Advertisement

Archive for Friday, January 25, 2013

Study: Kansas’ smoking ban hasn’t affected business in restaurants, bars

January 25, 2013

Advertisement

Related document

Smoking Ban study ( .PDF )

— A statewide ban on smoking indoors in public places hasn't stopped the flow of alcohol, according to a study released Friday.

The Kansas Health Institute analysis concluded "there is no apparent evidence that smoking bans in Kansas have been associated with a decrease in statewide restaurant and bar sales, or with a decrease in the number of establishments serving liquor."

After four years of debate, the Legislature in 2010 approved the Clean Indoor Act, which generally prohibited smoking in restaurants, bars, places of employment, as well as outdoor smoking close to doorways.

The measure was aimed at protecting the public health by reducing second-hand smoke. However, some restaurant and bar owners fought the initiative, saying it would hurt business.

The KHI analysis looked at restaurant and bar sales for eight years prior to the statewide ban and two years after and found sales continued to increase. The same was true for alcoholic beverage licenses as bars, private clubs, caterers, hotels and winery outlets and microbreweries have all seen an increase.

Although there was no statewide decrease in the liquor business, the study does say that individual businesses could have been affected positively or negatively "as the marketplace adjusted to the new regulations."

In fact, by the time the statewide law was approved, 60 percent of the Kansas population was living under city or county smoke-free policies. The city of Lawrence was the first in Kansas with a smoking ban in 2004.

The KHI report says its findings are consistent with other states.

Since its implementation, some have complained about an exception in the law for state-owned casinos. Casino operators have said eliminating smoking would reduce gambling and revenue to the state.

And there have been attempts to weaken the ban. Last year, a House committee approved a bill that would have allowed smoking in any private business that has only patrons and employees who are at least of legal drinking age.

But Dr. Roy Jensen, director of the Kansas University Cancer Center, told legislators that weakening the law could have hurt KU's efforts to get National Cancer Institute designation for the Cancer Center. Later, the House voted to send the measure back to committee.

Comments

Richard Heckler 1 year, 2 months ago

Run Free State Brewery out of business. Doubtful. Powerful local investment,good food and great brew = no way.

I believe Chuck Magerl was convinced that the Free State environment could be cleaned by way of a host of mechanical filtering devices. This could get expensive. No doubt Chuck Magerl did much research before bringing that to the table. For all we know Chuck Magerl might have been right.

However I believe tobacco smoke far too renegade thus beyond being captured and thrown out the door. This family was pleased with the ousting of tobacco smoke and yes we do go out more often.

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 2 months ago

No question about it..... smoke invades the privacy of others. All that is required is being under the same roof as the tobacco smoke.

Tobacco smoke flows freely and travels throughout a structure no matter what thus invading the privacy of other customers no matter how far away from the source. No smoking sections were a joke simple as that. Nice try but a joke.

Smokers were the minority in many establishments. One thing is for certain smokers and non smokers love their brew and other beverages that bring on relaxation. This is being documented most everyday by the busy activity at Free State Brewery and other favorite hangouts.

Had the powers that be agenda been to ban serving alcohol in public establishments another American revolution likely would have been reborn in the streets, city hall and in the halls of congress. Things would get noisy and rowdy.

0

MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 2 months ago

Jafs, thank you for the recommendation. Readers will also find an explanation for the large type formatting (it's meant to be a free resource for printing, handing out, and quick reading in the dim light of bars under attack) and will note, as you did, that I admit right from the beginning that it's meant to present one particular point of view: It's meant to get people angry about how they've been lied to.

The studies of course aren't copied: that would violate copyright. They ARE however accurately presented and/or quoted from, and the full references to them are given so that my statements are easily checked for accuracy.

Too bad the antismoking side isn't as honest... I'd have more time to do a bit more bicycling and spend less time fighting the people who want to control our lives for various reasons.

I could provide a few more links for reading for you, but then mean ol' Gene will come back and say I'm posting "self-promoting links." If you'd like a few though, just ask. Then I'll be happy to provide.

  • MJM
0

jafs 1 year, 2 months ago

Anybody who's interested in this should look at the link provided above.

