Now
Fair
81.0°
High
84°
Low
66°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Smoking ban cleans air, but bars are losing money

Comments 111 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY MATT OLBERDING / Lincoln Journal Star

Tuesday, Jan 23, 2007 - 11:53:14 pm CST

Lincoln’s bars and restaurants have cleaner air, but they’re also in many cases losing money. That was the gist of a report issued by Tobacco Free Lincoln.

The group reported that Lincoln’s smoking ban, now two years old, has made the air in Lincoln bars 96 percent cleaner than that in comparable Omaha establishments.

“The smoke-free Lincoln law is a tremendous success,” said Cindy Jeffrey, executive director of Health Education Inc.

Story Photo
Matthew Berks takes a cigarette break outside Brothers Bar & Grill in January 2005. (LJS File)

Also, according to the group, people enjoy having smoke-free bars in Lincoln and most people continue to go to those bars.

In August 2005, 91.4 percent of adults surveyed in Lincoln agreed with the following statement: “Restaurants and bars in Lincoln are healthier for customers and employees now that they are smoke-free.”

The same survey found that 84.6 percent of people said they go to bars in Lincoln as often or more often than they did before Jan. 1, 2005.

Despite those pronouncements, the group did release information from a University of Nebraska-Lincoln study showing there have been significant negative economic effects related to the ban.

The study done by UNL’s Bureau of Business Research showed that Lincoln’s keno receipts plunged in the year after the ban became law, with an average monthly loss of $376,000. In contrast, Waverly and Denton, where smoking is still allowed in bars and restaurants, saw monthly keno gains of $70,000 to $80,000 each.

That is in the ballpark with what Big Red Keno has seen, said Bill Harvey, the company’s general counsel.

Harvey said keno receipts in Lincoln grew every year from 1992 to 2004, despite the opening of casinos in Council Bluffs and a fire at the company’s main Lincoln location.

But Big Red apparently met its match in the smoking ban — keno receipts declined 19 percent in 2005.

“The smoking ban had a substantial effect on our keno game, and there’s really no other explanation,” Harvey said.

The UNL study showed a drop in keno receipts wasn’t the only economic effect of the smoking ban. Lincoln’s bars lost $170,000 worth of business monthly in 2005, which translated to $2,500 monthly in lost sales tax, the study said.

That didn’t come as a surprise to bar owners.

Jack Gross, owner of Duggan’s Pub, said business at bars is down 25 percent, and he blamed the lost keno and sales tax revenue for contributing to the city’s $9 million budget shortfall.

Gross admitted some bars have been able to adjust and come back, but it’s “very, very few.”

One of those is Brewsky’s, which, despite taking a hit on keno and liquor sales, has been able to make up for it with cuts and some price increases on food at its two locations, owner Brian Kitten said.

Still, Kitten said, he’s no fan of the ban.

“It’s not been a fun process,” he said.

Eric Thompson, director of the Bureau of Business Research, said situations like those at Duggan’s and Brewsky’s are to be expected.

“We know regulation has an effect on business,” he said. “On the other hand, people pursue the regulation for a reason.”

One of those reasons was cleaner air for bar and restaurant patrons and employees.

“The people of Lincoln voted in November 2004 for clean air,” said Jeffrey. “We accomplished clean air and more. Now we have smoke-free air in indoor worksites, fewer people are smoking, and more are choosing to make their homes smoke-free.”

