The March 2007 issue of "Central Illinois Business" has an article titled "Profits up in Smoke: Ban has dramatic effect on C-U bars." Owners of Rock's, Tumble Inn, Blind Pig, Esquire, Office II, and Melody Music are cited in this article.
A few highlights:
-Business at Rock's has slowed considerably, and they're wondering where the all of the non-smokers are who promised to come out after the ban.
-The Tumble Inn reports that their recently added patio (described in the article as a "smoking haven") is indeed helping them to retain their customer base. They've seen no influx of new, non-smoking customers.
-Esquire anticipates a reduction in its current staff of 32 employees if the decline they've been experiencing continues for another month.
-Office II is reporting a significant decrease in sales since the ban went into effect.
-The owner of the Blind Pig expects people will adapt to the ban over time, but notes that smaller bars tend to lack the resources to weather long spells of reduced income. Depending on how long the market takes to adjust, he anticipates that some of these smaller bars may have to close their doors.
-Melody Music (supplier of jukeboxes, video games, and pool tables) reports a notable decline in bar business in C-U but that "business in bars in Savoy, Tolono, Rantoul, Philo and Mahomet has dramatically increased."
I'm sorry I don't have a link to share, but all I have is a hard copy of the article.
QOM:
Thanks for the data -- we tend to argue over the perceived financial impact of the ban, but this is the first time I have seen something even approaching quantitative.
Have you seen a similar effect on your bar? I like Memphis on Main, by the way. I'm not a regular but I do try to show up if I like the band, and I would dispute anyone's ridiculous claim that the atmosphere isn't friendly.
The increased business in outlying communities would be expected, and I guess I'm happy for them, but their success comes at someone else's expense. My own observations have been far more subjective, but I'll tell you what I see in my part of Champaign: moticeably fewer cars in the parking lots at Pia's, Office II, Huber's etc.
I really hadn't noticed a big difference in crowd size in the downtown bars, but that's not exactly a scientific measurement.
For you and for the other bar owners in C-U (a small number of whom I count as friends), I hope the effects of the ban lessen over time. I'm afraid the ban is here to stay -- I just hope the next targets aren't the outside smoking areas, but I'm not holding my breath...
Promoted to the front page.
Whoa. Thanks, IP! *blushing*
"Have you seen a similar effect on your bar?"
Yes, I found myself nodding in agreement throughout the article. Our experiences echo many of those the bars in the article reported. We're not devastated by this ban, but it hurts.
"I really hadn't noticed a big difference in crowd size in the downtown bars, but that's not exactly a scientific measurement."
And it's quite possible that most of the other downtown bars aren't getting hit as hard. We do serve a little different niche than most downtown establishments, and I really don't have much of a grasp on the patterns of their regular clientele.
But it makes me think of an anecdote of my own: Superbowl Sunday, my husband and I drove past Pia's at halftime, and I noticed quite a few empty parking spaces. I considered that they did have quite a few cars there, so to the casual observer, it would probably look like the bar was hopping. But to those who know Pia's to be the quintessential "townie" sports bar, available parking spaces on Superbowl Sunday was a very sad sign.
It's nice to meet someone else who has been to Memphis on Main, by the way. I hope you'll come up and introduce yourself next time.
Since it seems that most of the smoking ban related stories revolve around bar business, I decided to ask friends who own restaurants In C-U how the ban has effected their business, very un-scientific, I just ask them off the record, friend to friend, what's changed. In each instance, the restaurant has seen increased business. But the thing that has been most beneficial to the restaurant is not having to deal with smoking/non-smoking sections - its much easier and faster for patrons to be seated without part of the restaurant being unacceptable to a majority of restaurant goers.
As a patron of restaurants and bars, both before and after the ban, the biggest thing I've noticed is that I can go home after having a beer and my wife doesn't smell the smoke on my clothes.
Rocks? Tumble Inn? Pias? Esquire? These are not Creative Class bars - these are townie bars!
In the City Council's "Big Plan" it is probably better if bars like these go out of business. 28 year old software designers who listen to Indie Rock and buy their clothes at thrift stores do not like townies, or smoking.
If you want to blame someone for the "growing pains" of transition from a downtown for everyone to a downtown for the select few, you might start by looking at the developers. The smoking ban is in effect because the folks on the Council have bought the lie that changing their downtown to be more attractive for the Creative Class will result in a vibrant (read: you and I are not there) downtown flush with willing condo owners and street artists.
In other words, it's all part of the plan. My suggestion? Start booking local indie bands into the Memphis, and stock lots of PBR. It might be the only way you'll survive.
Sorry.
PBR? Is that what the hip creative class is drinking these days?
(If you stick with something long enough, it will eventually come back in style
)
QOM-
"-Business at Rock's has slowed considerably, and they're wondering where the all of the non-smokers are who promised to come out after the ban."
You mean customers like Cheri Manrique who you chided for not buying alcohol and accused of being a spy? Yeah, it is no wonder why non-smokers arent turning out in droves....
One thing I've noticed is that bars with good food service have tons of little kids. I rarely saw kids in any of these bars before the smoking ban.
Is this good or bad? I guess you could argue both ways. It's probably not going to help the bars a whole lot, though, since kids don't spend much at bars and their parents don't drink as much when they are with kids.
"...Thanks for the data -- we tend to argue over the perceived financial impact of the ban, but this is the first time I have seen something even approaching quantitative..."
Things like "notable decline" and "slowed considerably" are NOT data. I would like to see numbers. I had a conversation with a bartender that told me that from the last Friday without the ban to the first Friday of the ban had a lunch time difference in sales of $7.
I would like to hear/see more numbers.
And does anybody remember that February was pretty cold and snowy??? I think people stayed in...
All of you smoking ban supporters should fess up,,,,,,,you always counter strike with the same stuff. Just admit that you want to see these business's go broke.
"The same stuff" -- you mean logic? That stuff?
Logic woudl be nice "stuff" for a change,,,,not A bartender told me,,,,or if you had not picked on poor Cheri then the none smokers would show up in droves. And of course the old weather was bad ploy,,,,it would be nice to see it reversed just to see the increase in grief for the "Committee", of course the state will probably make it state wide soon,,,but we could have some fun in the meantime.
Sorry about my previous spelling, a nice puff of cigar smoke wafted up into my eyes while I was typing.
""The same stuff" -- you mean logic? That stuff?"
Sorry, Wenalway - there's just no way that the nanny-staters have logic on their side.
Their key argument was: None of those greedy, profit-grubbing business owners will capitalize on the vast majority of us who demand non-smoking businesses, so we need a new law to force them!
Some chick drinking soda and taking up a 4-top table by herself *isn't* bringing the business any money.
Nice try, though....
The non-smoking crowd had no intention of ever comming into the bars, Just some more of the few making policy for the rest! You Indie music crowd stay at your main street bars and keep out of Tumble Inn, Rocks ,Hubers, Esquire, Where REAL people drink and hang out ! You think your so hip. This is just a hick town in the middle of no-where. Youg punks drinking PBR? Give me a break!!!!
Hey!!! another thing, How about ALL of you Anonymous hit and run posters use some kind of screen name so we know which idiot we are talking to?
Mr. Creative Class ??? Who do you think you are?? I am a townie and have been all my life. Who do you think is bank rolling all this city council money? Not you buying my old clothes at some 2nd. hand dump because you don't make enough money at your software gig to buy new stuff. Why don't you and the beret and sun glass crowd pack up move on. Guys like me have been drinking at bars like Tumble Inn and Esquire before your Mom and Dad got out of grade school, and paying property taxes and working at real jobs! PBR, My Irish Ass!
