I know. It's not right. Why do THEY get a free ride?
And i KNOW that people will go there to drink knowing that they can light up when they want.
If EVERY place had the ban, then at LEAST it would be fair and equal. And as i'm sure you know, alot of people that sit at bars also smoke.
So if they have a choice of going to their local pub, or drive a few miles to a casino so that they can endulge their other habit, what do you think they will do?
If you don't think that will affect small business owners, your kidding yourself.
I don't like to be around smoking, but "big brother" has his hand in EVERYTHING we do now adays.
In Wisconsin you can legally drive a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, but if you are in a car and not wearing a seatbelt, you get a ticket. What kind of sense does that make??? If you are on a motorcycle and get in an accident, you have alot more of a chance of getting killed with no helmet. In a car, at least you are enclosed in something, not out in the open.
Government is getting WAY too big.
Leave seat belts and smoking up to the individual.
JMO
"Cheesey" wrote:
It does negatively impact a lot of bar and restaurant owners. Everyone of those that could reasonable apply for a waiver did so. I have talked to several about it, along with the bartenders that have seen their tips go down in a major way.
Has to do with the customers they have always sought and many times built their business to cater to. Mom and dad with the kids don't get schnockered at the bar and tip good. They are frugal. They love the ban.
Many of the bars and restaurants here KNOW they are not eligible due to the # of employees and beverage/food ratios, but have spent tens of thousand of dollars just to separate the bar area from the food in order to be able to continue with the smoking section while they wait to have their application DENIED. They KNOW it will be denied, but because of the back log, as long as they meet the aforementioned conditions, they can still allow the smokers in while it is pending. The fact that they did that speaks volumes about the impact of a smoking ban in areas where a significantly larger percentage of the population still smokes comparative to other areas. (Such as central PA.)
There are demographics at play here also. More affluent, urbane and urban type settings are less likely to get creamed than joe six-pack bluecollarville.
A waiver was granted here in PA for the casinos also. I've been there. No one smokes in it. It is more of that upscale demographic I spoke of. They could have banned smoking in there with no impact, imo.
All the waivers that were granted here were seen initially as "unfair" and the whole "should have banned everywhere" argument ran hot and heavy.
Hasn't turned out that way, except for those bar owners and bar tenders that used to heavily cater to a regular crowd at their larger, upscale-type bar. Those drunks have moved on to smokier pastures, and it DOES impact their bottom line rather badly. Fortunately, because they are "big" enough, they have been able to absorb the loss. This is why the mom and pop bars got exemptions. They cater to the "regular crowd" that they have had for years, and those guys would have just gone to the American Legion.
NO WAY the legislature here could ban smoking in them. This state is loaded with veterans that smoke, and they vote pretty much en block on stuff, and that was an issue.
As big a cluster-fuck as it looks like on the outside, and as big of one everyone thought it would be here---it fit this state to a "T".
You can pretty much tell where smoking is allowed by how seedy the bar looks from the street. If it looks like a dive, you can smoke there. Mom and dad and the kids were not going in there in the first place.