Reach Matt Olberding at 473-2647 or molberding@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
scott wrote on January 24, 2007 3:49 am:
" it's nice and all with the clean air stuff, but bar's ARE bar's and smoking and drinking is what they are about. if people don't like that sort of thing they should go to applebees or a buffet where they can o/d on colesteral and breath their clean air....the only thing i'd like is to find more heated smoking areas because smoking in the cold sucks. i am not alone when i say that. "
Rick wrote on January 24, 2007 5:30 am:
" Well all I can say is that you have Bruce Dart of the health department and Ken Svoboda for putting us in this mess. They brought in their expert from California (the land of fruits and nuts) who said that our sales tax receipts would increases, well now we have seen the results. During all the hearings on the smoking ban it went back and forth on how it should be done most of the members worked with business’s to try and work out something that would not destroy these business’s. But at the last minute Ken Svoboda changed all that by adding an amendment and the reason he gave “because I can” so you can blame part of the 9 million short fall in the budget on Mr. Ken Svoboda. So why don’t they put it back to a vote asking do you want a Smoking Ban or Pay higher taxes. "
Angela wrote on January 24, 2007 5:50 am:
" I for one personally love the smoking ban. I am allergic to smoke and I always hated not being able to go to my favorite restaurant or go play a few rounds of keno somewhere. No offense to anyone who does smoke but it's just not very pleasent to sit down to eat a nice meal and you smell this nasty disgusting cigarette. It's a nasty habit plain and simple and I was absolutely thrilled when the smoking ban began. Thank you Lincoln for being smoke free. "
nitemare wrote on January 24, 2007 6:23 am:
" It is discrimination. Pure and simple. "
kathy wrote on January 24, 2007 6:59 am:
" I agree with the no smoking in restaurants NOT the bars. The bars are bare now you can go into any regular bar Not college and is hardly anyone there. I dont see any of my friens anymore because they have all decided to stay home because its not the same. We use to spend approx 60-100 a week at the bars no we just go to Omaha or Waverly. "
EVS wrote on January 24, 2007 7:09 am:
" Heaven forbid you have to go outside to smoke , come on people get a brain "
C wrote on January 24, 2007 7:25 am:
" I have a smokefree home while I admire the city for trying to look out for others, maybe what Lincoln should have done is to change bars and restaurants with keno and or true bars attached to either all smoking or all non smoking. That would have been easier for the business owners, we would continue with our keno revenues and those of us enjoying the trip to Denton would stay in Lincoln. You can say anything that you want about smokers going outside or going to a bar without a cigarette but obvisouly most of you going to bars are going for alcohol, if bars kept their environment smoke free and stopped serving alcohol would you continue to go? I know that not everyone goes to a bar to have a drink and relax but most do.... that's what a night out is for a smoker, have a couple drinks, smoke a couple cigarettes and relax.... its as easy as that. "
T wrote on January 24, 2007 7:42 am:
" So what's the difference between a "College" Bar and a "Regular" Bar. A bar is a bar, they all serve alcohol. The bars downtown always seem filled to capacity. As for the smoking outside in the cold, maybe it's motivation to stop smoking. Obviously the people who smoke are lacking intelligence anyways, think about this for a second. You're lighting tar, paper, chemicals and putting it on your lips and breathing it in. Why don't I just stand in front of a tire fire and breath that in. Don't even get started with the addiction, it's not an addiction, it's a habit. "
Chris wrote on January 24, 2007 7:48 am:
" Business may be down at bars, but I don't think the smoking ban can take all the blame. I think the risk of DUI (or worse) and the severe penalties involved are also keeping more people at home. It doesn't take much to get to .08 and DD's aren't always available. I've seen a growing trend in people in the neighborhood getting together in their garages rather than drive to a bar. "
hmm wrote on January 24, 2007 8:04 am:
" The tax revenue will need to be made up somewhere, and you can bet it will be the non smokers. Assuming the state wide smoking ban goes into effect, let's now start on people's eating habits. Since most Americans are overweight and consequently cause increased healthcare costs to the average taxpayer, let's make sure that peoples eating habits are heavily scrutinized. The days of eating what you want, where you want are over. Start by taxing any unhealthy item on any menu in any restaurant. Second, let's set a general higher sales tax for any food purchased in a restaurant. Third, let's tax soda pop and junk food in the same manner we now tax alcohol and tobacco. I can guarentee you that legislation similar to this will be forthcoming. It may take a few years to get going, just like the smoking bans did but it will come. As a smoker who is generally healthy and of proper weight, I can hardly wait to start the finger pointing and supporting the legislation. Once that is resolved, then we go after those who use their cell phones while driving. Studies have proven that cell phone usage while driving as a similar impairment to driving as an intoxicated driver. Make sure the same penalties apply to cell phone drivers as drunk drivers. Then we can move on to peoples sexual behaviour because how one behaves in that matter has a direct correlation with increased healthcare costs. Is this the kind of society we want to live in folks? Really, think about it, isn't there room in this country for a little more tolerance? "
L wrote on January 24, 2007 8:06 am:
" I am a smoker and I must say I hated the idea of a smoke free Lincoln in the begining. Now, I love it. It does not bother me to go outside and smoke. As a matter of fact, it's even encouraged me to try to quit. "
Sarah wrote on January 24, 2007 8:07 am:
" I always was against a smoking ban (I'm not a smoker by the way) simply because its the government mandating to business owners on how they should conduct their business. It would be different of course if illegal activity was going on, but last time I checked smoking was legal. It's not the government that pays these bar owners bills........yet they step in and tell owners how to run the place. If smoking is so harmful just ban it outright. Oh wait, how much $$$ does the government get from tobacco taxes? Nevermind....... "
ECON wrote on January 24, 2007 8:11 am:
" Are you Kidding me??? Bars are not losing money at all!!! I understand some people that are still mad about the smoking ban are "boycotting" the whole ordeal but I highly doubt they are losing money. Bars aren't thinking other possiblities for the lost of business...I think This is the best thing that has happened to lincoln in along time and Bars/people need to just let it go and let us non smokers enjoy our health! "
karen wrote on January 24, 2007 8:13 am:
" If the bars are losing so much money then why are they always crowded? This article sounds like only smokers play Keno. Gee I play it and I don't smoke. Maybe the amount of Keno players has gone down because people just don't have the money to donate to the game. "
Jeremy wrote on January 24, 2007 8:18 am:
" Where is the proof? Just because bars are losing money doesn't mean that the smoking ban caused this problem. What if we examine some other possible economic benefits? Decreases in health care costs for employees in those establishments, fewer dry cleaning costs for customers' stinky clothes and a need to repaint the inside of bars less often because the tar doesn't build up on the walls as quickly. "
Stinky downtown air wrote on January 24, 2007 8:28 am:
" I have breathed more second-hand smoke since the ban because of all the people standing around outside smoking. I work downtown and have the pleasure of being harrassed by drunk old men when I walk down O Street every day. There are smokers scattered all over. When I was pregnant I had to keep zig-zagging across the street to avoid the smokers because it made me so nauseous. Keep the drunk old dudes and the smoke in the bar where they belong. I have absolutely no beef whatsoever with being around second-hand smoke when I choose to go out at night to a bar. That's what bars are for. I would much rather deal with that than the daily intake I get from walking outside on my lunch hour and after work. As for the employees, all of the bartenders I know smoke. I guess if they don't, and they don't like it, they should look into alternative employment. I also would like to mention that cigarette butts are litter, and I'm sick and tired of seeing people throw them out their car windows because they like to use their ashtrays for spare change or whatever. Very annoying. "