It does more to advance the cause of nonsmoking in public places than anything I've seen so far.

The ridiculous use of huge type and many exclamation points combined with the self-admittedly "one sided" opinions presented show a certain level of over-emotionality, almost rising to hysteria.

I didn't read much of it, but what I read included no actual studies, but rather the author's presentation and critique of them.

People who are addicted to substances, and nicotine is a highly addictive substance, often show an inability to think logically about issues involving them, which makes sense, since they're hooked on them, and feel they need them, even though that's not objectively true.

A moment's reflection and common sense reveals that cigarette smoke contains carcinogenic substances, and that can't be good for anybody.

0

MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 2 months ago

Ahh, Gene returned! Gene, too bad these "worldwide spammers" don't have the same kind of funding that you do, eh? Think what we could accomplish then!

Nice to know I'm "notorious," but the studies I use are anything but "cherry picked." Can I prove that? Sure: People can go to http://TinyURL.com/SmokingBanLies and they'll see that I examine the best and the brightest of the main "Flagship" studies used by the Antismokers themselves in pushing their bans. I'm not "cherry-picking" -- they are! LOL!

Ads for my book Gene? Aside from honestly identifying myself and my interests in this issue (something you yourself NEVER do for people) at the start of a discussion thread, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that my postings are advertisements. It would certainly be a pretty poor return for time investment, eh? As for "self-promoting website links," the only active link I posted in this thread before the current posting was a comment containing a link to Christopher Snowdon's site. Chris happens to be the author of an excellent book, "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist - A History of Antismoking" which would actually be a "competitor" of mine... rather poor "self-promoting," eh?

So Gene, the "locals" at ljworld can see how I am and what my interests are here. Why don't you share some of your own details? And while you're at it, why not try to address the actual topic of the thread for a change? You know, show us how good the bans have been for bars? Perhaps show us how pub licenses have increased after bans come in? You know, that sort of thing.

  • MJM
0

geneb 1 year, 2 months ago

A recent study on "comment trolls" found that their abuse of the online commenting system simply rigidified opinions that people had anyway. No one's mind was changed; their opinions hardened.

I mention this because 5 of smoking's own notorious comment trolls have swarmed this board (they have these websites where they can alert each other), and these trolls show no mercy to any publication that dares to talk about smoking without their flat-earth input.

Google cyzanne, smartin, mcfadden, wipatriot and generalsn for tens of thousands of their postings, massive torrents of sheer drivel: politically biased "studies," cherry-picked and/or misrepresented mainstream studies (all science is "junk"--except when it agrees with their dogma), anecdotal "evidence," wingnut theories (Big Pharma makes $$ off smoking bans(!)), random insults of locals, and, as always, McFadden's ads for his book, backed up by his self-promoting website links.

It's good to think these worldwide spammers change no one's mind--but sad to think they rigidify positions. What's most clear is that they despoil intelligent discussion amongst the actual locals who live in a region they've invaded.

PS: I'm no fan of Big Pharma, but far more is made from its treatments for tobacco related diseases than from its cessation products. If Pharma were solely out for $$, it'd be trying to keep people smoking--so it could sell more drugs for asthma, COPD, heart disease and cancer.

0

Cyzanne 1 year, 2 months ago

If smoking bans are all about the workers (as they want you to believe) why does OSHA beg to differ?

OSHA's position on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS):

OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

3

Armored_One 1 year, 2 months ago

AH yes, the progressive march towards a healthier world. Nevermind the little details, like nearly every state economy having to bolster itself with an ever increasing tax on tobacco. But, when Big Tobacco is shut down, much to the delight of the health-minded folk, I wonder how the states will fare.

0

stuart 1 year, 2 months ago

I too would like to know why STATE RUN casinos are exempt.. What about the health of the workers at the casino? Their lives are not worth as much as restaurant/bar workers? What about tabacco shops? They still allow smoking there. We need more stringent regulation NOW!!

0

generalsn 1 year, 2 months ago

Now that they know it doesn't affect business, why are the casinos still exempt?

