No smoking

[xarir]

I just got back from a club. It's the first time in a while (arguably too long in fact) that I've been in a club. Arrived around 9:30 and stayed until midnight. The place was agreeably full when we got there but got packed as the night progressed. Somewhere around 11:00 I went to the bar and had to wait a bit before getting served.

But as I was in there, and again as I walked out, I was thinking to myself how nice it was to be in there and not smell like a cigarette. Judging by the number of bodies in there (many of them very fine bodies I might add) I can't see that the no smoking bylaw has hurt them in any way. And as I left, there was a vague scent of cig smoke in the air but it's not like there were crowds of smokers puffing away.

So based on a very non-scientific sampling of one night in one club, I'd have to say the anti-smoking bylaw works quite nicely.

What are your experiences so far?

 

[Talerion]

I just got back from a club. It's the first time in a while (arguably too long in fact) that I've been in a club. Arrived around 9:30 and stayed until midnight. The place was agreeably full when we got there but got packed as the night progressed. Somewhere around 11:00 I went to the bar and had to wait a bit before getting served.

But as I was in there, and again as I walked out, I was thinking to myself how nice it was to be in there and not smell like a cigarette. Judging by the number of bodies in there (many of them very fine bodies I might add) I can't see that the no smoking bylaw has hurt them in any way. And as I left, there was a vague scent of cig smoke in the air but it's not like there were crowds of smokers puffing away.

So based on a very non-scientific sampling of one night in one club, I'd have to say the anti-smoking bylaw works quite nicely.

What are your experiences so far?

I don't think we have enough data yet to see the end result yet. I drove past a bar this evening and noticed that even though it was raining somewhat a number of people remained on the patio getting wet. It struck me as odd until I realized they were smokers who chose to brave the rain rather than give up their drinking and smoking.

The timing of enacting the law was clearly done to coincide with the patio season. No doubt on one hand to point out to the owners, "see your revenue isn't down that much" and also to allow a mitigation phase where some may chose to stop smoking. We really won't know until the weather gets cold as to the real effect.

Anecodotally it seems as if smokers are more likely to be regulars at bars than non-smokers. So in theory that should hurt. Then again years ago the donut shops were places where people met to smoke and when that stopped it didn't seem to herald their end.

I suspect when the smoke clears, <pun alert>, that even the majority of smokers will accept the new reality.


T.

 

[The Fruity Hare]

A number of my friends are musicians and the no-smoking has definitely made a negative impact on quite a few establishments where they play. Due to a lack of patios, these businesses have lost customers and are in the process of reducing costs any way they can, which directly affects my friends who are being downsized or cut completely.

 

[tboy]

And not to start a flame war but while the smoking ban at donut shops didn't "herald the demise..." it did affect the businesses. Where I used to work in etobicoke there were 3 places I went to at lunch so I could grab a bit, then have a couple of smokes and read the paper at lunch time. Within 3 months of the smoking ban these 3 places went out of business.

Now I'm not saying that this will be the same everywhere, but there/were about 6 or 7 coffeshops in the area. Now there are 3...what does that tell you?

The last time they tried this (and while my percentage may be off, the numbers were dramatic) bars and restaurants noticed a 60% drop in business. Many closed their doors.

Even as a smoker, I agree the clouds of 2nd hand smoke were horrible in some places. But this is due to poor ventilation not just the volume of smokers. I think the option of being a non smoking or a smoking club should be left up to the bar owners. We already have too much government in our lives....

 

[brat_man_7]

xarir. I couldn't agree more with you.
I live in a community just West of Toronto and we've had no smoking for several years now. Before the no smoking ban if I went to a night club, when I came home I would have to take my clothes off in the garage and take a shower before going to bed, because of the awful smoke smell.

I have two friends in the restaurant business, and initially they too complained and had fears of going under. But the complaining has stopped, they are still supporting their families and buying expensive toys. So I'd have to guess that you can survive.

I don't think that smokers should see this as a war between the smokers and non smokers. I personally have many friends that smoke and choose their friendship because they are great people.
At the same time I value my health above all. And not to keep bringing this up, but it has been proven over and over that smoking does kill or will make you sick at some point. If I have this information why would I continue to put myself in harms way.


