What if bars/restaurants advertised themselves as smoker-friendly?

[Bryan316]

Okay, so the whole damn world will be smoke-free soon, of course. As a non-smoker, makes me just peachy keen.

But for the smokers... what if bars advertised themselves as smoker-friendly? Not in defiance of new laws, but just the opposite? Kinda like how some restaurants/bars now advertise themselves as smoke-free to draw in patrons? I've enjoyed visiting a totally smoke-free pub recently, what if they just allowed places to be smoking-allowed buildings? Hey, you don't like the smoke, don't go, right? Same as telling smokers, if you don't like the non-smoke don't go.

Is this at least reasonable to compromise for the smokers?

[Son of Sanford]

Originally Posted by Bryan316

Okay, so the whole damn world will be smoke-free soon, of course. As a non-smoker, makes me just peachy keen.

But for the smokers... what if bars advertised themselves as smoker-friendly? Not in defiance of new laws, but just the opposite? Kinda like how some restaurants/bars now advertise themselves as smoke-free to draw in patrons? I've enjoyed visiting a totally smoke-free pub recently, what if they just allowed places to be smoking-allowed buildings? Hey, you don't like the smoke, don't go, right? Same as telling smokers, if you don't like the non-smoke don't go.

Is this at least reasonable to compromise for the smokers?

That should be a resonable middle of the road for everyone.

[Fontaine]

in newfoundland they are smoke free.

[Phalex]

This is a courtesy that is only extended to non-smokers. You can have smoke free establishments under the old laws, but under the new more enlightened laws the choice will be eliminated "for the greater good".

They call that fair.

[EricF]

There are two bars (of the neighborhood dive variety) near where I live that are "smoker-friendly". They have the mandated no smoking signs, but it's common knowledge - by patrons and police - that smoking is tolerated. If you don't like the smoke, there are plenty of other choices.

[jomahu]

from what i remember about our smoking ban, you can smoke in MA bars/clubs, but only if the place gets the majority of its revenue from smoke. i'm assuming that's cigar bars or whatever.
of course, in regular bars, it's a moot point.

i do wonder about how well smoke-allowed bars would go over...especially where there's live music. is the smoking population that huge? well, apart from college towns like boston...

[vbsurfer3001]

It's not about the patrons, it's a about the employees. That's why the restaurant/bar smoking bans are absolute. Equal employment opportunity laws.

[HollowBassman]

I think topics like this(and just about every lobby thread) could be resolved much easier if everyone distanced themselves from the "us vs them" mentality. It seems that people want to "win" the discussion, instead of just sharing their views.

[bongomania]

In San Francisco they went non-smoking several years ago, with the loophole that owner-operated businesses with under a certain number of employees could have smoking. So under that model, lots of bars do advertise themselves as smoking-friendly.

[Phalex]

Originally Posted by HollowBassman

I think topics like this(and just about every lobby thread) could be resolved much easier if everyone distanced themselves from the "us vs them" mentality. It seems that people want to "win" the discussion, instead of just sharing their views.

You're never going to win with an attitude like that!

[Tsal]

I'd rather have all the places smoke-free. The reason is, every time you go to the town with a bunch of friends, all the smokers want to go to certain pubs where smoking is allowed, and all the non-smokers want to go to the smoke-free places, because everyone in those places is smoking all the time just because they can! In smoke-free pubs, you can just step outside for a smoke - the local joints are even setting up covered smoking terraces and patios with heaters et al for wintertime.

[dancehallclasher]

Originally Posted by vbsurfer3001

It's not about the patrons, it's a about the employees. That's why the restaurant/bar smoking bans are absolute. Equal employment opportunity laws.

Yep, there's some game theory thrown in too. If all club owners WANT to be smoke-free, but know that their business will suffer if they're the first one to do it, nobody's going to do it.

[bluestarbass]

I think most martini bars would be considered smoker friendly. We have a few nicer bars in town that are martini/cigar bars.

[EricF]

Originally Posted by dancehallclasher

Yep, there's some game theory thrown in too. If all club owners WANT to be smoke-free, but know that their business will suffer if they're the first one to do it, nobody's going to do it.

When California instituted an indoor smoking ban years ago, that was a common argument. However, the reality was that the clubs did not suffer a loss of business. The percentage of smokers is pretty low, and people tend not to be militant about needing to smoke where ever they are. Smokers will step outside, have their smoke, and come right back to drinking. Many places cater to them by creating an outside area that is still part of the club and they can take their drink with them.

[Mark Latimour]

Reality is that if places advertise as being "smoker friendly" in an otherwise "non-smoking" town, chances are, unless there are only a handful of them, they will go out of business.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Bryan316

But for the smokers... what if bars advertised themselves as smoker-friendly?

At this point, they'd essentially be advertising to 80% or more of their potential customers "Don't come here, smells like an ashtray." They'd have to live on business from the 20% or less of the population that still smokes. Of course, when you look at bar trade, the percentage of potential customers who smoke probably skews significantly higher than the general population....so the potential trade would probably be 30% or more of the population.

Still doesn't make any sense to me from a business owner point of view.

[Rodent]

as one with smoke allergies, I definitely abstain from businesses where smoking is permitted.

hey - people are able to abstain from smoking on a 12 hour trans-Pacific flight (well most of them anyway, the others have found interesting ways to tamper with the smoke detectors) so why can't they abstain on a two hour meal?


all the best,

R

[Geoff St. Germaine]

Originally Posted by EricF

When California instituted an indoor smoking ban years ago, that was a common argument. However, the reality was that the clubs did not suffer a loss of business. The percentage of smokers is pretty low, and people tend not to be militant about needing to smoke where ever they are. Smokers will step outside, have their smoke, and come right back to drinking. Many places cater to them by creating an outside area that is still part of the club and they can take their drink with them.

You're making a different argument. Dancehallclasher's argument is one in which there is no smoking ban. You're right though, a lot of businesses did claim that they would lose money with a smoking ban in place. I don't know how much that actually happened. From what I saw where I lived there was 0 change in the number of people at the clubs as they weren't going there primarily to smoke.

[ADbassman]

From what I've seen in Columbia, business have no suffered at all from the ban, and in some cases have actually profitted. Personally, I would avoid any place at advertised itself as smoker friendly.

[davetakis]

there are bars/restaurants here in atlanta that if they allow smoking you have be 18 or older to enter. no families allowed. they are the ones that are raking in a profit. the family friendly restaurants are hurting pretty bad here