The headline is "Smoking ban dries up business," and even though I consider it old news, I am still outraged by the number of Republicans who voted for such statist nonsense:
...since Michigan's smoking ban went into effect May 1, Natalie Samu, the soon-to-be ex-owner of the bar, has just one or two waitresses serving the dwindling crowd.
"Our business is down over 50%," said Samu, who sold the bar earlier this month but will stay on as manager. "I know things go down in the summer, but it's never been this bad."
A survey by the Michigan Restaurant Association backs up Samu's woes. More than 42% of responding restaurants said their sales have declined since the ban went into effect, while nearly 15% said their sales have increased and 43% said they have seen no change.
I guess the do-gooder busybodies would say "TOUGH!" You should have known when you opened your small business and worked your ass off to make it succeed that the government might decide to ruin you. But some business owners are incredulous:
"I can't believe that the State of Michigan did this at a time when the economy is so bad," said Carol Corrie, general manager of Cloverleaf Bar and Restaurant in Eastpointe.
Believe, sister, believe.
Even though I am a non-smoker, I think this kind of intrusive legislation is utterly despicable. So despicable, in fact, that I'm thinking that it just might qualify as an appropriate "Are you a statist?" litmus test. (After all, there is an election coming....) I am hardly a single issue activist where it comes to smoking, and frankly, I am uncomfortable eating in a smoke-filled room. I have also been advised by my doctor to avoid secondhand smoke. But the thing is, the places that cater to smokers are very easy to avoid. Most of them are bars where local regulars enjoy drinking and smoking at the same time. I should say "were" for their regulars can smoke no more. Now they have to go outside, after which it's just easier to go home:
Employees have been laid off; hours have been cut for others, and the tips have shrunk for the waitstaff and bartenders who are left, said Bo Burton, general manager of the Blarney Stone. Even the bands that get hired for entertainment are losing business.
"My smokers who still come in have one or two (drinks) and then go outside for a smoke," Burton said. "Food sales are about the same, but alcohol sales have tanked."
I'm sure a lot of busybodies would say that's great. Serves them right for catering to the needs of addicts. "We" will all be better off when they are finally "nudged" into treatment. Yeah, and we will all die of one thing or another. Tobacco is just one of those things that might -- and I stress might -- cause us to die younger. I am reminded of a woman I knew who was 97 and smoked like a chimney. Naturally, they were trying to make her stop:
I came to know a woman who had finally retired to a rest home at age 97, and she was one of those loquacious grand dames who would sit and hold court on the porch. While smoking like a chimney. As I got to know her, she complained to me about the staff's attempts to get her to stop smoking. I will never forget the way, in a loud voice, she bellowed,
"They want me to stop smoking -- 'FOR MY HEALTH!' Honey, I'm NINETY SEVEN YEARS OLD!"
It struck me as cruel, ironic, and hilarious. She was full of life, sharp as a tack, and had lived longer than her "helpers" probably would.
So while I don't know what anybody's "secret" is, I found myself thinking that this defiant old girl might not have made it to 97 had she done as she was told.
The founders (some of whom grew tobacco) must be turning in their graves. This country was founded by people who did not do as they were told, for people who do not believe in doing as they are told.
I find it fascinating that the original Tea Party was a protest against government taxation and regulation of another plant substance, tea. Anyway, the question on my mind right now is a simple one:
Might tobacco be the new tea?
Since the founding of this country, tobacco has been a legal substance, and what today's rulers are doing is far, far worse than the tax which the British government tried to impose on tea.
A good case can be made that tobacco more than qualifies as the tea for today's rebels.
And if tobacco is the new tea, then what?
Is there a modern equivalent of tar and feathers?
posted by Eric on 08.20.10 at 12:49 PM
Comments
But you were so gracious when I asked if I could smoke in your presence. Back when it was legal in Illinois.
In my state I don't think you can smoke around other people in public, except in SOE (state owned enterprises) ie Casino's. The restaurants and bars can suffer, but the state needs the business. You can't run anybody out of town tarred and feathered. You obey or put on an orange jump-suit and get run into jail.
Brock SOE Toro · August 20, 2010 2:20 PM
That's the way it used to be; a question of manners. I don't mind people smoking (especially friends); I just don't like eating in smoke-filled rooms.
