A Perspective on the Smoking Ban

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I'm a native Detroiter [[moving back in the summer). I have worked in restaurants for 20 years [[started as a dishwasher at age 14; I run several in NY now; will be opening my own in Detroit), both in Michigan and New York. I have been in NYC for the last 10 years, and was working as a waiter when the smoking ban went into effect.

I must say, dire predictions to the contrary, virtually all restaurants, and most bars, experienced a boom when the ban was enacted here [[2002, I think). Even though the city was reeling from 9/11, and the economy in NYC was generally poor then, it was discovered that LOTS of people who were choosing to stay in their smoke-free homes began to patronize restaurants and bars more frequently. The monthly diner became the weekly diner. Restaurants, in particular, did well. The bar seats at restaurants became a desirable place- especially for single people- to sit and have dinner. Not grossed out by the smoke, people ate and drank more, lingering longer over another drink. Some people who loathed bars began to go back.

The only "category" of bars to suffer economically from the ban were the places where the customers were mainly a small pool of extreme regulars, who- if they smoked- suddenly felt that they'd rather stay home. A few places shuttered. Most got new customers in their place.

I don't hate smokers, and have no objection to smokers smoking in their own homes. But I think smokers- and I am saying this not as a taunt, but rather to make clear a point- greatly underestimate how repulsive the smoke is to non-smokers. It is not a case of a goody-two-shoes wagging a finger at the perceived deviants. It is a case where most people who would rather be in their second choice location to live, work, or party if the second choice place had clean air.

As a restaurant manager and soon-to-be owner, there are other concerns as well that affect a business, beyond whether or not smoking hurts the customer base. Property, worker's compensation, and employee health insurance are cheaper for businesses that do not permit smoking on premises [[I know because I supervise 3 restaurants with 150 employees). Additionally, there are potentially legit grounds for litigation against an employer for providing an unsafe work environment. There have been- literally- billions of dollars in settlements relating to workplaces that had lead, asbestos, and other substances coming into contact with their staff. And those places generally were unaware of the health affects at the time. Imagine a lawsuit where someone came down with a lung ailment from workplace exposure to smoke. And the business owner was fully aware of the smoke and its potential for harm. That would be devastating to industry.

In the bar and restaurant business, a hefty percentage of the staff are smokers. I have yet to work with a single one who wants the NY ban lifted 7+ years later. They like the cleaner work environment and greater tips. They also like not waking up with a sore throat from working 8-12 hours non-stop in a smoke-filled room.

Some people ask, correctly, that if the benefits of getting rid of smoking are so clear, why didn't most restaurants and bars do it earlier on their own? A very intelligent question. I don't really know why. Inertia, probably; and fear. Too busy to bother to get rid of it; too afraid that they'd lose customers. The NYC restaurant and bar industry has learned that it brings in customers, and costs you not even very many smokers.

The ultimate conclusion I have come to is that the ban is a net benefit for most people, including most smokers [[even the most hard core, 3 pack-a-day smokers) would rather not be in a cloud of smoke 24/7. Five years from now the topic will hardly be mentioned. Some smokers will grumble about stepping outside on a cold day to puff a butt, but then they'll go gladly back inside to eat and drink. Non-smoking in public will emerge as the new normal.

I know I'll get flamed- pun fully intended- for suggesting that the ban is in the end both wonderful and a non-issue with nearly everyone, but it is true. DetroitYes has plenty of real issues to bicker about. This one is settled, as the very near future will show. Congrats, Michigan, on the ban. It makes planning to come home even more exciting.

Mikey

[mauser]

Smokers and owners are 100% beside the point.

People can not spew sticky poison all over employees without killing them. That is the beginning and end of the argument.

[Mikeg]

Some people ask, correctly, that if the benefits of getting rid of smoking are so clear, why didn't most restaurants and bars do it earlier on their own? A very intelligent question. I don't really know why. Inertia, probably; and fear. Too busy to bother to get rid of it; too afraid that they'd lose customers. The NYC restaurant and bar industry has learned that it brings in customers, and costs you not even very many smokers.

If in fact the lesson from NYC is that this is such a good thing for profits, then why haven't restaurants and bars nationwide gone smokeless on their own? Probably because like many businesses, they prefer to let the government "protect" them from risk, in this case the risks associated with the temporary loss of profit when their smoking customers leave for a competitor before the word gets around to potential new nonsmoking customers.

