.

I was in Los Angeles when they enacted their ban (or immediately afterwards... can't remember), and it was much the same. There were fears that it was going to seriously hurt restaurants and bars, and the reality, depending on whose numbers you believed, ended up being that it was a wash or a slight uptick in business. Which isn't to say that Chicago will be the same as L.A., but fears of a drop in business turned out to be completely unfounded there.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the ban, I just don't think a theoretical drop in business is one of them based on what's happened on other cities that have done the same.

When the Chicago law was enacted a while back (which mandated that city bars and restaurants be smoke-free by summer 2008--since superceded by the state law), Keefer's decided not to wait, but to declare itself smoke-free immediately. Owner Glen Keefer told me the restaurant lost some business and gained some business, so from a headcount perspective, it was pretty much a wash. However, he found that his dollar volume increased, since he no longer had smokers occupying his bar tables for hours at a time, and instead could use them for dining patrons.

We ate dinner Saturday night in the basement, Captain's Quarters, at Lovells in Lake Forest. We took the kids which we would not have done in the past when it was basically a cigar bar. It was the busiest that I have ever seen, with a lot of people relieved to be able to breath and enjoy the food and the entertainment.

-Will

Olde School wrote:When the Chicago law was enacted a while back (which mandated that city bars and restaurants be smoke-free by summer 2008--since superceded by the state law), Keefer's decided not to wait, but to declare itself smoke-free immediately. Owner Glen Keefer told me the restaurant lost some business and gained some business, so from a headcount perspective, it was pretty much a wash. However, he found that his dollar volume increased, since he no longer had smokers occupying his bar tables for hours at a time, and instead could use them for dining patrons.

So the natural question is, if it increased his dollar volume (and presumably profits), why did he wait for the law to be passed to go smoke-free? Was he surprised that his revenue increased?

While I have reservations about the smoking ban, I would expect the ban to actually be a boost to businesses, as long as no reasonable smoking alternatives existed in the geographic area. I suppose you still have the option of staying home, but my logic would be that bars can now still expect most of their smoking clientele to come, as well as attracting a large pool of non-smokers that may have avoided bars because of the smoke issue.

So, perhaps counterintuitively, I think the smoking ban will be good for business and worker's health. That said, I'm not really comfortable with it, but from my experience since Jan. 1, it doesn't really look like business is down anywhere I've been.

sassafrass wrote:Reading some discussion on the Hop Leaf topic here made me wonder.

Before I go post on that thread - we were at the Hopleaf last night for dinner and for a freezy night it was p-a-c-k-e-d. No wait, but we went early, and by the time we left there wasn't a table empty (except possibly upstairs, I didn't look) I will say that I appreciated not having to walk through a veil of smoke at the bar to get to our seat (though it's moot now, I suppose smoking at the bar would have bothered me less if I didn't have to go through it)

I was at Farragut's and the Hopleaf a couple of weekends ago (that one glorious weekend where it was 60 degrees ). As the smoking ban had just gone in effect, we asked the bartender at Farragut's if she had noticed a difference. She said that she hadn't and actually noticed a lot more new people on that Friday. After a few pints, we went over to the Hopleaf. It was pretty packed at that point and I didn't see any negative effect of the smoking ban. Actually there was a negative effect - I could smell the intoxicating scent of mussels and it totally made me cave in and get some. Before the air was eau de camel and I could ignore my hunger and concentrate on the beer list. In the end, they got more money from me.

All in all, I like the ban but as a secret smoker who smoked only in bars while drinking, I do wish that taverns (like Farragut's) had the option of being smoke-free or not.

I was at the Matchbox a few days ago, enjoying it immensely as a smoke-free establishment. (Having said that, I wasn't necessarily for the smoking ban and was never intolerant of fellow smokers - but the Matchbox was one of those smoked-choked places that I'd have to be in an especially tolerant mood to enjoy.) It was packed, so I can't say that they appeared to suffer a dip in business as a result of the ban, but then again, the place is so tiny that 10 people easily fill it up.

As an aside, if you can believe it, my office was not smoke-free until recently, when the City of Chicago mandated it. Yes, that's right, there was a smoking room and people would light up at their desks or in their offices, but out of courtesy to others, only after 5:00.

jimswside wrote:great law,

at the bars I am a regular at I have noticed no lack of customers. There is the hourly stream of smokers going out to their cars for a smoke, and then to return to their drinks.

Thank Jah they aren't smoking indoors and merely drinking and driving, so much better for everyone.

Olde School wrote:When the Chicago law was enacted a while back (which mandated that city bars and restaurants be smoke-free by summer 2008--since superceded by the state law), Keefer's decided not to wait, but to declare itself smoke-free immediately. Owner Glen Keefer told me the restaurant lost some business and gained some business, so from a headcount perspective, it was pretty much a wash. However, he found that his dollar volume increased, since he no longer had smokers occupying his bar tables for hours at a time, and instead could use them for dining patrons.

They did the same at Meritage. They said they were losing walk-ins, because smokers were sitting at the bar - but these bar patrons weren't buying anything at the bar, just smoking, then they'd go back to their table. So they went smoke free and they made more money from those walk-ins.