"Is there a modern equivalent of tar and feathers?"
Napalm.
guy · August 20, 2010 3:03 PM
The smoking ban is bad for business, but what of the cigarette tax increase? If injecting money into consumer spending stimulates the economy and creates jobs, does subtracting money out of consumer spending destroy jobs? What have the cigarette tax increases done to consumer spending?
Say 60m Americans smoke and the extra taxes cost them $10/week. That's $600m/week times 52 weeks for $31 billion dollars/year. That's money taken from consumers that might have bought other things. How many jobs have been lost as a result?
T M Colon · August 20, 2010 3:27 PM
"Is there a modern equivalent of tar and feathers?"
Why try to improve the classics?
I quite cigarettes, I now smoke little cigars. I don't smoke them in public because they're much smellier.
But I'm against non-smoking bars. That's all about the power and general busy-bodying.
As an aside, I worked in the North End in 1997. Every night was usually two people, maybe 3 or 4 on Friday, and we always split tips. All the waiters were pretty good, there were no slackers.
Saturday was ridiculous so there were usually 5 people and you kept your own tips.
Non-smoking was the suck-ass section. You got shitty tips by tourists getting the pasta with red sauce and water, maybe the house wine if they were splurging. Everybody else made around $200, you made less than $100.
Not that all the people in the regular section smoked, it was that they were far less uptight and were much more fun to wait on too.
Veeshir - I was a manager for Denny's years ago and it was the same way there: non-smokers were lousy tippers and demanding. I had to be very careful to schedule the misery equally among all the servers.
T M Colon - the high cigarette taxes in some localities has made me a criminal. Over the past several years, I've transported and sold numerous cartons in neighboring states with higher taxes. I don't make a profit... so I guess I'm a dumb criminal too.
"Is there a modern equivalent of tar and feathers?"
No, and that's the problem.
We've also forgotten the all important third step : Tar them, feather them, then Run Them Out of Town on a Rail.
Brett · August 21, 2010 10:15 AM
You seem to forget that all those servers, bartenders and musicians who were laid off and even those now earning less have been saved, saved, I say, from the second-hand smoke. Plus as a bonus they probably aren't over eating these days either.
Instead of tough love, it is toughsh__ love.
JKB · August 21, 2010 1:51 PM
sorry - cannibis beats tobacco here
Bill Johnson · August 21, 2010 3:37 PM
What makes this worse is that the statistics for "second-hand smoke" suck worse than for most "health studies". They went looking for a correlation and screwed around until they found one.
Most of the studies rely way too heavily on memories.
jorgxmckie · August 21, 2010 9:06 PM
I have to admit I'm torn on this issue... On the one hand, I believe the government shouldn't be able to tell business owners what they can and can't do with their business re: smoking. On the other hand, the smoking bans definitely have improved my quality of life--without them, I wouldn't be able to go to a bar or club, eat at a restaurant, or fly on an airplane without my hair and clothes smelling like someone else's optional recreational activity. I know, I know... if it matters to me that much, I don't have to go out to eat or travel to another country.
John S. · August 23, 2010 12:41 PM
John I think there is a major distinction between totally optional places like bars and restaurants (where no one has to go, and which vary according to the tastes of their owners and clientele), and public conveyances like airplanes, which are places we cannot avoid if we must travel long distances. In places where people have no choice but to be (especially when they involve travel), it is more reasonable to restrict smoking, and for that matter, even things like body odor!
However, I think banning smoking in privately owned establishments and clubs is an outrage.
I wanted to add one more thing. If bar and restaurant business is down through the summer where smokers can pop outside for a drag no problem, what will happen when winter comes around? Michigan winters can be mighty chilly.
T M Colon · August 24, 2010 3:37 PM
What also pisses me off in all of this is that the smoking nazis lied their asses off through all this. Politicians lie, who knew?
As anti-smoking legislation began making its way politically a few years back, the smoking nazis assured everyone that all they were interested in doing was creating smoke-free evironments in offices, terminals, shopping centers, etc. Bars, nightclubs, lounges, etc. would be left alone.
Did they leave them alone? No. Damn lying smoke nazis.
T M Colon: Not to worry, winter smokers in Michigan can count on Obamacare to treat their pneumonia.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
But you were so gracious when I asked if I could smoke in your presence. Back when it was legal in Illinois.