How does that square with the idea that smoking bans are popular? And what makes you think that all people who work in bars care about smoke?
Smoking bans in bars have been ruinous to musicians. Their attendance is down so they can't afford to hire live bands as often.
That's true Fraggle, and it's the same for DJs. What antismokers don't grasp, or perhaps choose not ignore, is the fact that smoking bans have a major ripple effect. It's not just about smokers. It affects lots of people. Smokers - The discomfort of being outside, and the fact that it defeats the object of going to the pub in the first place puts lots of smokers off Non smokeres- Because their smoking friends are outside, it disrupts conversations, or forces them out also Bar owners - Less customers = less revenue. Customers staying for less time = less spending = less revenue Bar staff - Less revenue for the owner = potential job loss Musicians & DJs - what Fraggle Rocker said above Cab firms - less people to take to and from the pub = less income Off licenses & other local shops - less pub customers = less people going to the shops also And on it goes. Smoking bans have a major negative effect on many people.
The general electorate is not the same as the set of bar patrons. Not least because a small minorities of smokers can make bars inhospitable to a huge swath of the electorate. What makes you think they don't? And to the extent that they do not, what makes you think that is anything other than the selective force of systematically subjecting bar workers to smoke? Again, it's a workplace safety issue. And not an issue of worker preference - employers do not have a right to systematically subject employees to unsafe or harmful working conditions. That people are willing to work in such conditions misses the point - it is wrong to impose such harm on them as a condition of employment.
None of that is true. Economists have studied the effects of these bans in significant detail and rigor, and found no decrease in bar sales or revenue. There can be local effects, for example a small bar might lose business to a larger one that can afford to maintain a smoking lounge. But the overall effect on bar attendance, sales and revenue is actually slightly positive. So how about you stop talking out of your ass?
Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Find me a study not funded by an association of bar owners that backs that up.
Tyranny is forcing things on people, like your smoke into their lungs. Like I said, 20% of the general population are smokers, 80% are not. Add a few 'social smokers' onto that 20% if you like, but as yet you haven't come up with any stats to back your assertion that the the smoking population of bars is significantly higher than amongst the general population. Relevant. I have never suffered ill effects from walking along a road, nor had to launder my clothes because of it. My case is proven, yours isn't. I don't, because there are none! LOL! Why should 80% of the population be excluded so a minority can stink a room out? Oh, we all (bar addicts) agree they shouldn't and made a law enforcing such. Tough titty! Don't try and bullshit me that your rights don't end where mine begin either. That means your smoke can go anywhere, but on, or inside me. If you can't guarantee that, welcome to the great outdoors.
Horse SHIT. I went to a venue to see live music only last Friday, and I'm going back there this Saturday! Just 20% of patrons smoke. And it's rather pathetic if they are so addicted, they'll choose cigarettes over friends. Simple truth of the matter as to why pubs and bars are closing? Demographics. Here's the UK in 2008: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (http://www.politicalinsightmagazine.com/?p=49) I'm 42, so was 40 then,... notice something? Lots of people my age. So there were lots of people going to pubs when I was in my 20s and 30s. But now, those people have settled down, had kids, and when they go out, perhaps prefer dining to just pure boozing. There are fewer young patrons to justify the number of pubs and bars that serviced my age demographic. So places compete, struggle, and many close, until balance of supply and demand is reached again. Yes pubs are closing, but to blame smoking bans is ludicrous. We have just had a banking collapse, and a recession, and the demographics stack against luxury spending too.
Eh? Where do the people that get their booze and smokes from, of they don't go to pubs? Oh, that's right, off licenses. (liquor stores to our US cousins). But you say these will show a downturn in trade because people cannot smoke in pubs? How are these things causally related? They aren't, and you're just a troll.
oh...geez, can we bury that damn word once and for all. Every GD third post..."trol, troll, troll, troll..."
That's not a troll. A troll says inane things on purpose, in order to get lulz. We're in the presence of a plain old [insult deleted].
I'm in a band. I have observed this personally, both at my own gigs and going to see my friends' bands play. None of us gets as much work as we used to. People who want to go to bars and get drunk and dance are not going to go outside to smoke. Especially in winter in Maryland!
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." And even if it were, you still haven't eliminated any number of other factors that might reduce bar attendance. The actual economists who've done legitimate scientific studies of this question, however, did do that, and their results do not agree with your supposition. They have been unable to show that smoking bans reduce bar attendance or revenue - rather, they find the opposite. Maybe you and your friends are just old, and the types of music you play and bars you get gigs at are no longer so popular? So they won't smoke - doesn't mean that they won't go to bars and get drunk and dance. And it certainly doesn't mean that people who want to go to bars and get drunk and dance and not smoke don't outnumber them to begin with. I can think of at least one SciForums member who has stated exactly that he and his wife would never go out dancing at bars until the smoking ban went into effect, and that they now do so semi-regularly. I've seen a pro-business effect in my hometown - the one bar there used to allow smoking, and had poor ventillation. In the wintertime, it would take about 30 seconds inside for my eyes to tear up, and so nobody but hardcore alcoholic chain-smokers ever went there. This also happened to be the clientele that wouldn't shell out for any drink more expensive than Bud Light. Since the smoking ban went into effect, the tiny minority of hardcore alcoholic chain-smokers doesn't go so much any more (they just drink their cheap beer and chain smoke at home), but the other 99% of the town now does. And they're willing to pay for decent beer, to boot. The place is now a profitable business, instead of a ratty eyesore. One effect of smoking bans on musicians that is statistically well-founded is that the bans reduce the upkeep costs of the musical instruments used in bars. That is the only scientifically founded effect on musicians that I've encountered, and it is a boost to musicians (even ignoring the effects on their health).
It is just plain actual bodily harm as far as I'm concerned, with intent. Though sadly the smokers seem to have no conception of what it is they are actually inflicting on others. For me, a smoker who doesn't wish to spare people of this affront (there are some though who do have respect for others) are just a bit thick.
And the recession, banking collapse, and demographics explain this clearly. ALTHOUGH you should start to see a resurgence IF your music appeals to people of my generation: Rock is back, people my age and a little older have packed their kids off to college, and are rocking again, so 80's bands are touring and releasing albums just like they were back in the day. Tomorrow I'm going to see Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath tributes bands, live, locallly for instance. Only 20% of them need to go outside! How many times do we have to go over the numbers, the small minority smoked! So we're talking about losing a fraction of a fraction of trade with the smoking ban. And as Quadraphonics has said, smoke can drive non-smokers from bars. I've had to leave places due to smoke making my eyes sting, so bars _lost_ revenue due to smoking previously, get that? And sure, I've seen bars close since the smoking ban. Low rent chav dives in particular, but what I have also seen in my town, is a rash of new places open, mostly bar/restaurants, and they do roaring trade. The local multiplex has a really nice bar with a good vantage point, people go there just for a drink. Simply, the market for bars that just serve booze has shrunk. People are more discerning, the demographics have changed. The two peaks on that graph I posted are 40 years olds and sixty year olds. That's where the money is.
You know, I took the guy seriously at first, but he's come in hard, fighting a multi front war of inanity, and I suspect the guy is a sock troll. He's just opened up too many different bags of crazy to be real.