The problem with this is that with every little bit of liberty we willingly surrender to the government, we invite more government control.

Tell me MikeyinBrooklyn, what's your perspective on the subsequent NYC government regulations that restrict your choice of ingredients and mandate the types of information you post on your menus? What will be next - regulations on minimum lighting levels so customers won't have to strain their eyes when they read the government-mandated information on your menus?

[bailey]

If in fact the lesson from NYC is that this is such a good thing for profits, then why haven't restaurants and bars nationwide gone smokeless on their own? Probably because like many businesses, they prefer to let the government "protect" them from risk, in this case the risks associated with the temporary loss of profit when their smoking customers leave for a competitor before the word gets around to potential new nonsmoking customers.

The problem with this is that with every little bit of liberty we willingly surrender to the government, we invite more government control.

Tell me MikeyinBrooklyn, what's your perspective on the subsequent NYC government regulations that restrict your choice of ingredients and mandate the types of information you post on your menus? What will be next - regulations on minimum lighting levels so customers won't have to strain their eyes when they read the government-mandated information on your menus?

"liberty"... why is the "liberty" to eat in the restaurant of one's choosing [[not one that simply is smoke free...that would be putting limits on freedom of choice wouldnt it?) without sitting next to someone smoking NEVER part of the "liberty" argument? I mean, I know those invisible lines of demarcation between smoking and non smoking sections work so well and all, but does this bill stop any smoker from simply smoking outside? Is anything in this bill at all, in any way, limiting your jebus given, these colors dont run, 'merican right to smoke your lungs out? No, it's just saying, if you're gonna do it in a public space where 80% of the people don't want it....do it outside.

I really, for the life of me, do not see what all the histrionics about freedom and liberty and government control are coming from. Is it REALLY that hard to go outside? really?

[Fury13]

Mikey, great perspective... and coming from experience too. Best of luck with your new venture here in the Detroit area. You sound like you know how to run a restaurant. Keep us informed -- I, for one, would like to patronize your new place.

[R8RBOB]

The problem with this is that with every little bit of liberty we willingly surrender to the government, we invite more government control.

Can we please get a shout-out of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling?"

Dude, please don't get it twisted. The government didn't wake up and say you can't smoke, period. You just can't smoke in bars and restaurants. That's funny as hell. Comparing smoking with losing liberties. Come back and rant when the government tell the public they can no longer can smoke anywhere even in their homes. Then you can cry about losing liberties.

[Mikeg]

Dude, please don't get it twisted.

I'm not twisting anything. My argument has nothing to do with the pros or cons of smoking or the rights of non-smokers.

The restaurant and bar owners in Michigan have now lost some of their freedom to run their business as they see fit and it will only get worse. I gave you two examples from NYC showing what happened after they imposed their smoking ban. Left unchecked, the government found more "health-related" reasons to regulate additional aspects of a bar & restaurant's operations, including their menu designs! The bar & restaurant owners in Manhattan really don't care since the NYC mandates apply to all of their competitors and the local customers can't vote with their feet. However, the owners in Queens near the Nassau County line probably find them troublesome since their competitors across the street are not burdened by them.

[pffft]

You can run your home "as you see fit," but if you're in the business of selling something to the public, you are subject to government regulation, yes.
You may "see fit" to sell month-old meat or to never clean the restrooms, but too bad, it's not your right to do that.

[detroitchef]

I'm not twisting anything. My argument has nothing to do with the pros or cons of smoking or the rights of non-smokers.

The restaurant and bar owners in Michigan have now lost some of their freedom to run their business as they see fit and it will only get worse. I gave you two examples from NYC showing what happened after they imposed their smoking ban. Left unchecked, the government found more "health-related" reasons to regulate additional aspects of a bar & restaurant's operations, including their menu designs! The bar & restaurant owners in Manhattan really don't care since the NYC mandates apply to all of their competitors and the local customers can't vote with their feet. However, the owners in Queens near the Nassau County line probably find them troublesome since their competitors across the street are not burdened by them.

Actually bro, you are twisting it like its nobody's business.