"Hey!!! another thing, How about ALL of you Anonymous hit and run posters use some kind of screen name so we know which idiot we are talking to?"
How about no more pointless name-calling?
Gregg, I am definitely not "creative class" and I drink PBR (or Miller Lite, or Hamm's, or . . . )
If we're going to argue this way, let's at least define some terms:
Real people at the aforementioned bars = People who enjoy paying $20 each night for lousy bar food and overpriced drinks, along with the occasional drunken brawl.
Working at "real jobs" in C-U = Laboring at the same industries that lag 25 to 30 years behind the times.
I do get sort of a laugh, though, envisioning the same software designer who strives for "reality" in the latest violence-filled game leaving work a few minutes early to hit the Goodwill store.
Wow, this is a conversation not worth having. Is it possible to get more than a handful of comments which deal with the issues at hand and not just stereotyping and vilifying the other point-of-view.
Some things I believe:
1. Bar owners are basically hard-working business owners.
2. Blue collar folks don't deserve to be mocked for working.
3. There are good public health reasons to ban smoking, and people who believe in those reasons who do empathize with the first two groups.
4. There are people who just don't like smoke who are trying to impose their will on others.
5. There are people who use the term "nanny-state" who are more than happy to regulate people's person lives in other ways.
Now some of the tougher ones:
6. Some people may genuinely believe that businesses that subsist primarily on alcohol, tobacco and gambling in certain quantity will adversely affect a community.
7. Small business is a volatile profession, and minor environmental changes will drive some out of business if they cannot adjust.
8. Government should take care in changing the business environment for this very reason. But sometimes it may be necessary. "It's hard to change" in itself is not a good defense of the status quo (not just in bar related situations).
If it were true that this hurt some bars, would that be all the reason that is necessary to return to dirty air?
I suspect the regulation put in place regarding asbestos hurt some industries, but we didn't keep using asbestos just to protect that industry. When the Surgeon General agrees with the common sense principal that tobacco smoke is harmful regard which end of the cigarette it wafted out of, then its time for folks to adjust behavior, even if it hurts some businesses. The extent to which it has hurt some businesses is just possibly being exaggerated.
Do you think that the future "plans" by Esquire to lay off help might coincide with the imminent opening of a bigger, better, newer bar a few doors to the east by rival bar owner Carlos Nieto, who not surprisingly, has been completely silent about the ban. Whenever change impacts an industry some get left behind and some figure it out. Look at what the energy crisis of 1974 did to the Detroit automakers.
Tumble Inn has figured it out, as have the campus bars, all of which are thriving and their owners have all withdrawn from the debate. Carlos Nieto has figured it out and is building a new bar. Radio Maria figured it out and built a new bar. North Prospect's national retailers have figured it out and are thriving. Giovanti's on campus figured it out and built a new bar in the basement.
Not one bar in Champaign or Urbana has closed in the 45 days (Urbana 75 days) since this went into effect. If that's too soon to tell, then it’s to soon to tell what the impact has been.
But a handful of the "woe is me" crowd may become the self-inflicted-wound casualties of this change.
John, I too used to drink PBR, This creative bunch acts like "They" have just discovered PBR. I meant no personal attack on you. Greg
"8. Government should take care in changing the business environment for this very reason. But sometimes it may be necessary."
I think most here would agree with that. I think many here would also argue that this is not how the smoking ban was "sold" to the council.
Would things have gone down differently if the Alliance had come forward with this more honest argument:
Can we clarify what is meant by the term "creative class" rather than throwing it around as a distinctly negative label? Here's how Richard Florida, who pioneered the entire concept (maybe a few of you have actually heard of him) defines it:
"...technological creatives, in research and development; entrepreneurs; cultural creatives in film, music, entertainment and architecture; and people in knowledge jobs such as law, finance and health care. When you add them up, they make up about 30 per cent of the population."
Like it or not, this includes an awful lot of people you know -- people you call your friends and drink with, whether it's at the Tumble Inn or Esquire OR Boltini or Cowboy Monkey. A WHOLE lot of people I know are equally comfortable in just about any bar downtown, whether those people are blue collar or teachers, health care professionals, business owners, musicians, bankers or lawyers.
Look around the next time you're out at one of your favorite bars and take note of the diversity in the crowd. As for the things you can't determine on sight, I assure you there are rich and poor and Reps and Dems and gays and lesbians and straights and Christians and Muslims and atheists in any number of typical local bar crowds.
I think the term "creative class" has been used inaccurately to mean little more than latte-drinking, Salvation Army-wearing, emo-listening, late model import-driving, non-smoking, ultra liberal software engineers. By stereotyping and thereby reducing the number of people you think qualify for the label, it makes it easier to argue that this segment of our population can be ignored.
Of course more "creative class" people are welcome here. Being a lifelong resident, and not so creative myself, I just have a difficult time understanding why given a choice of so many beautiful, alive and happening places, more would choose Champaign Illinois as their dream destination. On Tom Bruno's site he mentions there are 500 attorneys licensed to practice law in Champaign County. We have had our fair share of world class artists, photographers,,,even few Noble Laureates thrown into the mix. The view from downtown Champaign in any direction is not exactly my idea of inspirational, I already stated that I am a simple person. So there is the real possibility that I just do not get the whole thing due to a lack of creative gray matter. I do know that building some fancy buildings and a parking garage in downtown Champaign will benefit a few people, failure or success, and that it will do practically nothing for the remainer of us. Once all this gets going the city will not be able to allow it to fail no matter anyway, good money always seems to chase after bad. Do we really need 500 lawyers in this county? Maybe we do, I did not know there was that much legal work to do with such a relatively small population. Tom might be right though,,,,we might as well be a little Chicago, we seem to be getting their style of politics down here, say alot,,,,,tax alot, spend alot, and do nothing of substance.
In the last week, I've been to Bill Baroos, Guido's (twice), Boltini (twice), Tumble Inn (3 times), Esquire, Rock's and Brothers on campus. The common thread between all? They were packed! And waking up the next morning not smelling of smoke makes it much easier to deal with a hangover. My eyes and throat don't burn...the whole situation really is great. If there was a decline in business, it seemed like it's coming from no longer reeping ridiculous profits from selling $10 packs of cigarettes.
Brief report from the front lines:
Good night last night. The "usual suspects" were out in full force, and we were pleasantly surprised to see a nice group of University students join in on the fun, too. We don't usually draw from that group, but they blended nicely and they added a fresh twist to our primarily "boomer" atmosphere.
My ribs are sore this morning from all the hugs that were shared, and I can't count how many times I heard "I love you guys," and "We're here for you. We'll make this work." Karaoke night and a few folks made me stay a little longer so we could all sing "I Love This Bar." Had tears in my eyes on the drive home. Yeah, I'm really that sappy. :)
"If there was a decline in business, it seemed like it's coming from no longer reeping ridiculous profits from selling $10 packs of cigarettes."
