Archive for Thursday, September 14, 2006
Ban benefits
September 14, 2006
Advertisement
To the editor:
In a recent editorial, the Journal-World bemoaned the legal costs resulting from being a leader in the area's move toward smoke-free indoor air. To be "fair and balanced," as our Fox News friends would say, perhaps the benefits should be mentioned as well.
First, Lawrence has reinforced its reputation as the progressive leader for the area, not a bad thing in a state where evolution is still controversial.
Second, difficult to quantify, but supported by a consensus of scientific opinion, local lives will be saved by Lawrence's leadership. The benefit for those is priceless.
Finally, the city has benefited by increased patronage of our bars and restaurants, occasioned by a more pleasing environment. Sales tax receipts for the city as a whole went up 3.9 percent in the 12 months after the indoor smoking ban went into effect, whereas they went up 7.3 percent in the bar and restaurant sector. That represents a bonus of 3.4 percent attributable to the smoking ban, or an additional $3,737,998 in sales, an additional $197,584 in state sales taxes and an additional in city sales taxes for just the first year. Just that first year bonus should cover any legal fees.
Really, though, what is it worth to do the right thing? To quote a Kentucky Supreme Court decision upholding the Lexington indoor smoking ban: "Protection of the public health is uniformly recognized as a most important municipal function. It is not only a right but a manifest duty of a city."
Steve and Kathy Bruner,
Lawrence
Top ads RSS
- Landmark National Bank
- Maintenance Tech Skilled maintenance person sought for immediate hire. Permanent ...
- LEGAL SECRETARY PART TIME Litigation firm needs experienced person, up ...
- IRRIGATION TECHNICIAN Full/part time, 785-218-5277 Experience Required
- TELESALES REPRESENTATIVE T he World Company, a fast-paced, multi-media organization, ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Secular freedom July 9, 2009 · 131 comments
- Police surround Jayhawk Motel, apprehend juvenile robbery suspect July 9, 2009 · 67 comments
- Tiahrt's plan to repeal federal stimulus would deepen state budget cuts July 9, 2009 · 26 comments
- Blog: Songs With The Name Of A State Or City In Their Title Or Lyrics July 7, 2009 · 225 comments
- Round Corner Drug, Cheese Shoppe closes July 8, 2009 · 111 comments
- Blog: Everybody Knows A Henry July 9, 2009 · 28 comments
- Donor ready to write Lawrence schools a check for new locker rooms at Free State — but there's a catch July 9, 2009 · 27 comments
- Budget crisis felt deeply at KU July 9, 2009 · 55 comments
- Nation of faith July 8, 2009 · 100 comments
- Sidewalk step July 9, 2009 · 32 comments
- Donor ready to write Lawrence schools a check for new locker rooms at Free State — but there's a catch July 9, 2009
- More than 2,750 turn out for community workout July 8, 2009
- New cardiovascular director hired at KU July 9, 2009
- Lawrence Arts Center director announces resignation July 8, 2009
- Round Corner Drug, Cheese Shoppe closes July 8, 2009
- Police surround Jayhawk Motel, apprehend juvenile robbery suspect July 9, 2009
- Moving forward: KU study explores how senior citizens part with possessions July 7, 2009
- Kansas education secretary nominated for federal job July 7, 2009
- Basehor-Linwood softball suffers upset loss May 19, 2009
- Stricter labeling urged for bottled water July 9, 2009
14 September 2006
at 7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paladin (Anonymous) says…
Steve and Kathy, serious attention should be given to the nature and quality of your relationship, if this kind of thing is what you talk about while sitting around the kitchen table over your dinner of hamburger helper.
14 September 2006
at 7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
aeroscout17 (Anonymous) says…
Wow, I would hate to see your conversations around the dinner table Paladin since you thought their conversation was inappropriate. I thought this was a very good letter and (evidently) presents facts instead of a bunch of emotions and whining.
14 September 2006
at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Reality_Check (Anonymous) says…
“Sales tax receipts for the city as a whole went up 3.9 percent in the 12 months after the indoor smoking ban went into effect, whereas they went up 7.3 percent in the bar and restaurant sector.”
Ouch! Sort of craps all over the bar owners arguments, huh? Or, put another way: case closed.
I am one of the folks who has made MORE visits to bars now that smoking has been banned. OK, my idea of a “bar” is the brewery, but so what (they were always weird for putting smoking on the first floor, where it could rise to the 2nd, anyway.)
That said, all I ever wanted was a smoke free area (smoke free, not non-smoking area, where the smoke wafts over from the smoking zone), but not a complete ban.
I have too many friends who smoke, and don't believe they should have to do it outdoors…if a bar owner wanted to make a smoking room, he/she should have been allowed. (But they shouldn't be able to require non-smoking employees to serve in that room.)
I was recently visiting relatives in Santa Fe, where they have an all-out ban…no outdoor areas allowed. That's REALLY going too far.
14 September 2006
at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kuhusker (Anonymous) says…
I would be OK in principle with separate smoking and non-smoking areas in bars, separated by a barrier, but the way it was done in the past was a joke. Did you ever go to Free State Brewery before the ban passed? They had the non-smoking area directly above the smoking area in a large open room….apparently the owner of Free State never studied science, otherwise he would have known that smoke rises…so in effect the entire place was a giant smoking section.
If stuff like that was addressed, and smoking and non-smoking sections in resturants were truly made separate, maybe a compromise could have been reached.
14 September 2006
at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
But instead of deciding on an all-out smoking ban first, why didn't they just make regulations on what had to be done in order to make a smoking section acceptable?
No other options were really looked at first.
