The Observation Deck

Did anyone see the letter to the editor from the employee of the Old Stand (a bar/restaurant on Madison, in case anyone doesn't know), stating that business has declined since they chose to uphold the smoking ban on Dec. 7?

I am wondering where all the people are who, with the passing of Issue 5, claimed that they would now start hitting the bars.

Any thoughts?

(Full disclosure: I have no interest in the Old Stand other than it is one of my favorite places to eat and drink.)

Went into a place today for lunch that we would have never tried previously with some new workmates. I chortled on the way in about how great it was that we could try this place now that the non-smoking ban was in place. Wasn't in the door 10 feet until we saw a guy at the bar smoking.......U-turn.

I am not taking a position pro or con for the smoking ban, but a lot of businesses will try to blame the ban for their business problems. I also think it is much too early to evaluate the repercussions, especially since many bars are not in compliance, such as the example in Jay Foran's post.

Doug

Only a little expertise here, but entertainment dollars (I include bars as entertainment) are notoriously static. The choice isn't between staying home and going to a bar or restaurant. It's between going to Bar"A" or Bar"B" or between going to a bar and going to a movie.
Smoking is just one of the variables, but I know very few people who didn't go out at all because of the smoke. Instead, they chose restaurants and bars with better ventilation, smaller smoking sections, or a clientele that generally smoked less.

With more places just enforcing the ban now, it's likely that the Old Stand's customers are now spread out, trying other places. "Hey, I liked that Melt place but couldn't stand the smoke last time. Let's go back there tonight." The dollars are probably churning more freely now.

Ultimately, some businesses may find that they do better with the smoking ban. I know that a few weeks prior to the election, my wife and I took her parents (from out of town) to the Rocky River Brewing Company, as her dad is a microbrew aficionado. Even though we were in the "nonsmoking" section, we still had to run the gauntlet from the front door, near the bar, which was engulfed in cigarette smoke. Then, even the nonsmoking section was slightly smoky as well.

We went back a couple of weeks after the election with my parents ... and lo and behold, it was smoke free. The bar area was crowded ... and no one was smoking. There was no "nonsmoking" section anymore because the whole place was nonsmoking, and there was no smell of cigarettes anymore.

We even stopped back right before Christmas to get a growler of their St. Festivus for my father-in-law, and the bar was JAMMED with people. And no one was smoking!

So it looks like the place wasn't hurting for business with the ban. People go to bars to drink, or if it's a tavern, to have good food, too. How many people go there solely to smoke? Sure, smoking often occurs hand-in-hand with drinking (and there were my days back in college when after a few pitchers, I'd light up a smoke, too), but I can't imagine the main reason people are going to the bars is to smoke.

If the beer is still cheap, the company still convivial, the game still on TV, and the appetizers still greasy and good, chances are the customers will still keep supporting their local watering hole.

Esther,
There didn't happen to be mention of a comparison to last year, was there? I suppose I could reason out that weekends in December would be slower than most with the holiday parties and get togethers at homes throughout the month. Are other bars in Lakewood busy these days?

I think what you are all smelling is the loss of our personal freedom and the fact those voters who pay attention and participate get to decide for everyone.

I look forward to the days ahead when I have to get on a scale to order cheese cake from Max's Deli. I am quite the drain on our health care systems.

No worries, I pay my premiums.

I am not a smoking advocate but I know that there are appropriate venues that I expect some smoking.

I was stunned that on election night when 5 was passing and 4 was failing, it was all the talk of the bar employees...only 1 out of 9 the employees at two different places had voted or even understood what was happening.

I think what you are all smelling is the loss of our personal freedom and the fact those voters who pay attention and participate get to decide for everyone.

For good or ill, you have just described our version of democracy in the US. It giveth and taketh away on the whims of the electorate. So we can't smoke in bars or restaurants and can't get married if we are gay. Sucks all around if you are a gay smoker who loves bars and wants to get married to his partner...in a bar...while smoking. And then adopt a child...in a restaurant...while smoking....with a gun in hand.

Counter question: when is the will of the majority okay and when is it tyranny of the majority? When are reasonable lines in the sand drawn to protect the majority of people from others and when is it too much?

When does personal freedom cross over into public responsibility towards fellow citizens? What are examples of good regulations that trump personal freedom (possible examples...public urination, taking a fresh-caught rabbit into Chipolte and slaughtering it on a table there and asking to have it cooked into your burrito, etc.)? What are bad examples?

Colleen

While Phil raises great points.

I have to admit I was mildly amused at my liberal elite brothers and sisters efforts to create a larger government to raise and distribute tax dollars on a product that they were also trying to limit its sales and uses.

It just seemed odd.

But I agree with Phil, at what point. A couple years ago I sat and watch the majority of Lakewood raise my taxes, because of my position of working in the city I live in. The majority, voted to raise the taxes of a few.