Bars are still allowed to sell cigarettes, and they are usually $5/pack. The state excise tax is .98/pack, which totaled $650,028,000 in revenue for the state of Illinois in 2005. In addition, Illinois cities and counties collected $180,112,278 in excise taxes, plus another 6.25% in sales tax on cigarette sales. The retailer's gross profit on a pack of smokes is about $.30. The state of Illinois' profit is about $1.50. Are there any smoking ban zealots who are brave enough to suggest that cigarettes be banned altogether? All the smug people sitting at home content in the fact that they are saving people from themselves, are actually on the side of killing the golden goose. How would Illinois make up for over $1/2 billion dollar deficit? What would happen to the smoking ban proponent's entitlement programs? Roads? Schools? Any suggestions?
Oh, and I have been in Tumble Inn, Esquire, and Memphis on Main several times recently (actually more than several times :). I have never seen any bar "packed." Last night (Thursday) the Tumble was unusually busy at 5 PM. I'd say out of 40 people, 25 were in the smoking patio area. The rest were inside, and some of those were smokers. I have seen the Esquire very busy on weekend nights. I have also seen it quite empty during the week. Bars can usually count on weekend business. It's during the week that matters. In talking to the owners of bars, a few have seen some new faces, but not nearly enough to make up for the former regular who drank 2-3 beers on their way home from work who doesn't stop as often. These people are either in a hurry to get home to light up, or going to Savoy. Campus bars are always packed, smoking is not a factor.
"And waking up the next morning not smelling of smoke makes it much easier to deal with a hangover." Have anyone ever suggested to you that you may not want to drink that much? You need your liver as much as your lungs, ya know.
Smokers first, you next.
Probably depends on how one defines "packed."
In my vocabulary, when a bar is turning people away at the door (or getting close enough to be doing a "let's make sure" count), that's packed, no question. If it's easy to count the bodies, then it's definitely not packed. If it's somewhere in the middle, it's just a good crowd.
I do get sort of a laugh, though, envisioning the same software designer who strives for "reality" in the latest violence-filled game leaving work a few minutes early to hit the Goodwill store.
Hey, I'm a geek too, and Goodwill can be a great source of cheap used books. It's like $1 for hardcovers and maybe $.50 for paperbacks.
The question I've been dying to ask: does being a blogger (aka "Internet Entrepreneur") make me part of the Creative Class?
;-)
IP, you're scaring me now.
Wandervogel:
It's nearly impossible to do anything of substance here unless you're part of the hapless status quo defender community. There is the never-ending resistance from the "We've always done it this way" crowd.
Remember how long buildings sat and crumbled in downtown Champaign? It took years and years for that pattern to fall by the wayside.
I would bet 75 to 80 percent of the people think the solution is to hope for a factory or some sort of high-paying, blue-collar work smacking of the 1950s will swing back through C-U. It ain't gonna happen.
This community should be a lot farther along in developing high-tech jobs. Instead, we have screwball employers who either binge and purge hundreds of workers every couple of years or who breeze into town from the coast once every six months or so.
I don't know if they go to the bars, though. I'd tend to think not. Yet another reason to ride them out of town on a rail. Maybe we can go back to glass milk bottles left outside the door at 5 a.m., Styrofoam food containers and those pull-tab, non-recyclable soda cans. Those were the good, old days.
ACK! A HSQD from wenalway without a non-sequitur is just not right. Time for another wenalway comic strip. This one could be:
Wenalway is transported to 1953, and applies for a job at Meadow Gold.
1. He stands in front of the hiring guy who asks, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"
2. Wenalway stares at the hiring guy.
3. Hiring guy says. "Well?"
4. BAM!!!!
5. Hiring guy laying on floor. Wenalway says, "Don't you ever wake me up at 5 A. M. with your clanking glass bottles again, bitch!"
Smokers first, you next.
Don't get "WenalWay Man"-happy. The comics are reserved for periods of aggravated and repeated wenalwayness. A single wenalwayish comment here or there isn't worthy of its own strip.
Don't want to cheapen the value of such a fun form of mockery...
...although just the thought of "WenalWay Man vs. his Archenemy, CPT Creative Class" certainly is appealing...
...although just the thought of "WenalWay Man vs. his Archenemy, CPT Creative Class" certainly is appealing...
Ooh. Food for thought:
The setting: Cafe Kopi on a Saturday morning. Sitting at a table near the window is Wenalway. Ipod headphones dangling from his ears, Arcade Fire's "Neon Bible" blasting into his brain, he stares into his shiny laptop computer, undoubtedly checking stock prices on his internet startup investments. A copy of "Wired" sits next to him on the table as he carefully sips his decaf-caramel-skim-latte, enjoying all that the Creative Class lifestyle has to offer.
In the distance we see Captain Creative Class, who seems a bit upset. But what could be amiss on such a fine morning, you ask?
CCC: "No, I just want a plain coffee."
Barista: "We have Columbian Hazelnut Vanilla, Ecuadoran Organic Mocha, or Kenyan Cinnamon Bun Bun"
CCC: "Right, but do you have any coffee flavored coffee? You know ... coffee?" He sighs to himself, "I could be at Boomerang right now."
Behind the Captain a 24 year old girl who stayed in town to work at the Video Game Company rolls her eyes and wonders to herself, "Why does this always happen to me? I could be in Chicago right now."
Wenalway turns "Neon Bible" up a little louder.
LOL, its funnier reading people come up with their own ideas for WWM than it is to actually do the strip!
You folks have no idea what the definition of Creative Class is, as defined by the originator of the term Dr. Richard Florida. A proctologist is a member of the Creative Class. A bookkeeper is a member of the Creative Class. A policeman is a member of the Creative Class. A speech pathologist is a member of the Creative Class. It has also been defined by Tom Friedman as "knowledge workers".
It has to do with people who add value to the economy by using their brain, not folks who are necessarily "artisitic". Before you misuse the term again, you should read about it.
From Wikipedia:
The creative class is composed of scientists and engineers, university professors, poets and architects, to name a few. Their designs are widely transferable and useful on a broad scale, as with products that are sold and used on a wide scale. Another sector of the creative class includes those positions which are knowledge intensive. These careers usually require a high degree of formal education. Examples of this sector are health professionals and business management.
I think the Tumble Inn is in violation of the indoor smoking ordinance if they are currently allowing smoking on their new patio. Clearly it has been substantially enclosed. I know of one other downtown bar owner who intends to file a formal complaint. Drive by and take a look.
From Chapter 16-6 of the municiapal code:
Enclosed spaces means all space in any structure, or portion thereof, located between a floor and ceiling that is substantially totally enclosed on all sides by walls, windows, doorways or combinations thereof that extend from the floor to the ceiling.
Maybe the Tumble Inn could have the Chief dance in the enclosed patio.
If they refuse to allow the Chiefs to dance in their space, in my infinite legal experience, I'm quite sure that would have a strong case for a lawsuit.
You folks have no idea what the definition of Creative Class is ...
Au contraire! The Creative Class is a fictional class of people designed by Florida to push urban economic development. The theory states quite clearly that a town willing to invest in Indie Rock bars, street artists, loft condos, and basic gentrification can somehow develop an economy that is based on knowledge workers.
Yes, you heard correctly. Instead of developing a business environment friendly to start-up businesses (you know, cheap rents that kind of thing) Florida advocates using bars and condos as a lure to these workers who apparently need to be catered to if you want them to stick around. Magically the appearance of these workers will lure the businesses to your town and *poof* you'll have a vibrant economic machine.
Sound too simple? It is! But nonetheless you can see the effects of this bogus theory in our own urban planning. Up go the condos! Down goes the cheap rents. Away go the occasional homeless guys, in come the Indie Rock bands!
