The State Journal-Register (Springfield) reports today that profits are down — way down — at Springfield bars and fraternal clubs thanks to a city-wide smoking ban:
[ILBA Executive Director Steve] Riedl also cited numbers showing Springfield bars and fraternal clubs reported to the [Illinois Licensed Beverage Association (ILBA)] revenue losses ranging from 7 percent to 70 percent between Sept. 18 and Oct. 10, 2006, when compared to the same time frame a year ago. The average revenue loss among the businesses was 25 percent, according to the ILBA.
Riedl said Springfield establishments provided the ILBA with gross sales figures from the two time periods. Riedl argued that such an approach paints a clearer picture of the ban’s economic impact.
Huh. That’s funny. I thought this ban was supposed to increase revenues. Weren’t all those disenfranchised non-smokers supposed to rush right out to the bars once the ban took effect?
“Any small business caters to the customers’ demands,” [bartender Vicki] Wilson said. “It’s a supply-and-demand business. And bless their hearts, the non-smokers just don’t really come in to the bars. I don’t think they did before the ban, and I don’t expect them to after the ban.”
The ILBA is now working to overturn the ban: “Riedl said one or more aldermen will introduce for first reading on Nov. 8 an ordinance that would exempt bars and fraternal organizations from the indoor [smoking] ban.”
More power to ’em. Keep an eye on this story because it won’t be long before Smoke-Free Illinois is knocking on Peoria’s door asking for an indoor smoking ban at bars and restaurants.
I think the only way a ban like this won’t effect bars too badly is if it is across the state. Otherwise people will just go to the bars just outside of the county. It creates an unfair playing field for bars inside the county. They need to find out how much revenue has increased just outside of the county.
Since bars just outside Springfield are not affected, anyone care to guess where the people went? They didn’t quit going to bars.
It would be interesting to see the revenue figures for those bars outside the ban area.
Why not let the owners decide about smoking! If the non smokers can create enough business to have the owner deem his tavern/bar non-smoking so be it! If they cannot let the smokers, SMOKE!
I say they ban alcoholic beverages from all taverns and bars!!!!!
Smoking bans are not appropriate for private business establishments. If Wal-Mart wants to allow smoking within their stores, so be it. If Joe’s Bar wants to be smoke free, so be it.
Name one bar in Peoria that is non smoking. Not a restaurant\bar like Rhythm Kitchen. A bar like the Red Barn or the Olivers in the Heights. Places where alcohol sales far exceed their food sales. It doesn’t exist. There is a reason for that and this woman says it all: “…..the non-smokers just don’t really come in to the bars. I don’t think they did before the ban, and I don’t expect them to after the ban.†Why is that? I’ve said this many times before on many different blogs: Why would you or you and your family go to a place that offered little to no food and CNN and video games are the only source of anything else to do? I’ll have two beef jerkies and a side of popcorn and my kids will split the (overpriced) Butch’s pizza and four Pepsis. Yeah, right. And if I’m wrong, will anyone tell me why they would go there except to say you went or that you could because it was non smoking. Those are lousy reasons to destroy someone’s livelihood and that is exactly what will happen if Peoria bans smoking smoking, but the Heights, Bartonville, Norwood, West Peoria, East Peoria do not.
If the politicos want to ban smoking for the health of the general public, they should put their money where their smoke hole is and BAN THE SALE OF CIGARETTES within their jurisdiction.
I’m a non-smoker. Cigarette smoke smells like ass. I know that tobacco is very unhealthy, and I wish none of my friends or family used it.
But none of that matters! The government has no right to ban smoking on private property.
It’s not looking good for smokers in Illinois.
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/102406/REG_BBB0I5B4.050.shtml
Methinks there might be some spurious associations going on here. To know if the smoking ban (which I do not support) really impacted business the way this guy says, shouldn’t he show that revenues in comparable areas without a smoking ban (outside Springfield) did not have as dramatic a drop.
Also, what esle was different about the two time periods. Hmmm, what could be affecting a discretionary spending decision like going out to eat or going to a bar. What could it be? Oh yeah, GASOLINE WAS $3/GALLON!! Maybe revenues were down because people were broke?
Like I said, I’m not particularly in favor (or, honestly, against) a smoking ban, but I hate the misuse of statistics.
I believe that this country [USA] was founded on the tobacco industry. To ban smoking anywhere is just damned unamerican!!