2

oletimer 1 year, 2 months ago

so a state organization did a study on a state law, and we are supposed to buy into that? I suppose king brownback assigned the positions on the study. not accepting this for a second

0

Cyzanne 1 year, 2 months ago

And neither does it answer why you think you can demand from government to coerce a private business to cater to YOUR preferences. Do you feel the same for sushi bars if you don't like sushi or do you just go to the nearest hamburger joint instead?

0

tomatogrower 1 year, 2 months ago

Considering that only 20% of the country smokes, you are the minority, so maybe us non smokers like it that you are stuck at home or outside. There is no right to smoke. It's an addiction as bad or worse than heroin. If that wasn't true, then smokers wouldn't have a problem. They would go to the bar have a good time, then go home and have a smoke. They just can't go that long without a cigarette. I love chocolate, but I've gone weeks without eating it. I'll bet you can't do that with your cancer sticks.

1

MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 2 months ago

The anonymous, suddenly appearing "Nominalize" asked,

"Yes, and 0 bars and restaurants closed in the five years before the bans, right? ... Right?"

No, I'm sure some closed... just not so many. Let's take a look at the UK as an example. In the two years before their ban took effect, they had a pub closure rate of about 3 pubs per week. In the first year after the ban, that shot up to 27 pubs per week: a 900% increase in closure rate. The following year it went to 36, then up to 52. I believe it's back down around 36 per week at this point: there just aren't as many pubs left to close anymore perhaps?

  • MJM
1

MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 2 months ago

GeneB, care to point to the "tobacco-oriented sources" the information in my "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" comes from? Come on, prove yourself... Google "V.Gen5H", take a minute or two to read some of it, and then pick out a few examples. Let me guess: you'll take any reference to anyone or any group who fights smoking bans as a "tobacco-oriented source," right? LOL! In other words ANYONE who disagrees with you is off-limits.

I'd say that's pretty typical for an Antismoker, eh?

  • MJM
0

MichaelJMcFadden 1 year, 2 months ago

So let's see... we have an anonymous person named "nominalize" who's made up a name just to post in this thread while hiding his identity and competing interests. Nominalize claims that country after country has experienced no harm to their pub businesses from smoking. I wonder how he can square that with close to a quarter of the rural pubs closing in Ireland and something close to that portion closing in the UK since their bans? Take a look at this graph based upon the British Beer and Pub Association figures and see what you think of the anonymous Nominalizer's claims:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2013/01/pub-closures-and-smoking-ban.html

And then to compound things we have GeneB claiming that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Knights of Columbus are "crooks" stealing from honest people. There's no reason in the world why the ban shouldn't be abolished: if the Antismokers are telling the truth and almost everybody loves the ban, well then obviously almost all the bars would keep the ban in place on their own.

Why won't they do such a thing? Simple: they're lying and they know they're lying.

Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 2 months ago

It has been noted that 80% of the population does not smoke. It is also noted that smoking has not been banned across the board.

Several new drinking establishments have opened. Considering there are only so many retail drinking dollars available in any community some will close as more and more come on the scene.

1

Cyzanne 1 year, 2 months ago

Fresh off the press: One of so many examples of businesses closing because of smoking bans. http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=758532

0

Joe Hyde 1 year, 2 months ago

I'm a bass player and singer who gave up cigarettes 35 years ago. I know many musicians and singers who love the smoking ban in restaurants and other public places. We can play gigs and participate in jams and never go home afterward with our instruments and clothing reeking of cigarette smoke. The ban protects our health, a direct benefit that extends our days as amateur or professional players.

Before Lawrence's ban went into effect, one night I went to a local bar that was hosting a blues jam. I put my name on the performers list then sat down to wait my turn The bar was packed with smokers. When I got called up to sing, I stepped to the microphone and hard as I tried, no sound would come out my mouth. The secondhand smoke was so thick that my throat involuntarily closed down, like happens to people trapped inside a burning building.

No song is worth performing if it means musicians get exposed to health and safety hazards. If you'd like to see a music venue operated correctly and profitably, where having fun includes health protections for musicians and non-smokers plus a generous outdoor area for folks who smoke, then stop in at Slow Ride in North Lawrence. It's a model for how to do it right.

3

patkindle 1 year, 2 months ago

i could never figure out why people that didnt smoke had such a desire to go places that others smoked?? it always seemed like some mission to me. like women wanting to join mens clubs.