Brian wrote on January 24, 2007 8:29 am:
" Once again Lincoln blows another chance at compromising with the people that actually live in the town own bars or patrons that go to these places. I can see a restraunt ban but people that go to bars are not going there to be healthy, and there are a lot of restraunts that have bars non-smokers could go sit at without smoke! If I needed help being healthy I would go to a gym not a bar! Lincoln still smells with the ban! Dont come to my town and tell me how to live! "
SmokeFree wrote on January 24, 2007 8:30 am:
" One this is not discrimination for those of you that think that it is grow up. Smoking is a choice and it is proven that it is unhealthy not only for the smoker, but second hand smoke is also harmful. As a smoker it is your choice to light up and you have to suffer affects on your health, you cannot make this decision for others. It is habit, not something that you are born with. You cannot discriminate a habit. Suck it up and go outside if you really need a cigarette. As for the smoking ban I love it, and it makes for a cleaner environment. "
Rights wrote on January 24, 2007 8:34 am:
" I have a right to breath clean air. Smoking is a choice not a right! Where I work they give smoke breaks, where is my clean air break. It's all about the poor smokers. You have all outside and your home. I have heard so many people say that they don't even smoke if their own house but get upset about the smoking ban. Like I said smoking is a choice not a privledge. What is the point anyway? Inhale smoke and blow it out. Seems kind of dumb, oh I forgot the nicotine. Get a grip on your own life and quit. Do cigaretts rule you? And one other thing, PICK UP YOUR OWN BUTTS... "
Please wrote on January 24, 2007 8:35 am:
" Dart and Svoboda maybe pushed the issue, but almost 2 out of 3 people voted for the ban, get it? The people decided, this wasn't forced on anyone by "the out of touch politicians." Sounds to me like they were right on the pulse. "
A wrote on January 24, 2007 8:37 am:
" What is the actual dollar amount SAVED from people not having respiratory problems/issues related to smoking? I'd imagine that this area is saving money in medical/hospital bills. Good Job Lincoln! PS it was the people of Lincoln that voted this Ban not the City Council. "
Mike Honcho wrote on January 24, 2007 8:40 am:
" If smoking and bars supposedly "go together", then why is it that virtually no bar sells cigarettes? "
Dave K wrote on January 24, 2007 8:40 am:
" So what if bars lose money, at least people can go whereever they want and not be bothered by smoke. That's what capitalism and a free market are all about! (spoken facetiously, of course) "
Mrs. B wrote on January 24, 2007 8:40 am:
" How would u like it if someone told you that you have to go outside to use the bathroom or talk on your phone, etc. I don't think you would appreciate it much either. We shouldn't have to be banned from smoking in our regular joints and having a good time. It's stupid and the bar owners are taking a hit. My husband and I haven't gone out in Lincoln since the ban - we drive to a smalltown bar where we can smoke inside and enjoy ourselves. Their revenue has gone up 45% since the ban - so KEN SVOBODA - what do you have to say about that??? "
Mary B. wrote on January 24, 2007 8:47 am:
" I don't understand giving up property rights to government. I think Owners should be able to decide what to do with _their own_ property. If people don't want to be around cigarette smoke don't give them your business. Now there isn't smoke, and they aren't getting the non-smoker business and lost the smokers. Brilliant. "
Fred wrote on January 24, 2007 8:50 am:
" Once again the voters of Lincoln have been duped into believing that the smoking ban would have no economic affect. I agreed totally with the initial smoking ban which banned smoking in any establishment where 50% or more of the profit was made from food but I do not agree with the total ban. Too bad the government worded the initiative the way they did and that the voters of Lincoln could not see through the "smoke" and mirrors. Now they can all continue to complain about taxes as we continue to see them rise. "
Tammy wrote on January 24, 2007 8:53 am:
" I hope that Denton and Waverly have been putting some of their bonanza away, when the state wide ban goes through, they'll see some of thier new found business decline as well. "
boo hoo wrote on January 24, 2007 8:54 am:
" go outside smokers, most of you wouldn't smoke in your own homes so why do it in an enclosed area. I hope this ban passes state wide. I live in Omaha and most of the bars here are absolutely disgusting because of smoking. It's a flithy ridiculously gross habit. "
Sean wrote on January 24, 2007 8:54 am:
" The statistics are from 2005...it would be interesting to see what happened in 2006 after businesses and the public had a chance to adjust to the new policies. "
Lets go unicameral! wrote on January 24, 2007 8:55 am:
" This is the way of the future, as evidenced by multiple other states and even countries passing similar bans. Lets hope our state legislators have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and pass a statewide ban. Then, Lincoln will be on an even playing field (and all of us will breathe easier!) "
Jan wrote on January 24, 2007 9:00 am:
" Well imagine that. All those people who said if smoking were not allowed they would go out more. Now we know where our politicians get it. Anyone with half an ounce or who goes out at all knows how much this has hurt the local economy. "
JP wrote on January 24, 2007 9:02 am:
" While I am a non-smoker and I do like the bars now, I don't go anymore often than before the ban. What I do know is that if I was a business owner putting my livelihood on the line, I do not want the government telling me how to run my business. Smoking is a legal activity and as such should not be regulated by the government as to if it can be done in a private business. "
Jason wrote on January 24, 2007 9:11 am:
" So if the keno is increasing outside the city of Lincoln then maybe they should pass the statewide smoking ban. Then they'll have to come back to Lincoln. Viva la smoking ban! "
T wrote on January 24, 2007 9:14 am:
" Just was wandering what the difference is between someone walking into a bar with a loaded gun and start shooting at people or someone lighting up and blowing all that smoke in your face? Smoking kills also..... "
yo wrote on January 24, 2007 9:17 am:
" Smoking gives you cancer and can also kill the people around you. I don't respect anyone who smokes, it's just plain stupid! If anything there should be a law to make smoking illegal period! Thay might be a little outragious, but it would only make this world a better place. "
why can't we compromise wrote on January 24, 2007 9:25 am:
" i am a non-smoker, but a believer in the rights of business owners. why can't there be a choice in the matter? finally there is a survery w/ the real numbers about money loss. when taxes go up this law will be one of the reasons. "
Look to the Future! wrote on January 24, 2007 9:45 am:
" This article points to the numbers from the first year of the ban. I'm pretty sure everyone saw a profit loss coming. No one should be surprised by these numbers at all. The thing is, this ban is a thought towards the future. As younger individuals growing up with the ban hit the market they won't be boycotting restaraunts or bars simply because of a smoking ban because they have lived with it most or all of their lives. Wait and see, but I bet that the losses will lessen and lessen as years go by. "
how do the smokers do it... wrote on January 24, 2007 9:48 am:
" ...when they go out to a movie and have to sit there for two hours without lighting up? It is the same thing when they go to a bar, they can sit there for two hours not smoking then go outside and light up for five minutes and then come back in for another two hours. I do believe that it has been illegal to smoke in movie theaters for years and they have survived that "ban" "
Gregg wrote on January 24, 2007 9:48 am:
" So now we can blame the budget shortfall on the smoking ban. Sweet. And once more I'll make the bold statement that second hand smoke does not significantly increase ones risk of lung cancer. Smoking kills the people who first hand smoke...and only sometimes. If they want that risk, let them take it. I'm tired of big brother government telling citizens they can't do potentially risky things. If that's how we're gonna play, may as well ban cars, sports, processed foods, and anything that might possibly somehow hurt someone. "