Is it working? I really have no idea. But it sure is fun to make fun of these folks who embrace this theory so strongly. It has given my friends and I hours of genuine giggles.
But here's my question: how come we don't have a 24 hour sushi bar in this town? How the HELL can we expect to have any economic development around here without a 24 hour sushi bar? What if a hip worker from a hip business wants some hip food at 3:00 a.m.? Without the sushi bar they might consider (*gasp*) moving to CHICAGO!
That kind of thing. It keeps us in stiches!
They could have the sushi bar, but it would have to be seasonal to match the witty environs of the high-tech employers here.
Sometimes there would be a sign that says: Binge. That would mean high employment and time to eat raw fish. Other times there would be a sign that says: Purge. The doors would have to close for a while.
Another pair of signs would read In From Coast and Back At Coast. On the In From Coast days, the sushi bar would close, as everyone would be busybusybusy showing how busy they are. On the Back At Coast days, it's business at usual.
American Sushi=Mercury
American Sushi=Mercury
so much for the secret plan to deal with the "creative class" ;)
Nice :)
All this talk about the Creative Class keeps floating around my noggin...
If we take the definition based on what folks do for a living, I'm right in the middle of them on two counts: knowledge worker and entrepreneur. That I'm a computer geek probably includes me, in any case. In fact, I will dare to venture a guess that most, if not all, of us here on IP.com meet that "how you make your living" definition of Creative Class. Which makes the question of attracting us to this city moot.
If, on the other hand, we take the definition that includes such things as latte drinking, Indie rock, artists' lofts, street musicians, and a heavy reliance on public transportation--are you all sitting down now? That cliched imagery pretty well describes me and the folks I hung out with in Seattle in the span from 1982-93. I've changed my style of dress and general lifestyle habits considerably since moving to Champaign, but I never rejected that span of my life; in fact, I have extremely fond memories of those days. I loved my funky little one-room flat overlooking the cut between Lake Washington and Puget Sound. I miss the street musicians whose guitar cases I'd gladly toss a buck into while passing through the gauntlet of homeless "spare changers." I may have cut my hair and sent my Madras-print skirts off to Goodwill years ago, but my coffee of choice is still a "double short mocha hold the cream."
I really loved those days. But if Captain Creative Class is right in that it's this second definition that some in our city are working with and claiming that it's a demographic we must attract in order to be progressive, calling it sensible economics that if "they" come, more vibrant businesses will follow... forgive my bluntness, but they're out of their everlovin' minds.
For one, you don't attract truly creative souls through sameness. That's an oxymoron that shouldn't need any further explanation. As soon as we start to say, "Folks who are really creative like X, Y, and Z," the most creative folks are going to rankle and reject whatever we're building on their behalf. "Another fern bar? How very ordinary. High-rent lofts? Too pretentious. Quaint coffee shop with open mic? Been there done that... But I sure could make a way cool apartment for myself in that abandoned train station!"
For another, what do folks think all those cool and "hip" folks actually do to pay the rent? A street artist can make a decent living in Key West. But in an economy driven by anything except tourism, most street artists are out on the street only because they can't get indoor gigs. When they're not hanging out making city streets more "colorful," they're working as waiters and bartenders, store clerks and line workers, office staff and cable monkeys. And the reason "they" live where they do is because there are relatively stable jobs to be had in the midst of a strong (and diverse) enough population where they can make a little money on the side by following their respective passions.
Creativity can't be scripted.
End of rant. ;)
I agree entirely. Furthermore, there is too much of a tracking and typing of people going on in many of those definitions.
If there's not enough creativity and art in a community (and honestly, there's never enough), then it's time to ask "Why aren't working-class people doing this?" and "What can we do to help them?"
It is absolutely vital to a community (and not just artistically, but politically and socially as well) that people don't just come home from their factory, or restaurant/tavern, or classroom, or courtroom, and turn off their brains, hearts and minds. The health of a community depends on people having enough energy, thought power and emotional spark to live and create outside of the workplace.
I think we need to take on this idea that there are artists and there are non-artists--that is the source of the problems.
Actually, I think trying to have just one type of person is too limiting. Why can't any community have several? In fact, a vibrant community NEEDS all different types of people, and that's a big part of what Florida says. Captain Creative Class reduces Florida's thesis and argument to its most narrow. Yes, you need to attract latte-drinking, indie-listening (and how clever of CCC to know EXACTLY what song and band to cite!). But you also need regular-coffee drinking, regular-rock listening folk. And soccer moms. And factory workers. And old folk. And yes, even Captain Creative
Class to make fun of all the others (which, in itself, is creative.)
Queen of Memphis has it correct about creative folk. But a City needs to be open to them, and I'm not sure Champaign has been in the past.
Queen of Memphis has it correct about creative folk. But a City needs to be open to them, and I'm not sure Champaign has been in the past.
Not true at all. This town has historically been very open to art, and some great artists (visual, literary, musical) have grown and thrived in this place over the last 40 years. In fact, I would say that the revival of downtown has actually had the reverse effect. It is an attempt to commodify something that dies as soon as it becomes a commodity: creativity.
The real problem underneath the Creative Class theory is that there are a small group of people making a large sum of money off the situation. Yes they want street artists like you might find on Capitol Hill in Seattle, but they sure don't have any interest in slicing off any of their profits to help those artists survive. In fact, most artists are by their very nature poor. Where is one of these poor street artists going to live in downtown Champaign? Is there a movement to create an artist co-op down there that I am not aware of? I doubt it.
No, this is all a load of crap designed to create wealth for a select number of investors. Give me some weirdo artists to create "street cred" but make them go away as soon as they create that "homeless person" vibe (after all, we have golfers sipping martinis over here!). Give me some hipster rock bands, but make them go away as soon as they are done creating our atmosphere, usually when the receipts are being counted at the end of the night.
It's all a nicely packaged game, playing out in the shadows of taxpayer financed condos that will reep windfalls for the investors. I would prefer it if these folks would just wear their intentions on their sleeves, and stop pretending they are creating a hip new universe for all of us. It's about the money. Can't we leave it at that and stop trying to pretend it's about creativity? Please?
It is about creativity, though. Creative solutions.
For example, that empty Lox, Stock & Bagel building would make a fine flophouse for street artistes.
And when they get people into the condos, then they can build a network of sky tunnels so these people never have to go outside. They can go straight from their building to the sushi bar (provided it's open; see above for restrictions).
Just to keep the tunnels up to tradition, they could flood whenever there's a heavy rain, and then they'd be like the fine system of viaducts here. And every so often, a too-tall semi could become wedged beneath one of the tunnels.
Also, someone could find a way to pipe in the fine smell of the Kraft plant. Mmmmmm!
Painting, pottery, graphic design, stained glass, music--oh yeah, lots of musicians--and then there's a couple of us who think we can write a little....
Oh! Sorry to make you wait. I was just sitting here reflecting a bit, trying to take inventory of the artistic endeavors pursued by some of our regular customers at Memphis On Main.
So here we have a little bar that attracts some pretty darned creative folks. And then I hear about this Creative Class theory; and it's been suggested that we don't fit in with the contemporary vision of city growth and development and that we really need to change our ways of doing business and the clientele we target so as to be more attractive to creative individuals.
Not totally sure about this, but I think I just saw a naked emperor stroll by...