Cheers

 

[pineappleguy]

As a member of the non-smoking community, I agree with xarir. It is great to be able to go to a club and be able to come home without having to wash up and try to get the smell of cigarette smoke out of my hair before I get home.

As to the perceived loss of business, I think there may be other factors contributing. The local economy could certainly be better. The perception of increased time and effort to cross the border has got to be impacting the number of people coming over from the US. While the smoking ban is probably a contributing factor, it may be an oversimplification to put all the blame there.

 

[gala]

"smokers are more likely to be regulars in bars than non-smokers"

Yeah well that's true for one main reason: Smokers drove everyone else away by smoking! I quit going to bars because of the smoke.

I think it'll take awhile for the people who were driven out to return, but eventually the huge majority who don't smoke will start coming back. People aren't going to change their habits in one week or one month, but within three or four years I think the historical effects will disappear.

 

[TheNiteHwk]

Just quit...

Sadly I think it’s true that some places will go under because of the non-smoking by-laws. Then again who is to say there are not other factors that may have contribute to the demise of these places. Maybe the non-smoking by-law was just the last straw. So I guess what I am saying is they are not going out of business solely because of the non-smoking by-law. Case in point my landlady owns a small bar and grill in The Annex area of Toronto. While business for her was already a bit slow however survivable; a dramatic raise in rent or some other costs could have caused her to choose to close shop. I talked to her about this the other night. She shared with me that she has lost a lot of her nighttime drinking crowd because of the smoking situation but that has been offset a little by a slight increase in family business during the day. Families with kids who never came in before will come now to eat. For her though this just means more work. Before she could make more money on beer sales and more generous tips from the night crowd and not have to do all that cooking and cleaning. Also profit from food sales (markup) is not nearly as much as beer or drinks. For now she chooses to stay open but if there are any large enough raises in costs that she cannot pass on by raising prices then she may choose to close. Since I am paying ½ her mortgage by renting out ½ of her house though… she is not much worried (lol).

That aside… As far as second hand smoke etc goes… even as a smoker I want to say I’m all for it. Sure it’s a bit inconvenient to have to step outside instead of sitting and enjoying a leisurely smoke with the newspaper after eating (especially breakfast) but one gets use to it. The smell of second hand smoke, the sting in the eyes some times and all those dirty ashtrays all the time did bother me (yes even as a smoker) before. Also one point I noticed at Suzie’s place the other morning is that you can actually see more clearly. That haze in the air that we never really noticed before (visually) simply cause it was always there is gone. And who knows maybe they (law makers) are doing me a favor. I may choose in the winter time when I will no longer want to step outside to smoke to simply quit. Now there is a thought… why not just quit smoking?

 

[The Fruity Hare]

Businesses that go under because of no smoking rules were never in good shape to begin with. In the case of a neighbourhood with 6 or 7 donut shops 3 closing is just survival of the fittest.

Strip clubs on the other hand have been facing a massive decline in business for two reasons. One the high costs ($20 laps plus vip and high drink fees) and two the competition from the massage parlours. Massage parlours for the most part have pretty much always been non smoking but I dont hear smokers bitching that they cant have a smoke in there.

So to blame the failure on non smoking laws is pure horse shit. It's all about survival of the fittest.

Sheik, I'm not sure if that last sentence was meant to be tongue in cheek, but if not, you can't compare an MP with any other service industry. Who needs a smoke while you are face down on a table, or face deep somewhere else.

In the case of businesses that go under, they may now have families eating in the establishment, but it often means more work for less money. A number of years ago when I was bartending, we had two events on consecutive nights. The first night was a regular crowd, the second was non-smoking consisting of similar numbers. The smokers outspent the non-smokers by more than 3-1, as the non-smokers were almost all drinking water or soft drinks(healthy lifestyle and all) It was obviously such a wash in the sales department that the party organizer returned the next day to give me a cheque to make up for the almost non income night.

Some bar owners may see a slight rise in non-smokers visiting their establishments, but as someone mentioned, pubs and bars don't generally make their profits off the food so the numbers may be deceptive.

 

[tboy]

Well sheik, you may have a point where it is "the survival of the fittest" but that can be applied to any industry where you remove 25% of your market through bi-laws.