Jan wrote on January 24, 2007 9:51 am:
" Sorry but breathing clean air is not a right. Grow up and deal with the fact that everything isn't your way or the highway, the majority do NOT rule and tolerance is the only way we will get along. "
Thank you Ken Svoboda! wrote on January 24, 2007 9:51 am:
" Hooray for Ken Svoboda! He provided leadership on this issue even though it was not overly popular with some bar owners but the voters of Lincoln proved they wanted this with an overwhelming vote. Smokers can always go outside and many bars now have year round out door heated beer gardens. When you enter an out of town establsishment that allows smoking the first thing you notice is the stench of tobacco smoke. As an asthma sufferrer I say again - Thank you Ken Svoboda!!! "
denial wrote on January 24, 2007 9:58 am:
" Yea, where's all of those non-smokers at that needed people to not smoke in bars so they could attend the free enviroment of the bars???? Gee you every think what you breath in when you breath in the smog of L.A. or walk by a Car??? "
Hey wrote on January 24, 2007 9:58 am:
" If we are going to legislate healthy lifestyles, then we need to outlaw doughnuts, cookie shops, red meat, and french fries because obesity has surpassed the effects of smoking in costs to our healthcare systems and insurance companies. I've been to the state fair, and boy howdy, you can certainly see the effects of unhealthy living on that crowd. "
x-smoker wrote on January 24, 2007 9:59 am:
" The city passed a smoking ordinance banning smoking in bars & restaraunts if 60& or more revenue was from food. Bar owners objected to that and petitioned the city to repeal the ordinance. The city decided to let the people of Lincoln decide and the people overwhelmingly voted for the total ban. Sorry smokers, you had your chance at the ballot box and lost. "
jaime wrote on January 24, 2007 10:02 am:
" I'm anit-smoking, but pro smoker's rights. It's a personal property issue all the way. Either ban it, or let it go. You can't take the tax money, and pick and choose. If you're going to ban it in bars because people don't like the smell, then you have to allow it in a smoke shop or something like that. For all those people that are for equal clean air rights, you also have to be for equal rights period -and you're not. You're just for your rights. It's your personal preference. If that's the case let's ban cheap cologne or perfume from use, or excessive hairspray, etc. I'm sure they have far worse effects on the lungs when applied. Smoke is actually a wet tar, and once it reaches room temperature, it is not harmful, it's just a smell. For every study that states different, there's one that proves that point. There's a lot of propaganda out there for funded groups that just isn't true and based on faulty science. "
Hattie wrote on January 24, 2007 10:07 am:
" I thought that the "Majority" said they would support the Bars and places that eliminated the smoking. WHAT HAPPENED????? Did they lie? Lincoln has such a bunch of "Do Gooders" that they come out after dark from their holes and mess with all of the real Majority. Now they have contaminated the rest of Nebraska with their Moral ideas. What ever happened to the minority coming out against the perverted ideas of the MORAL Majority?????//// "
vahusker wrote on January 24, 2007 10:23 am:
" I left Lincoln shortly after the smoking ban went into effect in 2005. I was recently back visiting some friends and we went out to some of our old college hangouts. While I am a smoker, I will admit it was quite nice to be able to see each other without the smoky haze surronding everything, however I also noticed a distinct lack of patrons in any of the bars we went too. At first I just thought the lack of people was due to the weather, but my friends said for the most part the bars were usually always this empty. I felt that what the city council had approved with the greater than 60% of receipts from food would be subject to smoking ban was an excellent idea. Not until the council's last minute decision to change the wording of it did I feel as if the council had adopted a draconian ban. The city council passed it, and then the petetions around Lincoln were started to at least get it on the ballot in November. The petitions were successful, however the ballot box said the 2/3 of Lincoln voters thought that what the city council had done was ok. It is too bad that once again a few overzealous people are able to inflict their agenda's onto the masses. "
A wrote on January 24, 2007 10:24 am:
" I for one love the smoking ban, I remember going out for drinks with friends and only having a couple drinks, but waking up the next morning feeling like crap and coughing all day because of the smoke! I also love not smelling like a nasty ashtray and having to wash everything the second I get home to avoid having the smell take over the house. If the only point smokers can bring up is the fact they have to stand outside, boo hoo! "
A wrote on January 24, 2007 10:25 am:
" I am a non-smoker and I love the clean air in bars. That said, I have not gone to the bars any more since the ban was passed than I did before. I don't entirely agree with the smoking ban, or the way it was enforced at midnight. Smoking is a choice, and smoking indoors is harmful to others. However, going to a bar is a choice and operating a smoke-free business should be a choice. I think it'd be interesting to see what choice bar owners would make if the ban was lifted. I suspect the majority of "College" bars would be better off smoke-free, but not the "Regular" bars. "
Erik wrote on January 24, 2007 10:31 am:
" I still can't believe its been two years since the smoking ban hit Lincoln and people are still whining about it. I'm a non-smoker, but I believe this is the greatest thing owners of bars and restaurants have done in a long time. My clothes don't smell like a chimney when I get out of a bar. I don't have this lingering headache from other people's smoke. I think it's very rude for smokers to light one up after they eat their meal and there might be some who are just starting to eat and have to smell that smoke. Listen up: Get over it. "
Non-Smoker for Freedom! wrote on January 24, 2007 10:31 am:
" I'm embarrassed to live in Lincoln. You ban fans are hypocrites for saying we need the ban to protect people's health--the real reason you voted for the ban is so you could selfishly go to someone else's bar and not have to deal with smoke. If you didn't like the smoke, you should have stayed home--bars would have changed their policy voluntarily if people didn't come. Or better yet, you could have started your own smoke-free bar. But instead, you took away other people's property rights and personal freedom for your own benefit. "
Barb wrote on January 24, 2007 10:35 am:
" People are so funny. It seems everyone is complaining that the smoking ban is taking away rights and is the governments attempt to control the public. Has everyone forgotten that the public can not smoke at work, cannot drink on the street, can't buy liquor after 1:00 am, can't have a blood alcohol level over a certain limit...etc. Why is everyone ok with those restrictions...but can't seem to get over the smoking ban? It's been two years...move on. The government restricts all kinds of things...this is no different. GET OVER IT!!!! "
Maybe its the economy and not the smoking ban!!!!!!!!!!! wrote on January 24, 2007 10:36 am:
" Did anyone ever think that this loss in business may not actually be related to the smoking ban, but in fact be due to the decline in the economy due to the increase in the price of gas. The increase in the cost of gas effected a lot of things. People had less money to spend therefore people didn't eat out as much and were more particular about what they spent there money on. I don't believe that 2005 was a good year to research this trend, a more stable year that where the economy is similar to what it was before the smoking ban would give a much clearer picture of the actual affect that the smoking ban had on business. In Rochester Minnesota they passed a smoking ban 5 or 6 years ago and business has actually increased across the city. I don't think that this research group took enough of the other factors that would cause a decrease in business into account when they performed their study. "
Just wait wrote on January 24, 2007 10:54 am:
" Just wait until they ban fatty foods, candy, and all the other junk food all you fatties eat. Then there will be some real outrage. Once someone gets the power to ban one thing then you know more are to follow. Just look at Chicago and New York banning Trans Fats. They start with the smoking and slowly they will take all of your rights away. "
What about the right's of non-smokers??? wrote on January 24, 2007 10:54 am:
" Here's something I don't get. Yes people are allowed to smoke there is no law against that. I don't appreciate the fact that smokers complain that we violated their rights when we passed this smoking ban. Yes they have the right to kill themselves and give themselves cancer when they smoke, but what about the rights of the non-smokers. What gives smokers the right to kill non-smokers, we have the right to not breath smokey air, we choose not to smoke, so why should we get cancer and other respiratory problems and probably die because someone else wants to light up. Why aren't our rights important?????? "
livin in LV wrote on January 24, 2007 11:00 am:
" I lived in Lincoln at the conception of the smoking ban and them moved. I now reside in Las Vegas, who just past a non-smoking ban in bars. I have seen how well Lincoln did, it will be interesting to see how Vegas accepts it. From what I've seen, it's not the smoking that is the factor, it is the economy. "
tim wrote on January 24, 2007 11:06 am:
" why would the air quality be 100% better than omaha? what a political spin to this article. " 84.6 percent of people said they go to bars in Lincoln as often or more often than they did before Jan. 1, 2005." that means that 15.40 are going less. how many business owners can survive with a 15% reduction in traffic. according to the health department the ban is a complete success only by one means of measurement, no smoke in those establishment. success? what success. has the percentage of smokers gone down in linocln. this is (pardon the pun) smoke and mirrors. typical liberism, act like something is being done when the reality is all they've done is move the problem elsewhere, while hurting the tax base and private business owners. congrats on your wonderful self-appointed success. "
we knew they were lying wrote on January 24, 2007 11:07 am:
" Studies conducted by organizations with agendas are not to be taken seriously. I have only once been inside a bar or restaurant in Lincoln for 2 years now, and I know many like myself. It saddens me to think of the financial losses of the bar and restaurant owners and their employees. It sickens me to remember that the total ban supporters claimed nobody would suffer loses and that city tax receipts would not go down. They lied. We knew they were lying. I think the tax losses, at least, should come out of the health dept. budget. "
Big Country wrote on January 24, 2007 11:23 am:
" I was stationed in Florida where they do have a smoking ban but it's not like the one here. If a business in Florida doesnt bring in more than 25 percent of their money from food then you can smoke there. That works fine there and should any where else. To all the nonsmokers out there that are complaining about the smoke in the air. If you chose to go to an establishment that allows smoking then it's your own fault for smelling like a so-called ashtray. But here's an idea for everyone. Why dont we just make tobacco and alcohol illegal. Then we won't have to worry about people dying from lung cancer, emphysema, and drunk driving accidents. "
Patrick wrote on January 24, 2007 11:24 am:
" What about Bars that don't rely on Keno? I try to go downtown during the weekends I have off and never go Keno bars. When I went out this weekend, I believe the weather had the biggest impact, not a smoking ban. All the bars I frequent have had more difficulty replacing an aging crowd of regulars with younger patrons than anything. "
good neighbors wrote on January 24, 2007 11:27 am:
" As a former smoker of 20 years, all you smokers aught to be thankful you can still smoke, as this DRUG should be outlawed. The modified chemical components are killing more than yourself but EVERYONE else that has to smell it. Just maybe when you quit smoking cig's you'll realize what clean air is suppose to taste like. If you want to slowly commit suicide do it at YOUR home! "
Rick wrote on January 24, 2007 11:35 am:
" So less people sit in Keno bars all day gambling away their money while smoking cigarettes....Why is this bad?? "
citizen wrote on January 24, 2007 11:53 am:
" I don't get why people who choose to go outside Lincoln, just so they can smoke are punishing the bars they used to go ot. It's not the non-smokers who are punishing the bars. It's the so-called "patrons" who now are boycotting their former "local joints." Why are you smokers punishig the bars? You're the ones to blame. Not the non-smokers. "
Double D wrote on January 24, 2007 11:56 am:
" Get real. The people who voted for the ban are NOT the people who frequent bars on a regular basis. The bar owners could take or leave their busines because they don't depend on them to survive. The ban is in effect because a bunch of holier than thou, do gooders decided to force their beliefs on people to make themselves feel righteous. "
anti-smoking ban turned smoking ban supporter wrote on January 24, 2007 11:56 am:
" So, to summarize the article--a majority of the people who play keno also smoke. "
Steve wrote on January 24, 2007 12:03 pm:
" I, for one, love the smoking ban. It's probably the only reason I visit the bars more than before. I don't go to bars in Omaha because of the smoke. I won't eat at Denton bars because of the smoke. I can't stand the smoking at the casinos in Council Bluffs. And for all the people who say the bars are losing money, maybe you should go out the bars to see for ourselves. It doesn't appear to be slowing anyone down. Oh yea, I forgot, I never play keno (bad odds) so that argument doesn't work with me. "
Reality Check wrote on January 24, 2007 12:11 pm:
" I'm a non-smoker my self and I am just amazed at how stupid our city council got while I was gone for 2 years ....... this city is running its self into the ground. The quality of life may supposedly be greater then other cities but its coming at a very heavy price that will eventually break the backs of this town's commerce and industry sectors because of stupid dicissions like this. The blame rests on both the voters of Lincoln and the City Council of Lincoln. Sometimes the Masses are not right .......... obviously we are not all macro-economic pros as we can tell by the consequences of our actions. "
whatajoke wrote on January 24, 2007 12:20 pm:
" Last summer, during the 4th of July, this city sounded and looked like a war zone from all the illegal fireworks. I wrote to the city council and some of the members, specificallly, about why this ordinance was not inforced. I was received with either no response or a patronizing "we'll look into it". It is clear that the damage to health and property would be tremendous, but our fabulous city council did not care. Is this not an ordinance?? What they, and may city residents was taking away the rights of some of our citizens by enacting the smoking ban. The last time I checked, it was not a right to go to a bar or restaurant. It is a choice. A choice to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Smoking bans in public buildings makes sense, but it is not right or fair to tell business owners how to run their business. So, we have people taking their business outside of Lincoln. Also, typical of our city council..... drive off business to other communities. We cannot and should not try to save everyone from themselves..no gambling, no smoking.... but go ahead and drink yourself to death or kill someone in a drunk driving accident. Strange priorites, me thinks. "
Former Smoker wrote on January 24, 2007 12:37 pm:
" As a former smoker I am thankful for the ban...it has made it much easier for me to quit an AWFUL habit. "
Shannon wrote on January 24, 2007 12:47 pm:
" Smokers are not 'punishing' the bars as citizen commented...they are going where they are welcome. That seems pretty elementary to me...if I want to smoke when I drink, then I go to a bar that allows it. People are still smoking, just not paying for drinks while they do it. It boils down to more government interfering with the small busines owner. And to the person that said this is 'typical liberlism'...this is a republican state and it passed so I don't think you can use that argument. "
Realist wrote on January 24, 2007 1:03 pm:
" I get a kick out of people who say they're for "smokers rights". America is more about majority rules to me. Since 80% of Lincoln DOESN'T SMOKE, why are the 2 in 10s "right" to pollute the air more important then the other 8 out of 10s right to clean air? Doesn't make sense. "
ALW wrote on January 24, 2007 1:12 pm:
" I don't smoke but I have friends who do. When we go out we go to Crete and Sprague and Denton and Waverly and others on the outskirts of Lincoln just so they don't have to smoke outside in the winter. In the summer, we'll be back. What do you expect in a cold weather state? I bet bar revenue in the summer is fine-except maybe from the loss of revenue when UNL is out. In the winter, I'm sure it does drop as most smokers I know find other places to go where they can smoke indoors out of the cold. Heated beer gardens are a joke when the temp is 14 degrees. Also, most of the people I know who voted for the ban don't frequent bars, they do frequent restaurants. Making the bars (not with food) non smoking was just silly. Another thing, most of the guys I know who smoked switched to chew. Better than inhaling that crap, but even more disgusting and still bad for you. Now I get to watch guys spit even more than usual. Thanks. "
Brent L wrote on January 24, 2007 1:19 pm:
" I would comment on this article, but I need to go take my smoke break... "
who cares wrote on January 24, 2007 1:41 pm:
" i am a non-smoker. i like being able to go out and not have to deal with the smoke. on the other hand, i feel that it should be up to the owner of the business whether or not they allow it. They know they finacial situations and should be allowed to make the decision themselves. Then the people that dont like it can go else where. "
what a joke wrote on January 24, 2007 1:53 pm:
" I blame the city. Lincoln is so far behind the times that when they try to stay current they go so far overboard it's sickening. As someone said, the ban was voted for by people who don't go to bars, and who think that this was their good deed for the day, when it affected them in no way. Of course it's going to hurt businesses, do you think anyone who wants you to vote for their cause is going to tell you the truth?...what a joke this city/state is. "
Tammy wrote on January 24, 2007 2:17 pm:
" I would not have a problem with the smoking ban IF the government body that is banning the activity stopped collecting taxes on that activity. Like it or not, smokers pay seriously hefty taxes for their habit (billions annually if you count in all the government entities that have a hand in), and if smoking were outlawed that money would have to be made up somewhere...and it would be a tax on something else (I vote to more heavily tax alcohol, but that's just me). I don't think a government should profit from an activity it has banned. As for the health effects of smoking. Obviously, smoking is not a healthy activity, I don't think in this day and age anyone is going to dispute that. But I also think the increase in air pollution over the past 50-60 years has probably done more damage to our collective lungs than second hand smoke ever has. We don't breathe pristine air in ANY environment. Blaming it all on the evil smoker is fine...but probably not realistic. It would be interesting to see the 2006 receipts to see if there was some kind of recovery after the initial drop. "
what??? wrote on January 24, 2007 3:16 pm:
" Realist, where do you get the figure that 80% of Lincolnites don't smoke? Even if that figure IS true (which I seriously doubt) maybe you and all your self-righteous non-smoking "perfect people" should get your nicotine free butts out to these bars and start bringing in some major bucks - because these bars have a long winter to get through. I know I wont be back until summer - maybe not even then. Seems to me that a city that is glad to take the taxes that I'm paying for a legal substance that it is illegal to use within a building in their city limits......seems incredibly hypocritical and WRONG to me. "
jaime wrote on January 24, 2007 3:21 pm:
" It's a republican state, but a liberal city, and it's showing it's problems. Hopefully the state doesn't bail them out. The bars are pretty much vacant until the very end of the night anymore. It's not like it used to be a couple years ago. I believe attendence is up @ the U also, so the ban may explain it. They should get rid of the smoking ban altogether, but have an air pollution ticket and if someone is caught smoking they will receive a 50$ (or whatever amount) citation. Not to exceed one per evening. Then the government gets what they want, and the smoker has earned the right to smoke if they want. All the anti-smokers (me included) could report smokers at will and watch that fine money roll in for that new arena.Or maybe they could get a smoking license for an expensive fee. Now all they are doing is saying you can't smoke in here, but go out on the street where there are more people and then throw your butts on the sidewalk or street. "
non smoker wrote on January 24, 2007 3:25 pm:
" I can tell you that since the ban, we visit Lincoln businesses more because of the ban. It may be a smokers right to smoke, but it is also my right to breath clean air. Have you tried to go into a place with a non smoking section? There truly isn't one! Smoke travels. I am not sorry for those smokers having to go outside and smoke, it is there decision to continue even though the rules have changed. Way to go Lincoln!! I hope more cities follow in your footsteps! "
Smokers are clueless wrote on January 24, 2007 3:36 pm:
" I say if people are dumb enough to keep feeding a habit that has been proven to cause serious health problems why not tax them. If some one can think of any scientific study from the past 10 years has shows a single benefit to smoking, the "mean old" anti-smokers will leave you alone. Until then light up and keep paying the stupidity tax. By the way, I don’t have exact figures but I’m pretty confident that the amount of money that is generated by the cigarette tax is far less than the amount that the state spends on health care for people that are suffering smoking related health issues. "
Alive wrote on January 24, 2007 3:59 pm:
" The overly emotional reasons put forth for passage of the ban havn't been proven in Lincoln or anywhere else for that matter.The Health department should be able to list the names,addresses and phone numbers of people that are alive today that otherwise would be dead had we not passed the smoking ban...they can't. The county corner should be able to produce a death certifacate with secondhand smoke listed as the cause of death...they can't.What the county health department can produce is the number of tax supported jobs created by the smoking ban and they should be able to produce the ripple effect of jobs created elsewhere in city/county government due to the addition jobs needed to administer this smoking ban.If secondhand smoke kills why is it only a 100.00 fine for a violition? Why not press negigent homicide charges or reckless homicide charges...why is the life of nonsmoker only worth 100.00 dollars???. What this is comes down to expanding government turf at the expense of private business. The unmentioned problem with this ordinace is that like a lot of "public health" bans is that it becomes very easy to dicriminate against the minorities because their behaviors constitute a public health threat. How this ban will be used by future generations long after we are dead remains to be seen.If history is a guide it will be used to persacute those whom the majority wants to isolate.Look into the public health codes of Nazi Germany or the public health codes of San Fransico in the mid to late 1800's if you don't believe me.In the name of tolerance and dyversity recind the costly smoking ban,lay off the unneeded personal,sell off the "sidewalk butt vaccume" and return Lincoln to America. "
sick of it all wrote on January 24, 2007 4:11 pm:
" Smoking is a habit, NOT a right. Everyone has to admit that there are some habits that make other people, well, frankly just sick. For instance, people are free to chew their toenails, but I sure as all get out don't want to be sitting next to them at a restaurant! So, if you are a smoker, you may as well be chewing your toenails as far as I am concerned. "
Who are you... wrote on January 24, 2007 4:36 pm:
" I have to admit that I like going out and then going home and not having to shower right away to get that smell off of me. However, I think that it should be up to the business owners. Who are you to tell me if I can smoke or not? I am an adult and able to make my own choices...if I want a smoke with a beer so be it, as long as the place that I am at allows it. I make choices to not go to places that have "activites" that I do not care for, so why can't others? "
x-smoker wrote on January 24, 2007 4:40 pm:
" Smoking is an addiction as well as a habit. Why else is it so hard to quit. I wish people and bar owners would quit complaining about the smoking ban. The city council passed an ordinance banning smoking in bars & restaraunts if they recieved at least 60% of revenue from food. Bar owners did not like that and petitioned the city council to repeal the law. The city council decided to let the people of Lincoln decide the issue and the people overwhelmingly voted for the total ban. Get over it smokers, you lost. To Alive: There are hundreds of studies by government and private groups that prove 2nd hand smoke, the type non-smokers are subjected to in bars is harmful. I had a friend who never smoked a day in his life but his wife smoked and he died of lung cancer due to 2nd hand smoke. Where is your proof that 2nd hand smoke is safe? Smokers that I know, do not object to going outside to smoke. They even go outside when I visit their place even though I said that they could smoke in front of me because I am in their house and told them if I minded if they smoked, I wouldn't be there. Very considerate people and they wouldn't mind a state-wide smoking ban. "