FWIW

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Colleen
I have to admit I was mildly amused at my liberal elite brothers and sisters efforts to create a larger government to raise and distribute tax dollars on a product that they were also trying to limit its sales and uses.

It is pretty much win-win, though. If people stop smoking because they can't do so at a bar or restaurant AND have to pay big bucks to continue, that is a win for people that want to see others become healthier (along with the rest of us who had to breath it). Win #1. If higher prices and less places didn't change people's routines, well, why not do something constructive with it and fund local arts. Win #2. Very Machiavellian, to be sure.

In this context "majority" is relative.

I refer to our electorate relative to the "world champions" in baseball. Basically, the trophy goes to whatever team beat them one more time than they beat us, not to mention the "World Series" meaning the NBL in the US and parts of Canadian, the world to some.

What I am getting at, is that in our last city election the voter turn out highest was 24% the lowest was 19% of Registered voters decided a lot of important city issues (that cost citizens a lot of money) as well as 3 representatives to council. So 24% of 60% of 55%=Majority

So the great debate...where does your personal freedom begin and end.

I guess for me it ends at my nose and begins at yours. At least in the case of public urination. That is a sanitation issue.

My favorite social debate is: You want to decide whether your baby lives or dies but not where it goes to school. (kind of like smoking during your gay marriage)

Colleen Wing wrote:In this context "majority" is relative.

I refer to our electorate relative to the "world champions" in baseball. Basically, the trophy goes to whatever team beat them one more time than they beat us, not to mention the "World Series" meaning the NBL in the US and parts of Canadian, the world to some.

What I am getting at, is that in our last city election the voter turn out highest was 24% the lowest was 19% of Registered voters decided a lot of important city issues (that cost citizens a lot of money) as well as 3 representatives to council. So 24% of 60% of 55%=Majority

So the great debate...where does your personal freedom begin and end.

I guess for me it ends at my nose and begins at yours. At least in the case of public urination. That is a sanitation issue.

My favorite social debate is: You want to decide whether your baby lives or dies but not where it goes to school. (kind of like smoking during your gay marriage)

Your points on what constitutes a 'majority' are good to a degree, but to be fair, EVERYONE has a chance to play ball in the electoral arena (if you are of age to register and do so, that is) but in MLB, you have to be invited. I am sure Japan or Cuba would love to field a team against our "world champions" but will they ever get the chance? Your neighbor who can vote but chooses not to is an entirely different thing. People who don't vote, for good or ill, are making a choice and that choice is to accept the will of the majority of the electorate who do vote (in trying to parse this last sentence, I have gone partially blind). They are saying they can live with either choice and will deal with whatever happens. Lazy? Maybe. Uninformed? Don't see that it matters one way or another? Sure to all of these, but it is a choice no matter what. Japan's best baseball team, however, will never get to play for our "World" Champion.

Your note on personal freedom is dead on, in my opinion. Which is why a smoking ban makes sense (smoke from Joe Camel lover's nose enters mine uninvited) but the slippery slope ban on fast food fatty-ness does not (your cheese cake choice enters your mouth but not mine ...and thanks a lot, now I want some fatty cheese cake...hmmm... ).


For fear of derailing an already skittering thread, I won't touch the last comment with a ten foot stick.

But open another thread and I will jump in with both feet.




Phil

Let me be clear...We GIVE it away, it isn't stolen. No victims here.

I will be happy to engage in a personal freedom debate but I think it will have to be in the Global Section and that area is a big downer. You all are sooo blue

Back on topic:

As a former Restaurant Manager, now until March is the slowest time of year for the Hospitality Industry.

This ban will only make people more creative and I predict a lot of private clubs and loophole rooms. Similar to how you have to order alcohol in Utah.

Shawn Juris wrote:Esther,
There didn't happen to be mention of a comparison to last year, was there? I suppose I could reason out that weekends in December would be slower than most with the holiday parties and get togethers at homes throughout the month. Are other bars in Lakewood busy these days?

Prior years' data was not in the letter, but the employee who wrote in works there regularly enough (she usually has our beers on the table for us before we sit down ) that she would probably be apt to notice a sizeable downturn in business regardless the time of year.

This was not meant to be a pro vs. anti-smoking post, I was just wondering everyone's thoughts. Mine are mostly in line with Colleen's.

As for other bars in Lakewood, not to sound like the Deck's lush-in-residence, but it's been weird lately. Some places packed, others dead.

I'll ride the freedom train with Colleen on this one. For me it's a matter of freedom and forbearance, letting a business decide its plan, respecting the individual in his her choices. It's a huge overreach by the state in my estimation.

Though smoke irritates me personally, especially in public places, I voted against both issues.

Speaking personally I don't quite care for the New Puritanism joined to cost benefit analysis putting such social stigmas on choices people make to gratify themselves. Such stigmas seem to add needlessly to the antagonisms, divisions and pressures in the body politic.

How blue does that make me, Colleen?

Kenneth Warren