SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS
And we tried to tell them. But no one wants to believe us until they come up light in the cash drawer.
Posted on 01/06/2003 6:58:16 AM PST by SheLion
It's been in place for five years now, but many Yuba-Sutter bar owners and patrons said they have yet to become accustomed to California's ban on smoking in bars.
At establishments such as Stassi's Fourth Ward Tavern in Marysville this weekend, business owners were still fuming over the ban, which took effect in January 1998.
The ban - a first for the nation - was intended to protect bartenders from health risks posed by second-hand smoke.
Yet Roy Newlove, the owner of Stassi's for roughly 10 years, said it does nothing more than slow business and cause headaches for his employees. Like many, Newlove called the ban a misguided attempt to protect public health.
"I think if the government helps me one more time I'll be out of business," Newlove said as most of his customers nodded in agreement.
Many bar owners throughout the area agreed the ban is a nuisance that has diminished the charm of going out for a drink.
Debbie and Doug Erhardt, the owners of Field and Stream Tavern in Marysville, said business has fallen off by as much as $2,000 on weekends since the ban took effect.
Fewer people want to go to Field and Stream now because the smoking ban forces them to go outside whenever they want to have a cigarette, Debbie Erhardt said.
"Nobody wants to go outside in 100 degree weather or in the cold," Erhardt said.
Ernie Leach, owner of the Corner Bar in Yuba City, said the ban has not been a major obstacle to building a clientele. Since he opened the bar a year ago, Leach said he never had to face the difficulty of telling loyal customers to put out their cigarettes.
However, the ban often causes him to force customers outside when they want to light up, Leach said.
"I have people complain about it all the time, but they just have to go outside," Leach said. "I think a person ought to have a choice and especially at a place called a bar."
The ban also has caused frustration among bartenders, who say it has added stress to their jobs.
Nancy Simpson, 40, a bartender at Jack's Tavern in Marysville, said the ban hurts bartenders who smoke by forcing them to leave their customers behind whenever they want to light up.
The ban also encourages smokers to sneak drinks outside the bars so they can drink while smoking, she said.
"They walk out with their drinks and then I have to ask them to leave," Simpson said.
Newlove said the ban also adds noise to streets and creates unsightly - and sometimes unruly - crowds outside bars.
"As soon as you've got everybody outside you lose control," Newlove said.
Some bar owners have managed to circumvent the ban by taking advantage of areas not covered in its language. Since the ban is intended to protect bar employees - and not bar owners - some entrepreneurs have exempted themselves from the ban by making all of their employees part owners.
Since they technically have no employees, owner-operated establishments can apply for exemptions through county agencies.
In Sutter County, there are at least three bars which have obtained such exemptions. They include Yuba City bars such as the Spur, Dowers Tavern and the 21 Club.
No information was available Saturday on whether there were any owner-operated bars in Yuba County.
Mary Benedict, a part owner of the Spur, criticized the ban and said the exemption has helped her clientele stay steady.
"You're supposed to be able to smoke and drink in a bar," Benedict said. "Governments hurt small businesses too much anyway."
Some bar owners in Marysville said exemptions in Yuba City bars have affected their businesses.
George Matsuda, the owner of Daikoku restaurant in Marysville, said fewer customers want to come to the bar in his business.
"The people that like to smoke, they've got to leave and go to a place where they can smoke," Matsuda said.
Bar patrons also criticized the ban. Some called it an infringement on their civil liberties.
Smoking outside Stassi's Fourth Ward on Saturday, Strawberry Valley resident Dennis Travis, 61, said the ban sometimes makes him think of moving to a state where smoking bans aren't in effect.
Travis said public officials are going too far in their attempts to eliminate health risks.
"We're trying too hard to protect people," Travis said.
Marysville resident Carl Supler, 59, said the ban is an affront to veterans who fought in foreign wars in an effort to preserve civil liberties.
"It's just one more of our freedoms taken away," Supler said. "We fought for this country and most of us didn't come back. Now we've got these bleeding hearts telling us what we can and can't do."
SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS
And we tried to tell them. But no one wants to believe us until they come up light in the cash drawer.
Especially in California, Eric. Too bad they DIDN'T leave it up to the business owner. Really sad.
Like you I don't necessarily buy the second hand smoke figures. I do think second hand smoke is detrimental none the less. And I don't see why I should have to put up with it.
Going in to public place we are equals. Those who pick up a cigarette place me at a disadvantage. I can't get away from them unless I completely give up eating out, going to a bar or dancing in public. They still can enjoy those pleasures. The only thing is, they will have to wait until they go outside to poisen themselves.
I may not be exposed to smokers day in and day out, but waitresses, bartenders and other employees are constantly. As much as I wish smokers could smoke in public without affecting everyone else, they can't.
Five years ago I and the other non-smokers were freed from the stench. I am glad.
Meaning ... California needs no legislature or governor to pass a law.
Meaning ... California needs an initiative to ban law-making within the legislative and executive branches.
Meaning ... California needs no legislature or governor to pass a law.
Meaning ... California needs an initiative to ban law-making within the legislative and executive branches.
You still don't get it. The bar/restaurant business is a hospitility business. Why was it necessary for the government to get involved in controlling business owner's? Why couldn't the business owner let his patron's dictate how they want the atmosphere of the place?
You and your family will NEVER make up for all the lost revenue all over the state, just because you do not like the smell of smoke.
Let's be fair here. The world does not and should not rotate on one person's butt. If I do not like the surroundings in one bar/restaurant, I take my purse on down the street. I think that works out a heck of a lot better then the heavy hand of government.
Your right! But trying to get that through the thick sculls of the non-smokers who have been brain washed by the anti's is near impossible today.
That went out the window with Jim Crow.
The bans started happening around the same time as the Tobacco Settlement money started flowing. The boards of health in each state, along with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, formed Coalitions. These Coalitions started wearing brown shirts and marching with jack boots across America.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation told these coalitions that the more bans, control and restrictions put upon the smokers in the state, the more "grant money" the state would receive from them and the American Medical Association.
What with all the poor budgets the states have been facing, they jumped on the bandwagon to grab that money. They didn't care if they stuck it to 25-30% of the people in the state who chose to smoke a legal commodity or not. All they saw were dollar signs.
I couldn't have said it better! Thank you!
hmmmmmm very good thinking. This is an eye-opener!
An interesting point. In a sense, California has repudiated the republic form of government in favor of pure democracy. I guess I've always "known" that. It just has never crystalized in my mind before now.
Sure, receipts are off $2,000 a weekend (%?), but it's the economy stupid, not the smoking ban. The same store sales at almost all retail stores, Pennys, Target, etc., are down as well.
I can't wait until we have a smoking ban. There are some places that I like but don't go to now because the smoke makes it intolerable. Of course, some of these places have gone out of business in recent months.
These whiners should recognize, as well, that their raising the price of drinks while "allowing" smoking has also hurt their business. Check it out; they'll say "our costs have gone up." What they've done is simply figure that a guy with one controlling addiction will certainly pay extra for a place where he can be slave to the first addiction while practising a second.
"Now that others must do what I want, and at my convenience, we are equals"... uh-huh.
Next, will you cheer for "equality" when those annoying guns (which are such a huge health hazard, and make one afraid to go outside) are banned? How about when non-politically-correct statements (which are so annoying, hateful, and supportive of violence) are banned in public as well? Yes, equality for all, as long as that annoying legal act is banned, as only one side wants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.