Yeah!!! wrote on January 24, 2007 4:40 pm:
" Now I can go out and destroy my liver without worrying about ruining my lungs. One organ at a time. 'The smoking ban won't cause us to lose any money' All of you people who voted for the smoking ban can ante up the missing money in the budget. "
Klug wrote on January 24, 2007 6:35 pm:
" Ya'll non-smokers don't understand that second hand smoke takes time to depriciate your lungs. I just wonder how often you are actually going to these restaurants and bars. At least for me it is no more than a couple times a week. I can say from experience that smokers are in the majority when it comes to drinking. In other words I know a lot of people who only smoke when they drink. The only thing I think needs to be changed with the smoking ban is allowing it in bars, or even letting the bars make their own choice. As for restaurants they should individually make there own choice. One final point that others have already brought up: You are really looking through rose colored glasses if you actually think any air you are breathing even outside of the bars is healthy for you. Non-smokers need to grow up because even as far back as five years ago i don't even remember this being that big of an issue. I really don't know what brought it about so quickly. "
SAT wrote on January 24, 2007 7:04 pm:
" Pub owners should have the right to decide whether their establishments should allow smoking or not. Restaurants offering smoking and non-smoking sections should be allowed. In this society, the choice should be made by the consumer. (I'm a former smoker (not by choice) married to a smoker). "
Joseph P. Sokolovsky wrote on January 24, 2007 7:44 pm:
" I would like to invite all of these smokers to accompany me on my next appointment to my pulmonary doctor....and listen to him go through the standard questions: (1) is the current level on your oxygen machine and CPAP machine permitting you to sleep all night? (2) Are you experiencing any problems with the four inhalers you use three times daily? (3)Are you still using your portable oxygen each day when you are away from home? (4) Are you still going to Pulmonary Rehab at the hospital? (5) Are you feeling any pain in your lungs? (6) Joe, aren't you glad you smoked all those years? What's my point....I truly wish all you dedicated smokers could follow me around for a couple of days to actually see how the damage done by smoking greatly restrict what you are able to do and how smoking can literally ruin your life...it isn't worth it people! And if you have to set in a crummy keno join, smoking and drinking yourself silly...I think to should examine your life style, goals and friends...I would guess they all "stink" just like your car, clothes and home stink from all the smoking! And yes, for years people warned me about what smoking would do to my health....but, I (like you) thought I am was so smart and smoking wouldn't ruin my life.....wrong! "
lmao wrote on January 24, 2007 8:02 pm:
" What if anything these days doesn't cause cancer. It's all about tax paying citizens rights! If someone wants to go to a tanning bed they can. That has potential to cause cancer. Non smokers due have rights as well and those rights would be to not go to an establishment that allowed smoking!!!! It's not about going outside to have a smoke it's the principal of telling someone when they can and can't do something. I believe I'm and adult!! "
Justice for all wrote on January 24, 2007 9:34 pm:
" I think this smoking ban is great, it puts total control in the hands of the goverment, and when they start to increase the taxes and cutting services, like the library, and parks and rec. centers, I will be laughing while I drive out of town to spend my money, where they say welcome when I walk through the door. "
Ryan wrote on January 24, 2007 9:43 pm:
" I am not a smoker. I do say I enjoy the smokeless bars more in Lincoln. However, I feel that this ban is just another thing that the government is telling us what we can do. I think it should be up to the bar/restuarant owners if they allow smoking. If you don't want to smell smoke, THEN DO INTO A BAR that has it. Simple as that. I guarantee this WILL NOT pass as State law. There is more to this state tha just Omaha and Lincoln. "
JJ wrote on January 24, 2007 10:04 pm:
" It really does not matter to me whether there is a ban or not. I can go outside to have a cigarette and that doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the fact that the non smokers are commenting on how loss of revenue is just a too bad, so sad situation and they don't care. It isn't just a loss on a business owner, it's a loss for their employees and for the city as a whole. It's called UNEMPLOYMENT and HIGHER TAXES. So don't sit on your high horse and act like a bar owner is some kind of low life and it's ok for their business to suffer because of a law. That isn't ok. Whether they are non smokers or smokers, have some respect! We need to find a way to meet in the middle! "
Shannon wrote on January 24, 2007 10:08 pm:
" Like usual, the people of the City of Lincoln just need something to complain about. Hang on until the next snowstorm guys. Then you can REALLY start going again! :1 more year of school and I am out of this crappy town: "
Mike Honcho wrote on January 24, 2007 10:46 pm:
" I'm an adult also, an adult with rights...like the right to vote. If I want to vote to protect not only the public's health, but the health of several employees...that is my right. I do know what does NOT cause cancer, clean air. And while ya'll smokers might think that it takes a lifetime of exposure to second-hand smoke to cause damage...the actual EXPERTS on the subject repeatedly point out the opposite...that there is NO safe exposure level to second-hand smoke. NOW...if you want to smoke a tobacco based product that doesn't contain all of the tar, rat poison, and other noxious and toxic chemicals that cigarettes do...by all means, please do. But if you can't come up with an alternative to those little toxic cancer sticks, then I can't come up with a reason why I should have to put up with it. "
Double D/ EX-SMOKER wrote on January 24, 2007 10:55 pm:
" It is amazing to me, how after quiting that disgusting habit, my health improved. Not to mention my sex life. The wife didn't smoke and complained kissing me was akin to licking an ashtray. Yuck.. Smokers are so clouded in denial and their addiction. Admit it right now. How many times have you wished you could quit? A weak and pathetic lot. Not to mention lazy too Oh, and such pillars of the community you are. Tossing the cigarette butts anywhere they please. How many fires have been started by careless drivers to lazy to use the ashtray, because it would smell up the car and they would have to empty it. But then its just as easy to empty that same ashtray at the stop sign when nobodys looking right? I quit going to bars the same time I quit smoking. Probably saved a fortune. BAR OWNERS GET A CLUE. Your business would improve if the inside of it didn't stink so bad. The only patrons your getting is the minority. I live in CA and we have had this law for years. Business went up, after the smoke cleared.Love it. "
Where does it end? wrote on January 24, 2007 11:35 pm:
" Aren't taxes supposed to be fair and equitable? The only true way to equally tax all is to tax what everyone must have. FOOD. Oops!! Then they will have to decide what foods are appropriate for a healthy lifestyle. I guess next the grocers will have to eliminate all the processed, high fat, hig sugar foods on their shelves and allow only those with a proper BMI index in the store. "
Who needs Bars? wrote on January 25, 2007 12:28 am:
" Absolutely nothing positive comes from inside a bar. I think the city should move to ban bars all together. Imagine a place where we can drive our cars to, sit inside and get smashed, cheat on our spouses, and then drive home drunk and kill someone, all while complaining that we couldn't smoke while doing all of this. Get rid of the bars. People can sit at home and drink and then go to bed. "
Balancing Ethics and Economics wrote on January 25, 2007 7:48 am:
" This issue boils down to balancing a clear moral imperative and a painful and unquestioned SHORT-TERM economic consequence. Less clear but important in the debate is the LONG-TERM economic consequence. If AIDS infested prostitutes were eliminated, pimps would certainly make less money for a while. However, 5 years down the road, they might actually make more money due to safer conditions improving customer survival rates. If global warming is reversed over the next 100 years, the oil companies, auto makers, and fossil fuel plants will absolutely suffer enormous initial losses. However in the year 2100 our nation will save the expense of 1000 Katrina disasters, the cost of relocation of 50% of our population from the coasts, and the significant economic impact of having hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers above sea level. Slavery is another prime example for obvious reasons. Similarly, the smoking ban is costing bars, taxing entities, and ultimately TAXPAYER's a significant amount of money in it's initial stages. However, even just a couple years down the line some reversal from decreased employee absenteeism, decreased health care costs, and alternative entertainment options will occur. There are two sides to every argument. Economic impact is a legit issue. It is argued by pimps, oil companies, slave owners, and smokers. A distinguished group,no doubt. "
Mitch wrote on January 25, 2007 9:05 am:
" What some people need to understand is that smoking is a health habit that has negative effects on those around them. Eating fatty foods, going to a tanning bed or drinking in a bar DO NOT. That is why smoking can not be compared to these other health risks. You can smoke all you want but don't make it a problem to those around you. If the smokers of Lincoln really truly cared about the economy, they would quit being so stubborn and continue to support those same bars. It's not the bars' fault this law got passed. And I'm pretty sure a lot of them are trying their best to accommodate you. Lastly, you all need to take this study as a grain of salt. If studies continue to come out year after year that show our economy is really hurting becaues of the ban, then we have a discussion. Just because one study comes out saying one thing...it doesn't necessarily mean its accurate or that we will continue to have the same results. Get rid of bars?? Yeah, that will do wonders for our economy!! To say that absolutely nothing good comes from bars is just stupid. Not everyone who goes to a bar is going to get wasted, drink and drive and cheat on their spouses. That is rediculous!! Talk about being extremely judgemental!! "
I need bars. wrote on January 25, 2007 9:08 am:
" Someone really must have done a number on you. Geesh. Prohibition isn't exactly an historical success. Plenty of positive things come out of bars. Bars are one of the only places to go listen to live music in this town. Bars are places to go mix and mingle with friends and potential friends. I met my husband in O'Rourkes for crying out loud. Oh, and I have never cheated on him. The majority of adults who go to bars do not get "smashed". And whether we have two drinks or seven, my friends and I ride our bikes and take cabs home. "
LW wrote on January 25, 2007 9:53 am:
" State law should allow the creation of private clubs where smoking may be allowed. I hate cigarettes, but people need to be able to make a living. "
dlb wrote on January 25, 2007 10:26 am:
" Large numbers of people who are pro ban in this discussion bring up the poor workers in the establishments preban and how they and their employeers did not have a choice preban and were being poisoned by second hand smoke. Hmmm... Every establishment is allowed to ban certain activities they deemed undesirable to the organization, as long as there is no local, state, or federal statue that forbids such a ban. Now, with that, how many restaraunts and bars banned smoking? Yep, none. That tells you how much the employer of those poor employees really cared about the employees health. "
Not none wrote on January 25, 2007 11:41 am:
" There were quite a few restaurants that did ban smoking YEARS before the legal ban. "
The Good Life? wrote on January 25, 2007 11:47 am:
" Isn't Lincoln supposed to be some family-friendly, health-conscious city? If the amount of business bars do in your city has that material an impact on your economic climate it is time to exit the Hillbilly Highway and move somewhere with a little more opportunity. "
Johnny wrote on January 25, 2007 12:20 pm:
" I've been going to the bars for a few years now, and I think that if the smoking ban was having a huge impact on the amount of people that go, then I wouldn't have to wait 15-30 minutes to get in. "
Money at any cost wrote on January 25, 2007 12:53 pm:
" Probably don't need the bars either. I do get upset going to anyplace where there is smoking and I have to leave because I can't breath. So my rights have been disregarded for years and years, now its so nice to go where theres no smoking. Had too many friends who refused to quit smoking and ended up dead from cancer. The worst is a dear friend who had to have her tongue cut out because of cancer. For years I would ask her when she was going to quit smoking and she would say, "by - - - nobody's going to tell me I can't smoke." Died much too young. "
.. wrote on January 25, 2007 1:31 pm:
" Yeah and I'm sure that a bar is the only place we could get a job. Get real....the nonsmokers put themselves in a smokey situation. If you didn't like it then why go there. I personally would not go somewhere that allowed something I didn't care for. So let's suppose the smoking ban didn't take effect... I'm sure I would still see every last one of you non-smokers in the bar partyin it up w/ the smoke. Complain about something else!!! "
Exempt wrote on January 25, 2007 2:11 pm:
" There should be at least one exception! A Cigar bar such as libations... That should be exempt due to the nature of the business. Those who go there know exactly why! "
RedDye#4 wrote on January 25, 2007 3:59 pm:
" The problem as I see it is that while smoking may have an adverse health on nonsmokers the problem is that there is no way to say how much will cause death.Back in the late 70's the gov wanted to ban red dye #4 because it caused cancer.Upon further review it found out that in order to contract cancer from red dye #4 and average person would need to eat 20 pounds of beacon or hotdogs per day everyday for twenty years before it would cause cancer.The inate emotional fear of death overshowded the fact that nobody in their right mind does/could consume that much beacon/hotdog's.The point is to let facts guide this and not emotion.There are a number of public behaviors that have an impact on those around us that are not banned.Some folks are allergic to peanuts...should we make all peanut eater's do so outside because the wift of a peanut hull is enough to have a adverse health effect on a total stranger in a privately owned establishment? or is your health something that YOU should be responsable for?Much has been made of all the chemicals within cigarette smoke that causes death. there is no arguement the chemicals are there.Individually we know what quantity each of these chemicals it would take to cause death what isn't know is the quantity each cigarette produces thus no way to know what exposure levels over how long a period of time would kill a nonsmoker thus this ban has been instutited via overly emotional propaganda.I'm all for banning smoking in enclosed public structures...Pershing auditorum,city,county,state federal buildings but until we know exactly how much exposure over how long a time the government has no business imposing this on the private sector. A note to those waiting in line to get into bars..some are packed most arn't and it's just a marketing ploy."Look at the line...this place must be happening!" only to get inside to find out there is nobody there. "
Jaime wrote on January 25, 2007 11:00 pm:
" The thing is smokers are not just killing themselves slowly they are killing others as well. 2nd hand smoke is much more toxic then actually smoking a cigeratte yourself. I am agree with the smoking ban. I am a nurse and I have seen people suffering because of lung cancer and it is miserable so start stopping now it is never too late. "
Andrea wrote on March 11, 2008 5:13 pm:
" Non-smokers are too busy whining about second hand smoke to hive a crap less about what economic effects it will have. They need to suck it up and just simply avoid places that allow smoking. It is the same with eveything if you don't like it don't be around it. I smoke at home , I smoke in my vehicles , and I should be allowed to go out to a bar if i choose to and smoke also. How would eveyone feel if the state passes a fried food ban, because it causes heart problems. when are we gonna go back to a government by the people for the people. "

Ads by Yahoo!