3

msezdsit 1 year, 2 months ago

The overwhelming success of this ban points to those who promoted it as pure visionaries able to see beyond all the "smoke screens" the opponents to public health could manufacture. I never was involved one way or the other but now that I can go out and see how much more pleasant restaurants and night clubs are, I have to hand it to those who figured that out before I did.

3

verity 1 year, 2 months ago

I would like to point out that just because a business establishment shut down since the smoking ban does not mean it shut down because of the smoking ban.

The main effect the ban had on me was that I had to breath a lot more second-hand smoke as I walked down Mass St.

I worked for some years in a small business where my boss smoked. I got fierce headaches and had to take allergy medication. No allergy medication since and don't get headaches. And don't try to be "helpful" and say "get another job." At that time, as now, jobs were hard to come by.

1

harleyrider1978 1 year, 2 months ago

The law was intended to protect the public health by reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, which a large body of research shows is harmful to health.

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms...... (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

0

harleyrider1978 1 year, 2 months ago

From the PDF study itself:

Exposure to secondhand smoke endangers health in several ways. Research has shown that it can even trigger an immediate increase in a person’s risk of suffering a heart attack.

The facts:

Heart miracles are impossible It's good to see Dr. Carl V. Philips back and blogging over at Ep-ology. In his last two posts he has been discussing the North Carolina heart miracle 'study', which is as bad a piece of advocacy-driven junk science as you will ever see.

In particular, he makes a point which I have tried to made before, which is absolutely fundamental to all the heart miracle studies. The results they report—of heart attacks falling by 17%, 21%, 40% or whatever—are simply impossible.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/11/heart-miracles-are-impos...

The North Carolina smoking ban/heart attack hoax

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/11/north-carolina-smoking-b...

0

patkindle 1 year, 2 months ago

the bar owners are to blame,they do not want to be the bad or good guys, and make you hate the city instead of them. like everyone else they want it all the only worse gutless wonders are the legistlators that ban smoking here but not at casinos. like how much sense does that make

0

smartin1955 1 year, 2 months ago

Either ban the selling of tobacco altogether or leave adults alone in adults only businesses. Let the owner decide. IF no one wants to go to a smokey bar, then the bar will close. That is the choice that the pro ban people will not allow as it would destroy the myth. If 20% of adults want to smoke, and 20% of bar owners want to allow it, and 85% of a bar's customers are smokers, and the other 15% don't care, then who are these incessant whiners and why do they insist of hanging around where they don't want to be and where they are NOT wanted as customers? Maybe they need a shrink?

2

patkindle 1 year, 2 months ago

the joys of sitting at a bar , smoking cigarette after cigarettte, getting hammered and driving home drunk. thats the good old days of course it is hard to respect your government for their bailout on casinos

1

toe 1 year, 2 months ago

Giving up freedom for a certificate for KU seems like a great idea. After all being a National anything is so prestigious and the strings attached are so inconsequential. Stay tuned for National Fat Designation.

2

harleyrider1978 1 year, 2 months ago

Springfield Bar Owner Says Smoking Ban Sunk His Business

Updated: January 24, 2013

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- It's the last call for another Springfield bar.

Knightyme Bar & Billiards near West Bypass and Division Street will close its doors on Super Bowl Sunday (Feb. 3).

Jim Knight, the owner of the neighborhood spot, says the smoking ban is largely to blame for his business' demise.

"It's my life," says Knight. When the smoke cleared, so did his customers. "We're probably down 50-60 percent and sometimes more."

Friends and loyal customers have been stopping by the bar to say goodbye; they've shared stories around the tables for the last 20 years.

"Coming in here to wish me good luck and to thank me for all the years and all the good times that they had and they're going to miss this place."

Not even the $8,000 it took for heaters and a back porch could save Knightyme Bar.

"We all come here. This is our bar," says Leonard Meese. He started coming to the bar years ago.

"Leonard that you interviewed," adds Knight. "Bud Light bottle -- always."

It's a place where they know your name, and your drink.

"Yesterday was especially rough," says Diana Burky, who'll soon be out of a job. "Well this is my home, you know. I've worked here 13 years. This is my family. I'm not sure what I'm going to do without them."