Wow. Nobody here took Stats 101 except Cap’n Jack, huh? The statistics quoted in that article are ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS. They compare one narrow time period (less than a month!) from this year with one narrow time period from last year. How do we know that they didn’t deliberately pick out a period where profits were high last year but low this year due to market fluctuations that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SMOKING BAN? What about the statistics from 2, 3, 4 or 5 years ago? They probably don’t quote those because they show the large fluctuations that exist in the revenues of the bar & restaurant industry and render their entire argument worthless.
Using statistics like this is exactly the same as pointing to this year’s mild hurricane season compared to last year and saying “Look … global warming is a load of crap!” You have to look at the trends over a long period of time … not two narrow points in time! This ban has not been in effect long enough to judge any sort of economic impact, positive or negative.
Don’t defend worthless statistics like this just because they conform to your political ideology.
Ohhhhhh … and let’s look at the corporate sponsors for the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association. Check out their website at ilba.net. On the right hand side of the page they thank their sponsors … including PhilipMorrisUSA and RJReynolds. BIG SURPRISE.
On the one hand, I agree that the stats could be completely bogus. Statistics can be made to say absolutely anything you want.
On the other hand, the same tactics are used by the smoke-free lobby, so I guess turnabout is fair play.
And on the third hand (third hand?!), what difference does it make who sponsors the ILBA? Is the goal to put tobacco companies out of business or help the poor, defenseless non-smoker who deliberately walked into a smoky bar? See, I suspect that these smoking bans are simply an underhanded attempt to put tobacco companies out of business. I don’t necessarily disagree with the end game, but I definitely disagree with the means. You don’t trample private property rights in your crusade to criminalize smoking. Keep eroding private property rights for pet issues like smoking and pretty soon you’ll find your property rights curtailed in a way you didn’t expect and don’t appreciate.
Knight –
The “ban smoking” people use bad stats too. Come on’. This is a paraphrase (and I’ll find the original if I have to – think it was on a smoke free site) that there has been no to little decline in business or profits in New York City (which is supposedly true) since the ban and if it isn’t causing business loss in NYC, then it should work everywhere else.
Well, if you are in lower Manhattan on Saturday night looking for dinner and a cigarette, you’ve probably got an hours drive, minimum to Jersey or out of NYC. Of course there is no decline, nobody wants to drive that far. They are trapped. LA is the same way. You can’t compare NYC and LA and say what is good for them is good for Peoria or Springfield. Chatham and The Heights are just too close for smokers leaving the “forced to be smoke free” hanging by a noose.
Here we go again 🙂
No one is doubting that all sides might use bad statistics. But the point of CJ’s post was to draw a link between smoking bans and declining business (look at his headline). That is a bit of poor journalism from an otherwise consistently well-researched blogger. It just seemed pretty obviously flawed to me.
Cap’n Jack, thank you for the compliment. This post was very much influenced by my stance on this issue, and not straight reporting. In my defense, I never claimed to be a journalist nor unbiased. This is still a blog and I posit my opinions on it. On the other hand, it’s never my intention to be deliberately misleading in making my point either.
In this case, I freely admit I took this article from the State Journal-Register at face value and didn’t really question the statistics because they agreed with my point of view. If they had disagreed with my point of view, I would have torn them apart, much like you and Knight have. However, I don’t feel that I’ve concealed anything or misled anyone — I quoted my source, provided a link to the original article so readers could see the context and make their own determination, and allowed commenters like you to challenge it. That’s what I think is so great about blogs — you can get many different points of view. I actually like to have people disagree with me (not all the time, obviously; I’m not a masochist) because it challenges my thinking. Sometimes they even change my mind.
While I concede the stats could very well be invalid as you say (although we’d all have to admit we can’t prove that), I still stand by my belief that trampling on private property rights in order to outlaw smoking is a devil’s pact. You may win the ability to enjoy a smoke-free bar, but lose something much more valuable.
Well, it could be proven, but it would require a more sophisticated study. Actually, CJ, I didn’t look at it that hard at all — seemed pretty obvious. And I’m not in favor of the smoking ban. I am truly ambivalent (maybe I shouldn’t be). I just thought it was odd that you hooked on to a pretty obviously weak argument when you are normally pretty reasoned. I didn’t mean to acuse you of being a journalist. I find your work much to detailed for that.