Imagine what would happen to car dealerships if the MTO ever wizens up and limits the number of vehicles to 1 per household? They'd fold like an anoexic hooker being punched in the gut by her 500 lb pimp.

I will repeat, it should be voluntary by the various owners to make their place of business smoking, non-smoking, restricted to 18 yrs or older, serve just beer, or wine and beer, or whatever. Just as it is their choice what kind of food to serve, the owners should be allowed to freely choose their customers.

 

[gypsy]

I will repeat, it should be voluntary by the various owners to make their place of business smoking, non-smoking, restricted to 18 yrs or older, serve just beer, or wine and beer, or whatever. Just as it is their choice what kind of food to serve, the owners should be allowed to freely choose their customers.

I agree, it is free enterprise. If there was a demand for non-smoking bars there would have been at least one in Toronto before this ban.

You cannot make an argument that it is good or will have no effect on business. Just look at the empty strip clubs with no patios, that will be what many bars in the winter will look like. Of course the strong will survive, but thousands of businesses will be ruined in Toronto since they tailored their operations towards smoking customers (which, last time I checked, are people too).

 

[AsheBlonde]

Sometimes the greater good is the issue, not free enterprise or economics. Occasionally the right of the whole supercedes the right of the individual, which is true with the smoking ban.

We should be looking at the longer term effects - lower health costs, fewer kids emulating parents, better life experience, and, of course, encouraging people to stop smoking.

100 years ago people had spittoons at their feet in the bar for their chewing tobacco. Hopefully 100 years from now people will view cigarette smoke as distasteful as we all do spitting.

 

[tboy]

While I agree with you Ms Blonde that the good of the whole is oft more important than the individual but in this case we're talking about a large percentage of the population. based on your argument above it is better for society in general for more people to be on unemployment and welfare than working? as long as it is for the "common good"?

Last time I checked tobacco was a legal substance sold over the counter to anyone over the age of 18. If it is such a detriment to society then it should be made illegal but the powers that be won't do that due to the revenue it generates.

BTW I still stand by my argument that there are a lot more deaths and health costs associated with motorized vehicle emissions than tobacco use.

 

[taylortime]

For me it's a choice thing. If you smoke you should have the choice of going to a bar that allows smoking. If you don't smoke you should have the same choice. Untill the Gov't attacks the (health issues caused by) air quality on the city streets they should relax a bit on cutting off the freedom of choice of people who chose to smoke. We've been lucky this year with little humidity, but the smog days are here.
Taylor

 

[Pallydin]

First, the issue of smoking bylaws rarely have anything to do with restricting the choice of customers so much as protecting the health of the workers in these places. Ever since that woman in BC won a WSIB claim for lung ailments caused by second-hand smoke in a bar, it has become a huge liability issue for the system. And before you say bar workers understand the risks and should be entitled to take them, the law clearly states that individuals are not allowed to do so while being employed (jus as factory workers are required by law to wear certain safety equipment for their jobs). As such, if bars want to povide free drinks with "volunteers" filling orders, they can try to turn the tide with a legal challenge. They also could've pushed for an exemption for businesses that use high volume air replacement systems that flush out toxic air for fresh air but those are expensive to maintain so it becomes a matter of bars whining because they don't want to properly invest (as other industries are forced to to scrub emissions). I know of instances where such clauses were offered and rejected by bar associations to prevent the perception they were not doing enough to ensure the health of their patrons. Of course, I personally favour waitresss simply walking around with respirators and gas masks but I'm weird. The fact still remains that this is a workplace safety issue more than a public health issue.

As a side note, the levels of toxic emmisions are significantly higher in a cigarette smoke filled room than from highway vehicle emissions in common air due to the confined space, so the health effects are greater in the recently outlawed smoking establishments.

PAL

 

[tboy]

Pal: that WSIB verdict was overturned as the judge ignored basic issues pertaining to the laws that were supposedly broken. I didn't end up hearing what happened afterwards but the initial finding was thrown out.

Secondly I would like to see where you stats are in regards to your statement "toxic emissions are significantly higher in a cigarette smoke filled room..." Have you ever stood at king and bay at rush hour? There was a study done by a professor at I of T and he did a sampling of the air downtown during peak traffic hours. This study was brought about by his noticing of all the ppl who jogged etc. downtown during their lunch hour.

