In news that really oughtn't come as a surprise, a local study found that Lincoln's smoking ban caused a drop in income for many local businesses -- bars, in particular. The study's findings give lie to the claim by some of the ban's supporters that there would be no such drop.
The ban's supporters will argue that the improved quality of life was worth every penny. And they are right, for their definition of "quality of life". Me, I include an individual's fundamental right to do what he chooses to his body under my definition of "quality of life", so I would argue that the costs far outweighed the benefits. If I had my druthers, the "ban" wouldn't have been a governmental ban, but one driven by consumers. The current rush by businesses to ditch trans fats is a good example of a consumer-driven ban that's working extraordinarily well. (Let's not get into the matter of whether it's a good idea to drop trans fats in favor of that scorn of the 90's, saturated fats.) I still believe a coordinated drive by consumers could have forced most local businesses to halt smoking on their premises within a matter of months. We were very near the tipping point at the time the ban was passed. Alas, we'll never know for sure.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Not surprisingly, the OW-H has a better article on the costs of the smoking ban. It notes that the sales tax receipts of about 65 bars citywide dropped (on average) 6%. I’d love to see the breakdown between downtown/Haymarket bars and all other bars…
Anecdotal evidence alone is enough to tell me there had to be a drop. I didn’t go to bars often, but I very seldom do anymore- because I went to drink and smoke. For me, the two go together, and I rarely do one without the other.
Instead, we head over to someone’s house now. Cheaper for me, anyway.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.