From Captain Creative Class: "It's all a nicely packaged game, playing out in the shadows of taxpayer financed condos that will reep windfalls for the investors. I would prefer it if these folks would just wear their intentions on their sleeves, and stop pretending they are creating a hip new universe for all of us. It's about the money. "
Well of COURSE it's about the money. That's precisely Florida's point. As manufacturing jobs decline or move to India or China, and fewer farmers are required to produce the same amount of food, some sort of economic engine has to replace our traditional economic powerhouses. His thesis is that cities that have revitalized and done well have replaced it with knowledge-based industries. And yes, the "select few" will prosper - if by select few you mean "The University of Illiniois" which is investing heavily in the South Research park in order to KEEP their nascent knowledge industries in town (iCyt, Riverglass); and the "City of Champaign" - ie: all of us - which has invested heavily in Campustown and Downtown, again with the goal of retaining.
Frm Queen of Memphis: "It's been suggested that we don't fit in with the contemporary vision of city growth and development and that we really need to change our ways of doing business and the clientele we target so as to be more attractive to creative individuals."
Only by Captain Creative Class.
"Only by Captain Creative Class."
Actually not... The notion that bars like ours are somehow backwards and therefore a hinderance to the city's healthy growth is something that's been put forward on a couple of smoking ban-related threads here. A few (not many, but a few) have expressed the notion that it's just as well the "townie bars" are being hurt so much by the ban. That if we don't step up and change how we do things so that we can attract a different kind of customer than the ones we already have, we deserve to go down.
I think a city really does need all kinds of people and all kinds of places to go in order to be vibrant, and I think that people's preferred amusements and creative directions aren't determined by the kind of work they do. It looks to me as if a cluster of folks are using (and to my understanding, misusing) Florida's work in an effort to reduce the diversity of establishments in our city. They want to get rid of the places where people aren't quite so refined, where the clothes we wear aren't quite trendy enough and most of the music we listen to has been around for a decade or five.
And if they're successful, we'll wind up losing some of the very places where our most creative minds gather together.
"Where is one of these poor street artists going to live in downtown Champaign? Is there a movement to create an artist co-op down there that I am not aware of? I doubt it."
C3, you have brought up a number of interesting points, but you're wrong about this one...there is, in fact, a move to build such a resource at the northern end of the big News-Gazette parking lot. If you're willing to pay the N-G to look up articles in their archives, go for it. A Wisconsin developer with a lot of experience in this area was awarded the bid.
Now, two considerations: 1. Will this development have a sliding rent scale that will actually reach all the way down to the "poor street artists?" 2. How do the local developers feel about this? If they have taken the time to estimate the number of rental units they can sustain in the downtown area, doesn't this throw all their math out of whack?
Organizations such as Artspace have done this very successfully, but mostly in much larger communities. I'll be very interested in seeing how this works out.
just a heads up. a lady really takes off after Varble in todays N-G letters to the editor over the smoking ban.
You know what this community really needs? A pancake house. I think it should be near the corner of State and Kirby.
"You know what this community really needs? A pancake house. I think it should be near the corner of State and Kirby."
Cosign.
Perhaps this much-needed pancake house should even display Chief Illiniwek memorabilia? :-)
And two ash trays at every table,,,,,,,good coffee:)
There's a smoking ban poll at Channel 3's http://www.illinoishomepage.net. I'm not sure what to make of it except to say it's another badly structured poll.
Question 1: Well, which is it? Restaurants or bars or both equally? How often is more?
Question 2: If this is accurate, the cities are losing a substantial amount of revenue.
Question 3: These would probably be smokers.
Question 3: Has it changed how long you stay there?
This poll should have differentiated between people going to bars, and people going to restaurants. Although from the number of positives to #1, I'd bet someone is clearing their browser cookies and voting multiple times. In any event, it's a bad poll to get a real read from.
Interesting analysis from you, Eggs. How fortunate that a poll which doesn't prove your point turns out to be so poorly done and badly structured.
It would have been real embarrassing if the poll had proven the points you like to make and then you had to eat crow and post something here pointing out that the poll which supported your position was so poorly done and badly structured.
Please offer a counterpoint to my view rather than just a criticism of my opinion. And please explain to me how it *is* well structured.
Eggs-
Whether or not the poll is structured well is not a topic I will address with you, but I would like to know what basis you have for the following quote:
"Although from the number of positives to #1, I'd bet someone is clearing their browser cookies and voting multiple times."
Let me restate your quote this way to truly get the idea of how baseless it is...
Although from the number of positives to #2, I'd bet someone is clearing their browser cookies and voting multiple times.
I'm looking at it from my experience. If 41% more people go out, I just have not seen nearly that proportion of new faces in the bars I frequent. I have also been to all the bars in Savoy and I *have* seen famiiar faces at those places.
I'm also basing my opinion on the hysterical tactics of the CPPFT in the past. Now instead of convoluting this discussion, please give me your reasons why this poll is well structured. OK, MV?
Look, let's accept that the poll design would not hold up to a minute's critique from the Gallup or Harris or Zogby folks, OK?
Now, as to the possibility of vote stuffing via cooking clearing, scripts, or any of a number of methods, this possibility applies equally across all 4 questions unless you want to argue the relative web-savviness if the smoking vs. anti-smoking forces.
Finally, even with its established unscientific basis, I find the poll interesting because if you add up the numbers, what you get is about a 2 to 1 ratio of those who either go out more or have been unaffected by the ban vs. those who go out less or go elsewhere.
So how do you see these numbers? Are you happy that the poll shows almost 2/3 of the respondents seem to see the ban as either positive or neutral, or does it bother you that more than a third report changing their habits as a result, with the presumed effect being a loss of revenue to CU establishments.
As long as we understand that this data is anecdotal in a number of ways, I still think the discussion could be interesting.
must we rely on anecdotal evidence? does the city get sales tax data, broken down? If I was on the city council, I would want to dig as deep as I could into some numbers to see if it was hurting city receipts.
If the city doesn't have access, maybe the bar owners could layout the info.
eggs-
Please see my comment stamped 8:24 for my thoughts about this poll, and IP can confirm that I am not MV. Nice try at a personal attack though. That is always the safe way to go when you dont have facts to substantiate your claims.
I have trouble giving credence to one person's (your) experiences in the bars that they (you) frequent at any given time. Is it possible that you werent in every bar and restaurant at all times and therefore dont really have any idea about the overall trend in new customers? I would answer yes. I would also not claim that there is new business, which makes me very unlike the CPPFT because I am not here to promote a cause, just to expose your hypocrisy. If you were to post actual figures from actual bars and restaurants going back over time and we were able to scrutinize them and figure in other factors as a group, then we might be moving forward in this discussion, otherwise you are the one just convoluting the discussion with baseless statements and personal opinions dressed up as facts.
Anonymous 9:24 AM is not MV.
That said, It'd be easier to have a discussion with you if you'd use a screen name other than "anonymous."
Granted IP, thank you.
"Granted IP, thank you."
But not heeded. :-)
At least not yet.
It's an interesting poll.
Granted, it's self-selecting, it makes no distinction between restaurants and bars, and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the numbers might be a little different if the two were split out. It doesn't address time or money spent. And it allows for only one choice. E.g., I know some folks who are staying home more, going out of town more often when they do go out, yet still come around to the old "haunts" too--just not as regularly. I'm pretty sure the questions have not been tested for validity and reliability; these kinds of polls don't usually get that kind of careful treatment. So it's not at all scientific and I would hope no one would use this (or any other casual survey) as hard evidence. But it's interesting.
