Advertisement

Today's Front Page

Advertisement

Sports

Advertisement

Family

Advertisement
Advertisement

Business owners: Smoking ban is bad for business Print E-mail
Written by Ilene Olson   
Tuesday, 07 October 2008

While many support a proposed statewide law prohibiting smoking in public buildings, some local business owners say a smoking ban would affect their business and infringe on their rights.

“I don’t think that’s up to snuff,” said Mick Walker, who owns the Classic Lanes bowling alley. “I can’t see me losing a percentage of my business ... because somebody else is cleaning up the world.”

A joint committee of the Wyoming Legislature is debating the issue this fall and could forward a bill to the 2009 Legislature that would ban smoking in buildings statewide.

Walker said prohibiting smoking at the bowling alley could cost him 20 percent of his income, and he already struggles to get a portion of the limited money locals are able to spend on recreation.

“What I would lose in revenue with smokers I’m not going to gain back in (revenue from) nonsmokers,” he said. “I’ve owned this business for 45 years. Now I’ve got people, who’ve never set foot in my door, telling me who I can allow in my business... That’s a violation of my rights, as far as I’m concerned. People should be able to make their own choice.”

Shelly Harvey, manager of the Eagles Lodge in Powell, said she also disagrees with the proposal.

“I don’t think it should be legislated whether you can smoke or not,” Harvey said.

A smoking ban would hurt business at the lodge. She has heard customers talking against the proposed ban, and she believes it would be a deterrent that would keep some customers away, she said.

Since the lodge is a private club, Harvey said she doesn’t think a smoking ban should apply there.

“I think it should be voted by the club,” she said. “That should be an option.”

She noted that the Eagles Lodge has good smoke filters that help reduce the amount of smoke in the air.

Aaron Rustad manager of Joey’s Martini Bar, said the proposal “doesn’t bother me too much.”

While smoking is allowed at the bar at night after dinner hours are over, “there’s no smoking while my kitchen’s open,” he said.

Some customers would object to a smoking ban, and a ban probably would hurt some businesses, Rustad said.

“At the same point, a lot of other states around us are doing it, so I feel it’s just a matter of time,” he said.

Rustad said he’s heard that business dropped off significantly for some bars and restaurants in cities that enacted smoking bans, but that it picked up gradually afterward. But he has no information to back that up, he added.

Diane Miller, manager of the American Legion in Powell, said many customers like to smoke at the bar there.

“Most nonsmokers sit in another area where it’s not so bad,” she added.

Miller said the legion also uses smoke filters to reduce smoke in the air, and smoking is prohibited in the hall where bingo and other public functions take place.

“We have (customers) that don’t smoke, and we have ones that do. We try to accommodate everybody.”

Miller also said a smoking ban should not apply to private clubs such as American Legion.

Marlene Gallagher, owner of Hansel and Gretel’s, said customers there like things just like they are.

“We have half smoking, half non-smoking,” with each side in a different building, she said. “Customers ... say we’re not being prejudiced against those who do smoke. They very much like it the way it is.”

But if a smoking ban were put in place, it should be done at the state level and not by cities or counties, she said.

“It should be everyone statewide if they’re going to do it,” she said. “I just think it has to be one way or the other. If we say we want to make Wyoming people healthier, that’s what we need.”

Comments
Add New
Bob 2008-10-07 09:30:22

What they really "need" to do is kick these professional lobbyists out
of town. They are getting paid through tax exempt political action committes
(PACS, or charities, whichever you prefer) supported by Johnson and Johnson to
increase cessation product sales. They have absolutly NO concern about local
health or business matters. Like the old "snake oil salesmen", they get
their bans and run. They will settle for NO exemptions. Here's their instruction
book.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
Bob 2008-10-07 09:34:58

It's difficult to sell a bar after a ban is imposed. Bar owners thinking of
selling to retire will get a big shock when no one wants to buy the business.
These ban zealots never bought a place to make smoke free. That's why they want
to force others to go smoke free.
Government power the real health hazard
Thomas Laprade 2008-10-07 19:57:55

(Ed note: Reformatted to save space.)

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now
steamrolling across the nation - from sea to sea - has nothing to do with
protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand"
smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat;
a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout
the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This
cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government
power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a
phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the
potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they
seize the power of government and force people to make the "right"
decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health,
the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that
only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private
places:
restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners
are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere
if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places
where their effect on others is obviously negligible, such as outdoor public
parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a
question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own
assessment of
the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make
regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to
befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get
married or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have
demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval
from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He
must be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this
freedom is under attack. Cigarette smokers are a numerical minority, practicing
a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has
simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their
behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at
those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion
of government into our lives.

We do not elect officials to control
and manipulate our behaviour.


Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Non-Smoker Opposes Smoking Ban
Danno 2008-10-08 06:48:42

I am a non-smoker. I am against this intrusion. I can walk away from smokers.
They can walk away from me.
For Smoking Ban
Dave 2008-10-08 13:09:21

I myself stay away from businesses like classic lanes in Powell, and all of the
bars except Joey's (before 9 o'clock) because the smoke makes me ill, and I have
many friends who are part of the "bar crowd" and many who are smokers,
and are also IN favor of the ban! They do it Laramie, and it hasn't seemed to
affect their establishments to dramatically, being that they are still there.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
:D:):(:0:shock:
:confused:8):lol::x:P
:oops::cry::evil::twisted::roll:
:wink::!::?::idea::arrow:

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 
< Prev   Next >

Weekly Poll

What are your 2009 resolutions?
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
© 2009 Powell Tribune
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.