A friend of ours who owns a bar (who shall remain nameless) said that he couldn't afford to go smoke-free before the law was in effect, because the smokers would still have lots of other places to go and wouldn't go to his place.

leek wrote: . . . A friend of ours who owns a bar (who shall remain nameless) said that he couldn't afford to go smoke-free before the law was in effect, because the smokers would still have lots of other places to go and wouldn't go to his place.

This makes me wonder about places like Jack's Restaurant in Skokie, which became a shadow of its former self when Skokie implemented a smoking ban a few years back. Shortly thereafter, Jacks ceased to be a virbant, count-on-it, 24-hour operation. It was a sad event.

Now, with the playing field level across the state, I wonder if their hours of operation will revert. I tend to doubt it but I personally would love it. That was always a great and super-convenient late-night stop, right off the Edens at Touhy.

=R=

Jack's Restaurant
5201 Touhy Ave
Skokie, IL 60077
847 674-5532

Let's all try to remember that the purpose of the smoking ban is not to protect patrons, who have a choice not to go to the offending establishment, but rather to protect the WORKERS in those establishments. Factory workers, maintenance workers, all workers in non-hospitality industries have been protected by OSHA regulations, including air quality regulations, for many years. Why don't bartenders and waitstaff deserve the same healthful workplace as a union laborer? Those of you, like me, who work in offices: If someone started walking in at regular intervals and blowing cigarette smoke into your workplace, randomly and without your approval, how would you react? And, please, let's not have the "you chose to work in a bar, you knew the risks" argument; bartenders and waitstaff are not getting "hazard pay"; they are among the most underpaid workers in any industry, and, moreover, the basic operating principle behind the OSHAct and other, similar laws is that most workers DO NOT have a realistic choice in where they are working or the health standards maintained there, and in any case, who should have to make such a choice?

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Let's all try to remember that the purpose of the smoking ban is not to protect patrons, who have a choice not to go to the offending establishment, but rather to protect the WORKERS in those establishments.

JiLS, you're more savvy concerning the thinking behind these laws than I'd be, but it's odd, is it not, that the workers in the bar seem generally unsympathetic to a ban that would protect them? (I base this on anecdotal evidence, but I've never talked to a bartender who seemed very enthusiastic about the smoking ban.)

Is Sacramento moving to ban smoking from parks to protect park workers?

David Hammond wrote:

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Let's all try to remember that the purpose of the smoking ban is not to protect patrons, who have a choice not to go to the offending establishment, but rather to protect the WORKERS in those establishments.

JiLS, you're more savvy concerning the thinking behind these laws than I'd be, but it's odd, is it not, that the workers in the bar seem generally unsympathetic to a ban that would protect them? (I base this on anecdotal evidence, but I've never talked to a bartender who seemed very enthusiastic about the smoking ban.)

Is Sacramento moving to ban smoking from parks to protect park workers?

I don't know about Sacramento; I don't think smoking in a park endangers anybody, assuming the butt gets squashed out properly. And regarding your first point, I'm not going to get into a debate about paternalistic lawmaking, but the fact is that for decades before OSHA was passed, millions of American workers willingly went into highly dangerous workplaces because that was how they made a living, and I don't doubt that some of them were also opposed to OSHA, because somebody (maybe their boss) told them it would shut down the plant or at least result in some firings. Another worthwhile point is the psychology of working in a dangerous environment; if you can't convince yourself that, all told, you are safe there, then you will just be a nervous wreck. I have some friends in the business of removing unexploded ordinance and munitions from military ranges; they somehow came to peace with the risk factor in their jobs, mainly because they knew that all the best science available was being implemented in their favor, and also knew their own capabilities, and were able to make a rational decision. Not so the bartender or waitron sucking down somebody's Camel smoke.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Let's all try to remember that the purpose of the smoking ban is not to protect patrons, who have a choice not to go to the offending establishment, but rather to protect the WORKERS in those establishments.

JiLS, you're more savvy concerning the thinking behind these laws than I'd be, but it's odd, is it not, that the workers in the bar seem generally unsympathetic to a ban that would protect them? (I base this on anecdotal evidence, but I've never talked to a bartender who seemed very enthusiastic about the smoking ban.)

Is Sacramento moving to ban smoking from parks to protect park workers?

I don't know about Sacramento; I don't think smoking in a park endangers anybody, assuming the butt gets squashed out properly. And regarding your first point, I'm not going to get into a debate about paternalistic lawmaking, but the fact is that for decades before OSHA was passed, millions of American workers willingly went into highly dangerous workplaces because that was how they made a living, and I don't doubt that some of them were also opposed to OSHA, because somebody (maybe their boss) told them it would shut down the plant or at least result in some firings. Another worthwhile point is the psychology of working in a dangerous environment; if you can't convince yourself that, all told, you are safe there, then you will just be a nervous wreck. I have some friends in the business of removing unexploded ordinance and munitions from military ranges; they somehow came to peace with the risk factor in their jobs, mainly because they knew that all the best science available was being implemented in their favor, and also knew their own capabilities, and were able to make a rational decision. Not so the bartender or waitron sucking down somebody's Camel smoke.

I'm sure you have a point about workplace psychology, though another consideration to take into account is that some of those bartenders and tavern workers may smoke themselves, and they are pretty much stuck in their positions (at least until break time) and so will not be able to satisfy nicotine cravings if smoking is banned in their workplace.