Are you really arguing that regulating Public Health concerns is NOT the job of the government? Even in Wayne County and Detroit [[the city has its own Restaurant Inspection Dept in its own Health Department) a restaurant , by law, has to have the HD inspector look at the menus and make sure they have the MANDATORY wordage present and in place. That is it. Period. End of discussion. Every six months they show up and look at that, the ONLY time they ask for a full menu review is if you are applying for a Plan Review on a new license, and then it's solely so they can ensure proiper sanitationa nd foodhandling SOP's are being followed. So if you have say, chcken you had better have the proper cookign equipment, adequate storage space etc etc etc. So, they do that in NYC too? whoop de doo. All they are doing is making sure that the menu clearly states, so even a fuzzy minded idiot can understand that "Consuming raw or undercooked meat, eggs or poultry will increase your risk of exposure to foodborne illness" They are not running around saying "Use a 14pt Arial font, and lose the tacky colors on your website...."

And, the hold up on MI passing this bill has been the opposition from the state Restaurant Association for the original drafts. When first proposed, the bill was to a referendum to be decided on a county by county basis, and the MI branch of the NRA [[Nat. Restaurant Assoc., not the gun nuts) felt this would place their members in a bad situation exactly as you described. If one adjoining county elected to allow smoking and the restaurant was located in a country that enacted the ban, they would lose customers to the smoking county. By making it a level playing field, it's fairer to the restaurant owners.

All this bellyaching about the 'rights' of the owners being infringed upon is bumpkiss. Do you own a restaurant in Michigan? Nope, you're just another smoking dipschittz who wants to come into MY place of work, spew second hand smoke and force me to repaint every two years because of the nicotine stains all over every surface in the place. Why should I support your smoking? If you want to pay me to extend you the priviledge, no porblem. But it's a losing proposition from the restaurant owner's point of view, the wear and tear on the proiperty, the complaints from non smokers and the loss of business far outweighs the NO RETURN I get from allowing you to light up in the middle of the room. Let me tell you, we put over 40k of filtration into the Book Cadillac's HVAC systems. Do they work? Hell no, not like it's been argued here. You cannot simply segregate the air everyone in the building shares. It's not physically possible.

So thanks, but stop presuming to speak for restaurant owners and workers. I for one am doing the 'Happy Happy Joy Joy" dance over there, that they finally passed the damn thing. And I can't find a SINGLE restaurant owner who isn't glad that it passed fairly. Sure it sucks the casinos got their exemptions. But does any single restaurant or bar put the amount of money on the table that they have?

[Johnlodge]

Of course their freedom is being infringed upon, I'm not sure how you can see it otherwise. That isn't even the question. The question is, do you agree with the government making those infringements. We let government infringe all the time in practically all aspects of life, the trick is in finding the balance. That's just life in a civilized society. But you can't say the government isn't infringing on what was otherwise their choice to make.

[Diehard]

Went to Alvin's to see the Muggs Saturday night. Stayed for about four songs before getting smoked out of the place. Even the smokers with me were gagging and saying it was too much. Good thing it was a free show or I'd be pissed about losing yet another cover charge.

John: There are no "freedoms" being infringed upon. Nobody's banning smoking. It's being moved outdoors so the nastiness can blow away, much like we get up off our barstools to go pee in an approved place, so our nastiness doesn't stink up the place for everyone. It's such a no-brainer I can't believe people are so up in arms about it.

[Novine]

"My argument has nothing to do with the pros or cons of smoking or the rights of non-smokers."

Why do you keep ignoring the rights of non-smokers to be free from the nuisance and harm of second-hand tobacco smoke? If I own property and you allow pollution to run off your property and onto mine, property law recognizes the damage done to my property as a nuisance and a trespass and I can sue you for the harm you have done. The harm done by smokers is no different. Why should smokers rights be allowed to trump those of non-smokers?

[jbd441]

I'm not twisting anything. My argument has nothing to do with the pros or cons of smoking or the rights of non-smokers.

The restaurant and bar owners in Michigan have now lost some of their freedom to run their business as they see fit and it will only get worse. I gave you two examples from NYC showing what happened after they imposed their smoking ban. Left unchecked, the government found more "health-related" reasons to regulate additional aspects of a bar & restaurant's operations, including their menu designs! The bar & restaurant owners in Manhattan really don't care since the NYC mandates apply to all of their competitors and the local customers can't vote with their feet. However, the owners in Queens near the Nassau County line probably find them troublesome since their competitors across the street are not burdened by them.