His findings indicated that running for 10 minutes in that environment was equal to smoking 10 packs of cigarettes. NOT a day, in 10 MINUTES. The root cause of this was the condensed nature of the pollutants and the increase in resparation that comes with running. If you want to search for it this was done in the mid 90's and was printed in the Toronto Sun.


It has become extremely popular to bash smoking these days and no matter who states what arguments, vehicle emissions are 1000 times more lethal than any amount of smokers. Just from the total volume a subcompact car puts out in a minute. ANyone who disputes this I invite them to do an experiment and I will partake: We will lock outselves into a sealed garage. I will chain smoke cigarettes for 1 hour. Then I will lock you in the same garage with any subcompact car, in proper tune, and let it run at idle. I can guarantee you that you will be coming out feet first with the car, and you will walk out after me smoking for an hour.

DOH

Oh Yeah Gypsy: There were hundreds of places you could go where smoking was banned: basically all indoor public venues!

 

[gypsy]

Oh Yeah Gypsy: There were hundreds of places you could go where smoking was banned: basically all indoor public venues!

Thats a good point. I have taken informal surveys among non-smoking bartenders and waitors at a number of Toronto establishments recently affected by this ban and they are feeling the pain of not being able to make their rent payments or put food on their table.
'
We are talking about thousands of Torontonians shamefully stepped on by the anti-smoking propagandists.

Wasn't the anti's argument that this would benefit hospitality workers? Who is this ban protecting?

We all know that smokers drink more and tip more, and are generally less uptight and make for a more enjoyable bar atmosphere.

It is pretty ironic the number of antis on this forum who scream of health risks and dangers caused by smoking yet those are the same people that do reviews raving about giving daty to an SP, something I laugh about with my friends when we talk about terb and the associated health risks of this hobby.

 

[Pallydin]

ANyone who disputes this I invite them to do an experiment and I will partake: We will lock outselves into a sealed garage. I will chain smoke cigarettes for 1 hour. Then I will lock you in the same garage with any subcompact car, in proper tune, and let it run at idle. I can guarantee you that you will be coming out feet first with the car, and you will walk out after me smoking for an hour.

We've had this discussion at least once before and your junk experiment still fails to be *anywhere* near scientific. The only reason the smoke wins out in your scenario above is because there is a lesser volume. If you were to pump in an *equal* volume of second-hand smoke and vehicle emissions, both would be carried out in body bags after an hour. This is the reality of the dangers of second-hand smoke and the fact is that while most people are exposed to vehicle emissions while extremely diluted in the vastness of the atmosphere, the confined nature of the exposure to second-hand smoke still makes it far more lethal for the vast majority.

PAL

 

[AsheBlonde]

Tobacco is a legal substance. So are cars and alcohol. All three contribute to the premature deaths of thousands of Cdns. each year. So, what is the role of Government in all this? I think it is to gently move society through coercive means (taxation or negative legislation) to what everyone agrees is better for the longer term health and safety of its citizens.

Hey, all the bars are not going to go out of business. The strong will survive and even prosper. The fact that smokers may be better tippers is irrelevant. The ban protects workers, customers, and the public's taxes from a needless and controllable expenditure -- cancer and cancer treatment.

Have you ever spoke with someone who died/is dying from smoke related cancer? I've never met one who thought smoking was a good idea.

And Tboy, if you are going to be so formal, please address me as MR. Asheblonde. LOL

 

[xarir]

The bars & restaurants in San Francisco & Vancouver have been non-smoking for a long time and there's no shortage of supply in either city. Now admittedly, both cities have a temperate climate and a somewhat different view on lifestle than us Easterners do. But even Ireland banned smoking in pubs; I would have thought that Europeans would have protested louder and more vehemently than us North Americans did when it came to smoking & drinking.

Time will tell if this no smoking bylaw was the right thing to do. As a non smoker, I'm loving it! But I predict that in the future, we'll all be living in a city that has lots of bars and restaurants and clubs and they'll all still be smoke-free, just as we have cars with airbags and seatbelts today.