14 September 2006
at 11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
” Sales tax receipts for the city as a whole went up 3.9 percent in the 12 months after the indoor smoking ban went into effect, whereas they went up 7.3 percent in the bar and restaurant sector. That represents a bonus of 3.4 percent attributable to the smoking ban……”
Huh?
“….or an additional $3,737,998 in sales, an additional $197,584 in state sales taxes and an additional in city sales taxes for just the first year. Just that first year bonus should cover any legal fees.”
That is the most convoluted thinking I've seen printed here in a long, long time.
14 September 2006
at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kef104 (Anonymous) says…
Thank you Dr. Bruner for your and your wife's support of a healthy community.
It is sad that the only way to criticize your solid facts is for someone to attempt a personal attack on your personal relationship and presumed dining choices. I wonder if those like Palidin realize that such trivality only reinforces the complete weakness of their position, and in this case, exposes a complete lack of class.
I personally find Lawrence a much nicer place to dine and socialize since the ban has taken affect.
You are an excellent MD and I appreciate the thoughtful, factually based information you provide. While I cannot comment on the quality of your maritial conversations and in home dining selections, I have always enjoyed conversing with you, and when fortunate enough to see you dining socially, well, all I can say is, Krauses does not server Hamberger Helper.
Again, I thank you for supporting a healthy community and providing the information needed for others to continue to support the smoking ban.
14 September 2006
at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says…
Reality_Check: so…..where did the diligent Bruner's get their facts?
Regardless of how a person feels about this imposition on citizen's rights, each side will have a story to tell. The figures that the Bruner's discussed I've seen. They do NOT tell the true story because those figures encompass ALL sales tax info in town. Grocery stores, clothing stores, etc. Plus, revenue's are up when football and basketball start. It's just too bad that the public can't see the figures broken out correctly. Doubt the Clean Air preachers would want that. They may be WRONG.
14 September 2006
at 12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
It's nice to see that there are still couples who have intellectual conversations. Apparently, paladin and his/her spouse stick to talking about the really important things, like what bill they should pay late in order to buy another carton of cigarettes. Nascar, farts, and beer may also be included.
14 September 2006
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tony88 (Anonymous) says…
That confuses you, Godot? Maybe you need some reading comprehension lessons.
14 September 2006
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tony88 (Anonymous) says…
Well, ilovelucy, that is why they cited the specific bar/restaraunt revenues. That is also why they analyzed it over 12 months (1 year), which includes basketball and football season, and off season. Thanks for further pointing to the specificity of their analysis.
14 September 2006
at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
tony88, it is not the specificity of their analysis that confuses me, it is their conclusion that confounds me.
First, just because overall sales tax receipts were up 3.9%, and bar receipts were up 7.3%, it does not follow that there is a 3.4% bonus in the restaurant business.
Second, there is no way to conclude that the increase in the bar receipts were due to the smoking ban. There are other factors to consider, such as, were there more, or fewer restaurants than the year before; were there more, or fewer, out of town visitors than the year before; did the price of food and drink increase from the year before, and by how much? Those are just a few of the factors that also would have impacted the increase.
In fact, I could claim that, if it had not been for the smoking ban, the restaurant receipts would have been 10% higher, and I would be just as wrong as the Bruners are in their claim. Why? Because neither claim is provable, or correct.
14 September 2006
at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Reality_Check (Anonymous) says…
“Second, there is no way to conclude that the increase in the bar receipts were due to the smoking ban.”
You're analysis is correct, Godot, in that the Bruners' analysis was simplistic…and you're right: it wasn't a 3.4% increase in restaurant sales; that's just dumb. It was a 3.4 percentage point (not percent) difference in the growth rates, but we don't know why. But 90% of Americans couldn't grasp that difference.
But the overall point remains the same: One claim of smoking ban opponents is that these businesses would suffer financially, and this data would appear to prove that to be incorrect, based on very raw data.
14 September 2006
at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kef104 (Anonymous) says…
Godot,
You are correct. Correlation, while necessary, is never sufficent to conclude causation. It is a mistake to state, without other information, that the Smoking Ban raised sales. However, I believe that what raised the sales is less important than noting that sales did not fall, as predicted by the “pro smoking in public” coalition. The doom of the entertainment industry failed to materialize and that was the intent of the Bruner's comment. In fact, overall receipts are up, taxes are up, and the cost of being a socially responsible health leader in a state striving to get out of reverse is easily covered by these gains.
I also want to thank you for so clearly stating what you meant the first time. It is much easier to understand what you intended and why.
15 September 2006
at 12:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Of course if those of you who do not want to be around tobacco smoke would simply refrain from going where the smoke is, ther would be no problem.
Those who support the Smoking Ban are the WORST kind of facists; and I DO know the meaning of the word.
Wait for MY “postcards”.
Thanks.
Marion.
19 September 2006
at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
giantchurro (Anonymous) says…
How about smokers refrain from going where non-smokers are. That would take care of the problem.
19 September 2006
at 4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
facists?
hmmm Marion…that's some one who is partial to faces?
19 September 2006
at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
badger (Anonymous) says…
b_g -
*snerk*
I think the important thing to note, though, is that this really does eviscerate the “If you make it a smoking ban, all the businesses will suffer,” argument.
It should have gone to a community vote. Businesses should have been allowed to explore sealed separate-air options. But neither of those things happened, and now the fairly significant argument that the ban was bad for business looks like it's a non-starter.
20 September 2006
at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
personally, I would not wish to have all the smokers pushed outside. instead, put them into a truly functioning smoking section. that way, I don't have to walk through the poor bums forced to huddle around the front door with their stogies.
and, I suppose I am a facist, as I like the human face.