I agree with Mikeg. It has nothing to do with the merits of smoking vs non smoking. If I'm not mistaken, I think restaurant owners in NYC can't serve anything with artifical transfats in it. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/car...transfat.shtml

When does it end?

[Diehard]

I agree with Mikeg. It has nothing to do with the merits of smoking vs non smoking. If I'm not mistaken, I think restaurant owners in NYC can't serve anything with artifical transfats in it. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/car...transfat.shtml

When does it end?

That's a completely different issue.

[Fury13]

I think restaurant owners in NYC can't serve anything with artifical transfats in it.

Gee, that's too bad. I think restaurant owners should be free to put artificial transfats in their customers' food, along with guano, Comet, motor oil, ammonia, arsenic, and anything else they so desire.

Life's so unfair!

[bailey]

I agree with Mikeg. It has nothing to do with the merits of smoking vs non smoking. If I'm not mistaken, I think restaurant owners in NYC can't serve anything with artifical transfats in it. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/car...transfat.shtml

When does it end?

In New York City, Trans Fat Ban Is Working

07.20.09, 05:00 PM EDT Success has spawned similar efforts across the U.S., report finds


MONDAY, July 20 [[HealthDay News) -- When the New York City Health Department mandated that city restaurants change their menus to restrict trans fats, known to be a health hazard, the action was greeted with resistance and grumbling.
"There were the usual 'nanny state' comments," said Dr. Lynn Silver, assistant commissioner of the department's Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Control.
....
And they deem it a success. Total saturated fat and trans fat in French fries, for instance, decreased by more than 50 percent in New York City restaurants, according to the report. Overall, the health officials found, the use of trans fats for frying, baking or cooking and in spreads declined from 50 percent to less than 2 percent.
Consumers didn't seem to mind. "It became clear that trans fats were being successfully replaced, and no one noticed the difference," Silver said. "Foods tasted just as good, and diners are healthier."

Trans fats were often used, she said, because they last longer than traditional vegetable oil, but "there was nothing terribly delicious about trans fat."
Trans fats, also call partially hydrogenated oils, are made by adding hydrogen to liquid vegetable oils to make them more solid. The fats are commonly found in French fries, doughnuts and baked goods, as well as margarine and shortening.
The problem with trans fats, Silver and her colleagues wrote in their report, is that increasing intake by just 2 percent can increase the risk for a heart attack or other cardiovascular problem by as much as 23 percent. Trans fats raise bad cholesterol levels and lower good cholesterol levels.

Restaurants' fears that diners would protest or the ban would affect business didn't happen, Silver said, and the good news for restaurant patrons is that they don't have to guess about what they're eating as much as they once did.

Just look at the trans fat issue.... it's used because it's cheaper, but exponentially worse for the consumer. So, clueless consumer is eating an admittedly unhealthy thing like a doughnut and thinking, "ok, I'll have one and do an extra 15 minutes in the gym" Except , unknowable to the consumer and in order to save a few bucks , eating that one doughnut has the negative health effects of eating several..

So, when will regulations and government intervention end? Probably around the time merchants/restaurateurs..etc do the right thing because it's the right thing to do [[even though it costs a little more). Think that'll be the industry norm anytime soon?

[Traxus]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, but let me throw something out there.

I am a non smoker, I have turned down the opportunity to be 'kool' through my late teens and early twenties, and am already thankful for it. I am absolutely fed the f'k up with going to a venue or bar that is poorly ventilated [[Alvins for instance), and when morning comes, coughing up mucus laden with black shit in it. You know when you try to quit smoking, and a few days into it you start coughing all of that tar out of your lungs? Same deal, smaller scale. That is disgusting and unacceptable. Your addiction does not grant you the liberty to compromise someone else's health, the end.

This is not the government banning restaurants from using peanuts because some people are allergic, this is equivalent to the government banning the use of strict-9 from their menu because we all know that it is detrimental for everyone.

If you want to abuse your body, have at it, but don't compromise mine. If you want a cigarette, go outside.

