Karaoke Forums

After several years of strong growth in alcoholic beverage sales, sales at Dallas’ restaurants showed a small year over year decline between 2000 and 2001 totaling about $370,000* (see Figure 1 below). Considering the dual effects of an economic downturn and the impacts of the 9/11 attacks on consumer spending at hospitality venues, this decrease offers little surprise. Moreover, as the impact of the tech-wreck extended the loss of regional business activity well into 2002, alcoholic beverage sales dropped an additional $4.1 million compared to 2001. As the regional economy stabilized and began showing early signs of returning growth, expectations rose that consumers would regain their desire for fine dining accompanied by alcoholic beverage sales. However, for Dallas’ restaurants the pain grew worse. Comparing 2003 to 2002, year over year sales of alcoholic beverage at eating and drinking establishments in Dallas fell $11.8 million – almost three times the decrease in sales between 2001 and 2002.

According to responses received by the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association, restaurant owners have seen alcoholic beverage sales decline anywhere from 9 percent to over 50 percent since the Dallas smoking ban went into effect. Owners and managers of these establishments report mixed results in food sales, with one restaurant indicating no impact on food sales while others claim as much as a 25 percent loss in food sales. No responding restaurant indicated they had gained revenues since the smoking ban’s inception

Sufficient evidence exists to suggest that at least some of Dallas’ premier restaurants have lost business because of the smoking ban. Their revenue losses translate into fewer jobs and lost tax revenue to the City. The hordes of new customers looking for smoke-free dining experiences have not shown up at the tables.

The smoking bans are what my wife and i talked about we as citizens are letting a few namby pambys rule us by telling us what is healthyand not not letting people decide for themselves. the constitution gives us certain rights and one is the pursuit of happiness. what if the do gooders decide singing is bad for us it could happen think about this a few are trying to control the masses just my thoughts. dave NON SMOKER

I'm still left scratching my head when, as a non-smoker, my pursuit of happiness trumps a smokers. There isn't a bar owner who wants the smoking bar, if they did their establishment woulda been non-smoking to begin with.

I'm still left looking for a good answer as to why a business owner can't make the decision themselves and why employees can't decide what type of environment they mind/don't mind working in.

I'm still left looking for a good answer as to why a business owner can't make the decision themselves and why employees can't decide what type of environment they mind/don't mind working in. People are too stupid to make the right decisions so we'll make them for you? The non-smoker can make the choice of not walking into the establishment. If you don't like Sushi don't go in a Sushi bar. Should we shut Sushi places down to protect non-sushi eaters? Ok, yes, ridiculous, but you *do* have that level of choice in places to have a drink.

I can see the persuasiveness of that argument, if you hold with the second-hand smoke being a great hazard. I don't feel it has been conclusively shown to be a huge hazard, myself. Personally I think that there should be smoking licenses issued just like liquor licenses. I don't see the difference, since 10% of the population (and 30% of bar regulars) abuse alcohol and it is also proven to be a health hazard.

You are sadly mistaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
As for your analogy of drinking, it simply doen't hold water. Barring that a woman drinking is pregnant, there is NO possible way for you to take a drink and have that drink directly harm another person. Not so when you smoke a cigarette standing next to someone.
You might argue that a drunk person may get into a vehicle and hit someone and kill them, but that doesn't really hold water either, since not everyone will do that, and the stupidity factor cannot reasonably be part of the analogy.
The other thing you didn't account for is the fact that perhaps I don't like to go home stinking like a foul cigarette because YOU chose to blow it my way. When you drink a rye, I don't go home stinking of rye, unless of course, I was drinking rye myself.
You forget the employees that may be forced to work in smoking conditions to support themselves and their families. You can always say, "You have the choice not to work there". That is probably not the case and is simply a cop-out for those that don't want to look at the whole picture objectively.
Where I live, smoking is no longer allowed in places that have hired employees because of the PROVEN health hazards.
Best thing that ever happened as far as I'm concerned. I can now go out and enjoy myself without someone having their stinky cigarette burning in my eyes and stinking up my hair and clothes.
If they choose to smoke, they must go outside and be at least 3 yards from the entrance to the building before they light up. Fair enough. Non smokers don't have to brave the wall of smoke that used to happen when they were allowed to gather directly outside the doors.
When you are a smoker, you truly have NO (ZERO even!) clue as to how bad it really does smell.
Not to mention the proven health hazards, both to yourselves and to others.