This family doesn't like the smoking ban. Two elections though show most Springfield voters do.

"When you come in to eat with your family and other things, then you don't have to worry about the smell of smoke or damaging your family's future," says Mike Hlavacek at Skybox, a mid-Springfield bar.

What's good for some, Knight says wasn't good for him. He thought about his granddaughter. "Her 21 birthday was in here and her first birthday was in here." This year, she'll have to find someplace else to celebrate 22.

The City did not immediately have numbers to show the overall economic impact of the smoking ban. Two votes and two court decisions have supported the ban.

0

harleyrider1978 1 year, 2 months ago

Although there was no statewide decrease in the liquor business, the study does say that individual businesses could have been affected positively or negatively "as the marketplace adjusted to the new regulations."

Plenty of businesses shut down from the smoking ban,its the same all over the world,yet these tobacco control folks aren't ready to cough up and pay these businesses so affected by the ban.

In England 150,000 bars and pubs shutdown not counting Bingo halls,private clubs,coffee shops etc,wher smokers were the primary customer base. That's where you find business closures at. Overall sales receipts as which what most of these purported do no harm studies from TC are misleading and down right deceptive. A close look at the raw data will no doubt prove just how deceptive as Im sure there are those going thru it as we speak. But TC isn't worried about it being a junk study or even being dismissed as junk science. They want the 2 day Media Blitz headline that's always used to get their propaganda out. The media never delves deeper than a headline for the actual facts.

Why would it be simply that the Health Board of the state did this study and not the Tax dept of the state. Because tobacco control has got to constantly show positive results of their law as there are plenty of people in the statehouse ready and willing to REPEAL IT at any given moment and they know it. All the smoking bans are at risk in every state they are at.

Ive got a list of hundreds of businesses wiped out from the smoking bans nationwide and that's just online stories of the devastating effects of smoking ban economic harm.

Even the fabled second hand smoke justification is trumped up JUNK SCIENCE!

90% water and ordinary atmospheric air SG REPORT 1989 PG 80!

One thing is for sure,TC is shaking in there boots as their funding dries upand states are begging to find any additional revenue they can to get their budgets balanced. Cigarettes are the tax winner when the taxes are maintained low,when they go sky high like today they feed a blackmarket as large as any of AL CAPONES RACKETS during prohibition.

Bootleggers don't card kids!

0

JackMcKee 1 year, 2 months ago

That guy is the standard smoker for every LJW story on the ban.

0

Steven Gaudreau 1 year, 2 months ago

I love the smoking ban but I would like to know if this "study" took into consideration inflation and price increase? Prices have risen about 30% in the last 4 years. Is it a quantity of liquor sold they are looking at the or the income of liquor sold? To say businesses were not effected is a flat out lie. The increase of small businesses has boomed since the economic crash as well. This study is b.s. but please do not repeal the smoking ban.

1

friendlyjhawk 1 year, 2 months ago

Why does LJW find the worst photo of anything and anybody to run with their stories?

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 2 months ago

Before the smoking ban, any bar owner in America could have made their bar a non-smoking establishment. Personally, I never heard of such a thing, leading me to believe that a non-smoking bar was a bad business model. However, I understand the rationale behind having non-smoking bars. We've gone too far, in that I doubt there will be any serious effort made to re-introduce smoking into bars, but in my opinion, what should have been done years ago was to establish two different types of liquor licenses, one that allows smoking and one that does not. Let the owners decide for themselves, taking their cue from their customers. If the state wants to encourage certain behaviors or discourage others, simply make the smoking license more expensive. Owners would pass that cost on to their customers who will then have the freedom to go where they choose and pay the higher or lower price, according to their wishes.

3

smartin1955 1 year, 2 months ago

Add the Hutchinson Bowling alley, the R Bar, Bumpers Diner, at least six businesses in Wichita, bingo halls, two pool halls in Salina, to the closed list.

We were told that smoking bans would be good for business. That's what the paper said when they incessantly quoted pro ban talking heads. Smoking bans are very bad for small businesses who choose to cater to adult smokers. All of us knew that Lawrence with it's new crop of young party animals would be relatively unscathed by the ban, but out here, in the rest of Kansas, we are alot of older folks, who enjoy the companionship of our friends in our little bars.