[Traxus]

And on that note, the consumption of trans-fats does not affect the health of the restaurant staff, or the person your sitting next to. This is indeed a completely different issue, don't equivocate.

So, when will regulations and government intervention end? Probably around the time merchants/restaurateurs..etc do the right thing because it's the right thing to do [[even though it costs a little more). Think that'll be the industry norm anytime soon?

Nail on the head. Time and time again, buisness' as a whole have proved that they will not to the right thing unless they are absolutely forced to.

[Johnlodge]

Went to Alvin's to see the Muggs Saturday night. Stayed for about four songs before getting smoked out of the place. Even the smokers with me were gagging and saying it was too much. Good thing it was a free show or I'd be pissed about losing yet another cover charge.

John: There are no "freedoms" being infringed upon. Nobody's banning smoking. It's being moved outdoors so the nastiness can blow away, much like we get up off our barstools to go pee in an approved place, so our nastiness doesn't stink up the place for everyone. It's such a no-brainer I can't believe people are so up in arms about it.

The freedom being infringed upon is the freedom of the business owner to make that decision themselves. If there was not a freedom being infringed on, there would be no need to create a new law. They had the choice previously, now they will not by means of government legislation. I am not up in arms about it, frankly because it will not have any impact on me, but let's not pretend we are not taking choice away from a business owner, FOR GOOD OR BAD, thereby infringing the freedom they previously enjoyed in making those decisions.

[Traxus]

The freedom being infringed upon is the freedom of the business owner to make that decision themselves. If there was not a freedom being infringed on, there would be no need to create a new law. They had the choice previously, now they will not by means of government legislation. I am not up in arms about it, frankly because it will not have any impact on me, but let's not pretend we are not taking choice away from a business owner, FOR GOOD OR BAD, thereby infringing the freedom they previously enjoyed in making those decisions.

And it is their decision as to pollute [[or further pollute if the worker already smokes) the lungs of their employees? Before anyone jumps the gun and says the employee doesn't 'have' to work in the establishment, take a look at the economy, or consider the vast majority of people trying to work their way through college. If we are going to go abstract on this, lets think of child labor laws. The kids didn't 'have' to work in those god awful factories.

[kenp]

I was curious how this new law deals with the hookah bars in our area?

[Traxus]

I was curious how this new law deals with the hookah bars in our area?

It was my understanding that hookah/cigar bars are exempt...

[bailey]

I was curious how this new law deals with the hookah bars in our area?

Banned, unless they stop serving food and drinks....or convert to a cigar bar.

from the freep

Even hookah bars are included. Hookah bars can continue to allow smoking, but only if they meet the standards for tobacco specialty stores -- no food or drink.



That would affect Beirut Palace in Royal Oak, which offers hookahs on its outdoor patio during the warm months. Hookahs are water pipes that heat tobacco smoke, which passes through a bowl of water or juice to cool it.
"We depend on the summertime being big, because here in downtown Royal Oak, the rent is very high," said Sam Hussein, owner and general manager of the restaurant. He said more than 25% of his summer revenue comes from hookah sales.

However, if it is outside, I'm not sure how this impacts them.

[rondinjp]

However, if it is outside, I'm not sure how this impacts them.

The Hookah bar's have to completely stop serving food, even on their outdoor patio's. And no bars will be able to switch to a cigar bar after today. The law requires that certain requirements have been met prior to the enactment of the bill [[e.g., a certain amount of humidors, percentage of sales received from cigars, etc.).

[Johnlodge]

And it is their decision as to pollute [[or further pollute if the worker already smokes) the lungs of their employees? Before anyone jumps the gun and says the employee doesn't 'have' to work in the establishment, take a look at the economy, or consider the vast majority of people trying to work their way through college. If we are going to go abstract on this, lets think of child labor laws. The kids didn't 'have' to work in those god awful factories.

It was their decision, yes. Now it will not be. Therefore the government has infringed upon the freedom they previously enjoyed. I don't see how this part is even up for debate, the question is whether you agree or disagree with the legislation. Any legislation is going to restrict the freedom of somebody. That doesn't mean it is bad, it just means you live in a society. But don't try to bend words to say nobody's freedom is being curbed here. They had a choice [[freedom) now they will not.