A friend of mine passed this link along to me: http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm Says she sent it to Urbana City Council and was told they couldn't use it because it wasn't scientific data. This is also a slanted and self-selecting survey (it shows only losses, not gains), but I think the sheer number of bars reporting gives the report some credence. At least as much as the illinoishomepage.net poll.
C-U bars are collecting data as we speak. Our own circumstance is a little different than most because we were just getting started a year ago, so year-to-year comparisons aren't valid. But our growth curve was so remarkably consistent for that first year that we feel we will have something tangible and valid to work with and contribute to the discussion. E.g., we recently paid our February sales tax. We paid roughly 30% less in taxes to the City in February than we did in January. That is a dramatically larger change between months than we had ever experienced to date. Our biggest drop prior to Feb 2007 was just under 5% and we were generally seeing a 10-20% increase in sales each month. Since the smoking ban is the one major variable that has changed since we opened our doors, I don't think we're unreasonable to assume that is the most likely cause of the drop.
QOM:
"We paid roughly 30% less in taxes to the City in February than we did in January." If data like this remains consistent, it's pretty significant (as it is to your bottom line, I'm sure.)
However, wasn't the extreme weather another "major variable" in February?
Pretty significant, indeed. That's why I'm holding off on booking new band dates for awhile. I've told our bands we're not going to stop live music (that's a major aspect of our "brand," after all) and that we should be able to honor all commitments already on the calendar. But for future bookings, we might be looking at something different than every Friday and Saturday of every weekend. We need to watch the numbers for awhile longer to really get a good grip on what we're working with now.
"However, wasn't the extreme weather another "major variable" in February?"
The blizzard certainly had an impact for a couple of days. Parking was pretty ugly there for a brief spell. But the Saturday following the big snow we had decent parking again, and that night found a whole lot of our regulars at Radmaker's. So the weather itself wasn't keeping them home, and the roads weren't bad enough to keep them from driving. Quite a few told us they'd planned to come to MOM's that night for the second half of the evening but were so darned comfy with their ashtrays in front of them they decided to stay in Tolono.
What I kept hearing about the weather was that our folks don't mind going out in it to get somewhere, but that having to trot back outside into the cold every 20-30 minutes was a "major drag" and that's why they weren't coming out so much. Which made the weather more of a variable than it was before the ban... And given that it was winter when we first opened up and started tapping into the patterns of our customers, I'm pretty confident that a few days of totally foul weather wasn't enough to account for that dramatic a drop in sales.
The warmer weather will certainly help some, as it's not quite so unpleasant to step outside now. Though extreme heat will again cause people to want to stay indoors, so that'll be another puzzle to face. We do have a few outdoor tables, but we have license for only 18 people to sit and drink outside, and that's a pretty small number. It's a time of great uncertainty for us, and we're just praying we don't wind up losing everything we've invested in our "baby."
Quit your crying and diversify like everyone else. You sell entertainment along with food and liquor. Your business was not selling cigarettes as your main staple. Bring in the entertainment, serve reasonble priced food and drinks, and they will come. Stop serving whine and cheese!
I am a non-smoker, enjoyed going out last weekend to the downtown bars, but frankly, to do it more frequently is just to expensive. Bar owners need to readjust their business model. The smart ones will easily survive.
I have trouble giving credence to one person's (your) experiences in the bars that they (you) frequent at any given time. Is it possible that you werent in every bar and restaurant at all times and therefore dont really have any idea about the overall trend in new customers?
I keep my ear pretty close to the ground and I personally know at least six bar owners. I don't know who you are, or how close to this issue you have been or are. I will say, as I have in the past, that it is not a level playing field. Each bar is individual, with unique clientele. The percentage of smokers in bars ranges from 20% to 90%. A smoking ban hurts the 20% bar much less than the 90% bar. And it hurts very few restaurants, unless they cater to a coffee and cigarettes crowd. I have heard the arguments about the weather impacting sales. The poll seems to contradict that argument.
I believe the tale of the tape will be the figures from Melody Music. But then again, the weather...
Sorry about the MV reference, I was just going by the old saying, "If it walks like a duck... etc."
Now we are getting somewhere.
QOM- If I may ask a follow up question. What was the percentage change in the same taxes paid from Nov 06 to Dec 06 and then from Dec 06 to Jan 06, if you are willing to share that information.
I am a non-smoker, enjoyed going out last weekend to the downtown bars, but frankly, to do it more frequently is just to expensive. Bar owners need to readjust their business model. The smart ones will easily survive.
So what's your idea of a good new business model?
Eggs-
How many of those 6 bar owners would be willing to share their financials from over the past 2 years or so for a neutral groupthink analyzing. And by analyzing I mean actually looking at the trends and the ups and downs over long periods of time, not just saying that the weather contributed, or that 20% of this bar smokes and 90% of that bar smokes. We have a lot of very knowledgeable people here and I am sure that actual data would really fire a debate that could actually make a difference. This data already exists in the form of sales tax receipts correct?
ps- I am not the anon from 12:09.
Bar owners need to readjust their business model. The smart ones will easily survive.
Yeah, that is so easy to say when it is not your money on the line. What compassion!
"QOM- If I may ask a follow up question. What was the percentage change in the same taxes paid from Nov 06 to Dec 06 and then from Dec 06 to Jan 06, if you are willing to share that information."
I don't have the books in front of me to give accurate numbers there, so I hesitate to even hazard a guess. I'm just generally aware of the trends and the fact that our accountant was shocked by the dip in our February figures.
Another thing to consider is that Dec sales are going to be inflated (or should be) for any bar that's a going concern. Holiday parties held there, our own Christmas party was a big draw, and New Year's Eve is the biggest night of the year for any "happening" bar. So if December doesn't show up as an outlier, someone's doing something terribly wrong. :)
But if we go from Nov to Jan and leave Dec off the chart, the line was still going up. Just can't tell you by how much. I'll see if I can come up with some numbers for you.
How many of those 6 bar owners would be willing to share their financials from over the past 2 years or so for a neutral groupthink analyzing.
If you are indeed serious, about as unlikely as you showing strangers your income tax returns for the past two years. And the subject here is private business rights. Have you ever owned a business?
"Quit your crying and diversify like everyone else."
Thank you, QoM, for being so restrained.
Eggs is absolutely right. We can't just open up our financials to anyone; lots of reasons that would be bad business. I'm cool with sharing percentages to some extent (obviously). And I wouldn't be surprised to see some bar owners get together and present some hard data on that front in the not-too-distant future. But to actually bring out the books--that's not going to happen.
To IP: It's all in the breeding. *LOL*
Spring is in the air, or is that just the resistance to back up our claims? How about leaving the names off of the businesses and just providing numbers? How about them creating their own analysis of percent change the same way QOM did and sharing just that info going back month by month for the last 2 years? If I was trying to prove that something was hurting my bottom line I would have no problem divulging the appropriate financial information to the people who were interested in seeking the truth.
Have I ever owned a business? No, but quit trying to turn this into a debate about whether the ban is right or not. I am trying to focus on the claims of lost revenue as a result of the ban. Anyone who claims that the ban is hurting business and is unwilling or unable to provide hard evidence is not going to be taken seriously, regardless of what they believe or have seen. Here is an illustration of my thinking. Is 30% of taxes paid a serious downturn in business? Depends. What is the total amount paid? What have the differences been in the past? Any other significant changes at the place? See what I mean by facts?
