Statewide Smoke Out

We've been writing about the smoking ban in some form or another for more than three years. It's true. I can look back to a Spring 2004 issue of Meetings, and right there in the Openers section we made first mention of the growing trend. (Duluth and Rochester were the trendsetters back then.) And now, as of Oct. 1, smoking isn't allowed in bars, restaurants and workplaces throughout Minnesota. And we're not alone. Approximately 20 states have similar ordinances as well.

We know  the arguments for both sides. When Minneapolis, Bloomington and  Hennepin County decided to go smoke free, bar and restaurant owners argued that their patrons could just cross city or county lines to light up. So, a statewide ban seemed like the next best step. However now, for many, Wisconsin ain't that far away.

So, what I'm wondering: Is this old news? No big deal? Or will the smoking ban continue to affect the hospitality industry? For how long?

--Amanda Fretheim Gates
Associate Editor
Meetings: Minnesota's Hospitality Journal

Comments

[Bob from ALAMN]

It's old news. For years, a handful of pro-smoking activists have put the fear in the hospitality industry with their claims of "economic disaster" if a smoking ban was passed in Minnesota. A number of local governments, seeing the clear health risks of secondhand smoke, passed ordinances anyhow. This happened in rural areas, large metro regions and smaller cities.

As more places went smokefree, the less credibility the "economic disaster" complainers could muster -- truth is, smokefree bars and restuarants didn't go out of business. Some did see some loses. Others saw some gains. In the end, it was not a big deal.

The new statewide law was as fair aand even-handed as lawmakers could make it. Outside of Native American lands, everyone is now playing by the same rules, on the same level. Since the vast majority of Minnesotans DONT smoke, and many who do smoke want to quit, I can't see this being a big problem for the hospitality industry here.

After all, other states have done this. Why can't we?

[Dan]

"After all, other states have done this. Why can't we?"
Because it's wrong, Bob. You don't like smoking, so you feel that nobody should be able to gather and smoke in bars or restaurants, even if the owner, the employees and all the patrons desire it. You support a law that forbids private smoking clubs. This is about you and your ilk pushing your "morals" on the rest of us, and feel justified because as a non-smoker, you are the majority. You reasoning is the same line of thought that leads to bigotry and racism. You've just selected smokers as the target of your disciminatory impulses, instead of a race or creed.

When the data isn't skewed, and is examined in it's raw form, the economic harm is more than apparent.

On average 6-7 bars close each year. In the Minneapolis metro, during the first year of the smoking bans that started rolling out in 2005, over 200 bars closed up. There were 6,500 new filings for unemployment benefits by hospitality workers.

It's not about the economic harm, though, Bob. It's about being civil, and it's about liberty. You are interested in neither. If you neighbor engages in an activity you don't approve of (even though it has no effect on you, unless you choose it), you and your ilk set out to prevent your neighbor from enjoying that activity.

That's what it's about. Totalitarianism, fascism, the nanny-state, whatever you want to call it. I call it being a self-righteous control-freak.

And, lest I forget, it's about big money from the pharmaceutical companuies who are trying to cash in on addictive nicotine with their "smoking cessation" products. Those big pharma companies that give BIG bucks to your little non-profit schill foundation.

[Amanda Fretheim Gates]

Thank you both for your comments. This is exactly why I wanted to ask the question I did. I had a feeling - even with the sing-song commercials about "fresh air" being on the air now - that this issue is still important to many.

[Joel Schettler]

For those who are interested in the subject, there's an interesting cache of documents on Hospitality.net (http://www.hospitalitynet.org/indepth/112000373.html) that highlight the various diifferent studies done on the subject-- from the Westin becoming the first hotel brand to go smoke-free, to J.D. Powers analysis of smoking bans in various markets.

[Amanda Fretheim Gates]

I heard even more on this issue yesterday.

1. Two cities in California are taking the smoking ban even further, by eventually outlawing smoking in apartment buildings and condos.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=3688508&page=1

2. Hookah bars in Minnesota will be greatly affected by this ban as well. The short article looks at both sides of the story, and both seem to have relevancy.

http://articles.citypages.com/2007-10-10/news/up-in-smoke/

Thoughts on these two issues? Is it going to far when the state says you can't smoke in your own home, even if you live in an apartment that shares vents with others? What about when the ban crosses cultural lines?

[Joey]

Bob, you have a lot of nerve.

It's ludicrous to say that the smoking ban won't cause economic harm to the Minnesota hospitality industry.

Take Fabulous Ferns in St. Paul, for example. The owner(s) of Ferns went through the trouble of completely separating the smoking-allowed bar from the restaurant, but still allowed food to be served on both sides. They stuck a lot of money into the upgrade, and now, they have a business separated by a wall with no real purpose. This is just one example. There are many, many others.

Fact is, Bob, that if that many people in Minnesota don't smoke, the market would have responded (and was responding) to the demand. Going out to eat at your choice of establishments and having the environment of those establishments be up to your standards of comfort is not your - or anyone else's - RIGHT. However, it is the right of a property owner to allow the use of a legal substance on their property. At least, it was.

Besides, since when are bars considered a place to go for "health purposes"?

This "government knows best" mentality, coupled with your association's lobbying efforts to destroy the rights of private property owners and smokers alike for no other reason than comfort, is beyond the pale. Pair that with inconclusive, exaggerated and outright false data on secondhand smoke, and you have yourselves one of the biggest travesties in the history of the state of Minnesota.

The ban WILL backfire, and the citizens and bar owners will NOT stand by and allow their basic rights as American citizens be destroyed.

Be prepared for a smoking ban "smoke out" and some major civil disobedience. You are attempting to make criminals of law-abiding citizens, and the people of Minnesota (and Wisconsin, for that matter) won't stand for it.

[Bob from ALAMN]

Dan is one of the pro-smoking activists I mentioned earlier. So is the owner of Fabulous Ferns, the bar Joey cites, who may have walled off his bar more to make a point than as a sound business decision. In any case, it was his decision to make -- no owner was "forced" to create a smoking room under the Ramsey County ordinance.

Amanda:

1) What does those California proposals have to do with the hospitality industry in Minnesota?

2)Yes, the Hookah bar is now history in Minnesota. But as you said, we have been talking about this for a number of years. Anyone who opened a Hookah bar during that time had to be aware that the times are changing, and the air is clearing.

Final word: The new statewide law has is going very smoothly, without many citations or fines. Expect the smokefree movement to spread to Wisconsin, Iowa and the Dakotas soon.

[joe]

ever notice how bob moppit looks like he belongs in the movie beyond the valley of the dolls?

[jane]

wisconsin voted down bob muppit and there are lawsuits ontheater nights. real smooth muppit

[jane]

wisconsin voted down bob muppit and there are lawsuits ontheater nights. real smooth muppit

[mwernimont]

For all the latest hospitality closings since MN smoking bans have taken effect, look here:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html

[mwernimont]

By the way, don't be so hard on Moffitman, he's just doing his job. And his job includes lobbying in favor of smoking bans primarily due to the $99 million the American Lung Association was paid by Nicoderm affiliate Robert Wood Johnson Foundation(RWJF).

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/smoking-bans-good-public-policy-or.html

[Kim]

Second hand smoke is harmless. I have read the studies, all of them. There are as many positive as negative correlations but none of either are statistically significant. My husband and I both smoke and have not gone out to a club or dinner in over 7 years. Our home is our sanctuary and now there are those who would invade it. Give it a rest.

[RosalindaCruz29]

A lot of specialists tell that credit loans help a lot of people to live their own way, just because they are able to feel free to buy needed stuff. Moreover, banks offer car loan for young and old people.