By the way, I have been bartending for 40 years and I have bever seen anyone fall over dead from second hand smoke, or anything else for that matter. WHat I an seeing is little businesses, owned by Kansans, not out of state chains, closing. It makes me sick.

Mr Gossen and the Kansas Health Institute have received a fortune in grants from the "philanthropic arm" of the pharma that sells the patches and gums. Is that why he failed, in his report to the Legislature, to mention the multitude of studies showing economoc harm to bars? Je also failed in this "economic assesment" (by a non economist!) to mention that a keg of beer went from $49 ten years ago to $98 now. Case beer went up $3 since '05.

I'm not a college educated person, but I can do THIS math.

2

Cyzanne 1 year, 2 months ago

Oh please. Health departments should stick to lies and propaganda that cannot be easily debunked by qualified economists. If smoking bans didn't hurt businesses why would business owners fight them? Surely they have better things to do than fight issues that don't make a difference to their bottom line. http://tinyurl.com/a68zpnh

4

WIpatriot 1 year, 2 months ago

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-uk-during-past-two-years-3382-pubs.html "Sunday, February 08, 2009 In the U.K. during past two years 3,382 pubs have closed since their nationwide smoking ban was enacted .....so far this year they have been shutting at the rate of one every four hours.

Obviously, the drinks industry is quick to blame the economy for the problems but.......the fact that the one thing you cannot do in a smoking room (now) is smoke. There’s no doubt that this has had a profound effect on the licensing trade, and David Cameron must make it a top priority to overturn the ban the moment he takes office. In the meantime, however, publicans must stop whining and carefully study the antismoking rule book to find a loophole. The rest of the Times Online article can be found online here. The story is a tale of the tragic truth that occurs when government meddling interferes with free market trade. Pharmaceutical nicotine (Nicoderm) manufacturer Johnson & Johnson Company with their partner RWJF funded lobbyists to pursue a smoking ban agenda in order to increase product sales & profits, lawmakers were happy to oblige for their own selfish reason; primarily they and their constituents; were tired of smelling like smoke....on the rare event that they actually frequented a smoking establishment."

3

WIpatriot 1 year, 2 months ago

Wow, it seems Kansas legislators in the pocket of pharma seem to think their businesses are immune to the devastation bans cause! Must be a phenomena! "Over 500 Minnesota bars and restaurants have closed since smoking bans were enacted in the land of 10,000+ unemployed hospitality workers. A newly discovered official report from the State of Minnesota Auditor's Office proves what many of us against smoking bans always knew, smoking ban activists lied to the public and lawmakers when they said smoking bans were "good for business". This State of Minnesota official report found that one year after the statewide smoking ban, revenue was down on average 31.9% in bars and taverns."

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/10/minnesota-releases-revenue-numbers-that.html

Smoking bans, a large majority of which were enacted between 2002-2006, were a major contributing factor to worldwide economic meltdown:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldwide-economic-meltdown-and.html

4

blue73harley 1 year, 2 months ago

Well, I call BS. My two favorite places closed down.

Stu's Midtown Bar closed. No place for a patio. Loss of a great local bar, great blues venue.

Captain Ribman's Meat Market closed. No place for a patio. Cool, quirky place that had great fried Twinkies.

Thanks for closing these, you nannys.

5

mom_of_three 1 year, 2 months ago

too bad the state run casino doesn't follow the same policies.

6

bookemdano 1 year, 2 months ago

In other news, the sky is blue.

Hint: this is sort of like the inevitable studies to come out in a couple of years showing that increasing taxes on the rich didn't in fact kill jobs or make rich people less inclined to keep getting richer.

10

Boston_Corbett 1 year, 2 months ago

Remember in 2004 when Chuck Magerl claimed that the Lawrence smoking ban would run Free State Brewery out of business?

I laughed then. I still laugh now.

12

Clark Coan 1 year, 2 months ago

And the number of heart attacks caused by second-hand smoke probably declined as well.

3

Commenting has been disabled for this item.