"The smart ones will easily survive." I think the problem has been identified.
That probably doesn't include service businesses that don't provide good service. Fill in the blanks where you will.
Memphis on Main renewed its lease after the smoking ban in bars was passed. Queen, WHY?
No, but quit trying to turn this into a debate about whether the ban is right or not.
I don't believe you understand. The salient point of this debate *is* about whether the ban is justified or whether it is a monumental intrusion on the rights of private business. And does government have the right to regulate the behavior of individual citizens regarding the use of a legal (and heavily taxed) substance? I think not. And so I reiterate:
Smokers first, you next.
The bar owners don't have to open their books to you or anyone else. They don't answer to you Anon!!! They are not there to be public amenities to do as YOU think they should.
Get off your high horse!!!
They are not PUBLIC PROPERTY!!! They are NOT Parks and they are NOT Healthclubs!! Obviously you don't own anything. Where do you get off even supposing that you or anyone else should "group think" for the bar owners. You silly Hippie. You have to invest something to make decisions about how private entities are run. Drinks are not stock shares!
Who cares whether they make more or less, THAT IS SO NOT THE POINT!!! Private Business is there to cater to whomever they darn well please, and don't need your "permission".
If you want numbers ask the city for its Food and Beverage tax figures, but I still say "WHO CARES!!" The whole thing VIOLATES PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!
Who cares whether You take them seriously!? You have no dog in this fight!! And for that, nobody can take you seriously. For not being Matt Varble.. you sure sound like his disciple
All insults aside, I will attempt to address this with the same civility that the Queen has shown repeatedly. My hats off to you Queen, you have shown much more class than some of the other yahoos in this thread, from both sides of the issue.
Regardless of whether you are for or against the ban, the opening post in this thread states that bars have lost business as a result of the smoking ban (as GH used to say, reading is FUNdamental). My only intention here was to seek the truth, that is the actual loss in business in the big picture as it relates to losses and gains over an extended period.
I have made an effort to not tell anyone how to run their business, or what rights they may or may not have, and have still been repeatedly lumped in with MV so it is obvious that we are past the point of rational discussion, besides, what fun is it to actually sit down and try to solve an issue when we can just vent and complain about it on some internet board. Or is solving problems rather than just complaining about them too hippie-ish?
"My only intention here was to seek the truth, that is the actual loss in business in the big picture as it relates to losses and gains over an extended period. "
If business was up as a result of the smoking ban, would bar owners be upset about the ban? No, they would all be saying "Gosh, we should have done this years ago", and swinging their arms full of money all the way to the bank.
rsw- I dont recall typing that business was up as a result of the smoking ban. I did ask about increases and decreases of taxes paid over the past couple of years to get some sort of perspective on what is currently happening. For instance, if bar A experienced a 20% drop in sales from January to February it is not conclusive that it was caused by the smoking ban, but I am also unwilling to rule out the ban as a factor (I call it reserving judgment). What were the numbers like last January & February? The January & February before that? What will the numbers look like this summer compared to the last few summers? There are just too many variables to automatically assign a decline in business to any one factor when other factors are also at play without a more thorough analysis. To argue otherwise would be premature.
From the original post"
"...article titled "Profits up in Smoke: Ban has dramatic effect on C-U bars." Owners of Rock's, Tumble Inn, Blind Pig, Esquire, Office II, and Melody Music are cited in this article."
As I read this article, looks to me like these business owners think the smoking ban has hurt their business. My point is, no one is in a better position to know (if business is down) than the owners. Owners would be stupid to fight and complain about a smoking ban if they believed it didn't hurt their business.
RSW-
Here is where my problem with your leap of logic lies, from your own words (emphasis added)...
"As I read this article, looks to me like these business owners think the smoking ban has hurt their business. My point is, no one is in a better position to know (if business is down) than the owners."
I see your point about knowing their own business and agree with it, but there is a serious difference between thinking something and knowing it. It is far tougher to convince others of something that you think, even if it is the truth. You used what appeared to be an income statement from the past three years for Boeing in a different thread to prove a point, wouldn't something less comprehensive than that get us all moving forward in a more positive direction on this issue? Am I naive in thinking that conclusive quantitative proof would be a huge story that local law making bodies could not ignore?
RSW:
Maybe they just like carcinogens wafting through their establishments.
As I read this article, looks to me like these business owners think the smoking ban has hurt their business. My point is, no one is in a better position to know (if business is down) than the owners. Owners would be stupid to fight and complain about a smoking ban if they believed it didn't hurt their business.
Owners would have ample reason to fight and blame a smoking ban if their business was declining whether or not it was actually the cause. Owners whom the smoking ban is not hurting are not necessarily going to come forward and make big statements to the newspaper.
This is in no way a scientific sample. It's the same way that the rating sites are often disproportiately negative. Unless angered, it's just not as likely that someone would come forward and take the time to comment.
"This is in no way a scientific sample."
Xian, I never said it was a scientific sample. And I have read that most think the ban will have little if any impact on Campus bars, for instance.
" Am I naive in thinking that conclusive quantitative proof would be a huge story that local law making bodies could not ignore?"
Anon, for the "true believers", it doesn't matter if the bars lose business, or even go under. See anon 12:09. 'If we are saving lives, it doesn't matter what it costs' - you know the line. But at least those folks are being honest.
What if the numbers go down? Can anyone prove that it was due to the Ban? NO
If they go up, can anyone prove it was due to the ban? NO
If they stay the same, can anyone prove the ban hasn't changed the "landscape" of patrons? NO
Can the overall numbers be used to describe anything specific to any one bar? NO
Did any bar owner have to wait for the ban to ban smoking on their premises? NO
Is it anyone's business besides those who have their life savings invested in their own private properties. NO
Does this ban have any REAL connection to anyones' health concerns? NO
Can anyone prove that people who never inhale smoke, never contract lung cancer? NO
Has the reduction in the number of people who smoke, and places they can do it, had a direct effect on the rate of lung cancer? NO
If secondhand smoke really kills 8 people a day, does that mean we should make illegal anything that kills 8 people a day?
Medical mistakes cause more deaths each year in this country than either car accidents, or gun violence. Perhaps we should make all doctors pay triple their current malpractice insurance, or better yet throw them in prison. and point at any doctor that complains and say that doctor needs to get with the program to prove he is really savvy, and serious about reducing deaths.
"Has the reduction in the number of people who smoke, and places they can do it, had a direct effect on the rate of lung cancer? NO"
You're nuts if you believe that.
The rest of your argument was the usual non-sequitur of "If you can't solve this problem, you can't solve any of them."
Wrong. You fix what you can fix when you can fix it. Unless you're a hapless status quo defender, and then you come up with reasons to do nothing.
04:05 PM, Anonymous,
Excellent logical and realistic post.
I just watched a TV commercial by the ACS which featured a woman who was billed as something to the effect of, "a former bartender and waitress." She had a sad story of contracting a type of cancer that her doctor called, "a smoker's disease." She had to have 3/4 of her tongue removed and later had lymph nodes removed from her neck.
This type of cancer the woman has is called lymphoma. There is no known cause. My mother developed the same cancer at age 50. She too had both the tongue and neck surgery. She died at 79, after long periods of remission. The actual cause of death, according to her doctors, was a gradual degradation of her immune system, similar to AIDS, which they guessed was caused by her periods of chemotherapy.
I am very sympathetic for the woman in the commercial. Lymphoma is a terrible disease, but also one cancer that provides the victim the best chance for recovery.
It is an unconscionable scare tactic by the anti-rights movement to exploit a victim, use the person as a display, and imply, with no imperical proof, that the disease was caused soley by second-hand smoke. Heredity, lifestyle, radon exposure, other environmental factors, etc. are never mentioned as possible causes.
On a lighter note: wenaly has provided us with more cartoon fodder, using both "non-sequitur," and "hapless status quo defender," in a single post. But I have a sneaking suspicion that wenalway is messing with our heads. I hope.
Eggs, if you really believe what you just wrote, your head is already messed.
Again, the logical abilities of the HSQD crowd are beyond warped.
Save the Chief and cure cancer!
I just don't understand why it has to be one extreme or the other. Why it has to be either "everyone gets to smoke" or "no one gets to smoke." I'm not being facetious here; I truly don't understand.
Obviously, there are people who like to smoke and there are people who can't stand it. Why must every establishment be set up to compete for the same group of people? Why must we take away a business owner's option to differentiate his or her business by choosing whether or not this particular legal activity will be allowed within their walls; why must we prohibit them from saying, "We recognize that not everyone will like us, and we're willing to accept that reality in order to be more appealing to those who do"? Are these two cities we live in really too small to allow us to respect and accommodate both sides?
There are many rich hues to be found between black and white. Why is it so few of us can see and appreciate them?
Nicely put, Queenie. So long as tobacco is legal, there should be places where people can go to use it, and some of those places should be public commercial establishments where everyone on the premises has freely chosen to be there. It doesn't have to be all of them, nor should it be. But there should be enough carefully drawn exceptions to the non-smoking rule to allow consenting adults to patronize a limited number of consenting businesses.
Since my heart attack last year, I am a non-smoker by doctor's order. However, that doesn't mean that I understand the logic of not being able to light up in Jon's Pipe Shop, a store dedicated to the consumption of tobacco. Nor does it mean that I have forgotten the simple pleasure of having a cigarette while I share a drink with friends at our favorite watering hole. Surely there is room for some sort of reasonable compromise that leaves the overwhelming majority of public spaces non-smoking.
That's always been my argument.
A smoking ban, by nature, "protects" only those people who are unwilling to protect themselves by walking out of (and not spending any money in) businesses that allow smoking.
That's why I call them the Coalition to Protect People From Themselves (CPPFT). And that's why I've said, controversially, that people who think a smoking ban is necessary to protect them from secondhand smoke are either too lazy or too stupid to protect themselves.
I can understand those who argue for a ban for aesthetic reasons (i.e., don't like the smell). I don't agree, but I can understand it.
I can't understand those who argue for a ban as some sort of public health necessity. It may end up benefitting publich health, but it's not necessary. People already had the ability to protect themselves from secondhand smoke. Some people chose not to protect themselves, and that choice was unacceptable to the CPPFT. So now we have a ban, and I expect we'll have an unnecessary statewide ban by summer.
I agree QOM, very well stated. I also don't understand why a person has to either be for the ban or against the ban in other's minds. It is unfortunate that the reason we are where we are is because there was a reluctance to compromise shown by both sides in the past.
Kevin- Unless I am mistaken, retail tobacco shops are specifically exempt from the ban.
"Unless I am mistaken, retail tobacco shops are specifically exempt from the ban."
Having not read the actual ordinance, I could easily be the one who is mistaken. I thought I remembered a News-Gazette article, however, in the month after the ban was passed, that indicated that Ken Pirok was considering revisiting the ordinance for the express purpose of including such an exemption. I probably got it confused with something else.
So now we have a ban, and I expect we'll have an unnecessary statewide ban by summer.
To be honest, I figured that the writing on the wall was there. One issue that hasn't come up much in this dicussion is employee safety - if secondhand smoke is considered harmful, there might be some workplace safety issues for the staff.
"A smoking ban, by nature, "protects" only those people who are unwilling to protect themselves by walking out of (and not spending any money in) businesses that allow smoking."
See, that's just weak logic, though.
Maybe there's a bar or club I'd like to go to for some reason -- big-screen TVs, good band playing, HSQDs debating the necessity of the Chief -- and I'd rather not endure the carcinogens wafting through the stale, unvented "air" of said bar or club.
"Maybe there's a bar or club I'd like to go to for some reason -- big-screen TVs, good band playing, HSQDs debating the necessity of the Chief -- and I'd rather not endure the carcinogens wafting through the stale, unvented "air" of said bar or club."
No offense, Wenalway, but it's not weak logic at all. I'm sure that the original bar badly wants your money - that's why they have the TVs, the band, etc. If you didn't want to go there because of the secondhand smoke, it wouldn't take very many of you to politely tell the owner/manager that before a smart business owner went smoke-free voluntarily.
There's nothing forcing you to spend your money in an establishment that doesn't respect your wishes. And in CU, there are more than enough choices for everyone.
ww-
Just a side thought, aren't you technically the HSQD now? Maybe you should refresh your verbage to HSQAD, hapless status quo ante defender... :)
What if the numbers go down? Can anyone prove that it was due to the Ban? NO
If they go up, can anyone prove it was due to the ban? NO
If they stay the same, can anyone prove the ban hasn't changed the "landscape" of patrons? NO
Can the overall numbers be used to describe anything specific to any one bar? NO
Did any bar owner have to wait for the ban to ban smoking on their premises? NO
You had me up to here...
Is it anyone's business besides those who have their life savings invested in their own private properties. NO
I would vote "SOMETIMES" on this. Obviously there are SOME limits to private property.
Does this ban have any REAL connection to anyones' health concerns? NO
Depends what you mean.
Can anyone prove that people who never inhale smoke, never contract lung cancer? NO
Who in the history of the world has ever supposed this? The level of certain tobacco related cancers caused by non-tobacco triggers is low but not zero.
Has the reduction in the number of people who smoke, and places they can do it, had a direct effect on the rate of lung cancer? NO
The answer to the entire statement is definitely "YES"--reductions in the number of the people who smoke has been tied to a drop in related cancers. As for the "places they can do it", the jury's still out on that.
If secondhand smoke really kills 8 people a day, does that mean we should make illegal anything that kills 8 people a day?
No, that's a strange question. If I kill 8 people a day and so does old age, we can't prosecute me because we aren't banning old age.
Medical mistakes cause more deaths each year in this country than either car accidents, or gun violence. Perhaps we should make all doctors pay triple their current malpractice insurance, or better yet throw them in prison. and point at any doctor that complains and say that doctor needs to get with the program to prove he is really savvy, and serious about reducing death
We already do this too much and that's why the HMOs and insurance companies own the medical industry.
I hope the CPPFT never discovers this site, Burning Issuses. The U.S. EPA estimates the cancer risk from wood smoke is twelve times greater than that from equal amounts of tobacco smoke. That means bye bye to Porgy's. Oh wait, there's a ventilation system installed? But popular wisdom says there's no effective ventilating system for smoke. Huh.
If Porgy's is full of smoke, then it must be odorless smoke.
HSQAD -- I like that. But it would be too confusing to use both terms.
Anyway, I went undercover tonight and went to a bar. It was much busier than I expected from reading the gloom-and-doom tales here. So busy, in fact, that it interfered with my watching NCAA basketball.
I'd name the bar, but that might destroy my secret identity.