Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Bloomington Too

The Bloomington Pantagraph is reporting the cities of Bloomington and Normal are now considering smoking bans. Some interesting items from that article:

About 70 percent of Bloomington-Normal residents surveyed last week said they
want their respective city councils to prohibit smoking in restaurants.


…[Normal Mayor Chris] Koos pointed out that Normal can't address restaurants and bars separately because Normal liquor license holders are restaurant operations. He said a compromise may be allowing smoking after a specific hour when the establishments' kitchens close.


Tim Applegate, general manager of Ned Kelly's Steak House in Bloomington, said business is up since Ned Kelly's went 100 percent smoke-free in February.

He said waiting time is down on weekends and he is serving more customers because smokers leave immediately after their meal. Some nonsmokers have returned to the restaurant after staying away for several years when smoking was allowed, Applegate said.

I have not been to a smoke-free community since smoking bans began taking effect but I have talked with a number of people who have. A friend just got back from California (where there is a statewide smoking ban) and he says the bar/nightclub he was in was packed. And his clothes and hair didn’t stink when he left. I hear similar things from others: business is fine without smoking. The grave concerns here are nothing more than provincial stupidity. Sorry, Springfield is not so culturally different from the rest of the country that it can not successfully accommodate smoke-free environments.


Ol' Guy said...

Expect a big push very soon in Bloomington from the National Restausrant Assn., complete with pre-written press releases, skewed statistics, pre-packaged compromises and a lot of opposition and ambiguity. Just like has happened in Chicago, Champaign-Urbana and Springfield.
Buncha corporate nanny-staters in action, always telling people what's good for 'em.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Springfield is not so culturally different from the rest of the country that it can not successfully accommodate smoke-free environments.

This is just funny. Nobody has argued that Springfield can't accommodate "smoke-free environments." It's a nice strawman, but nobody has argued that no place should be non-smoking. It's obvious that you don't like smoking. But I don't see any reason why your likes and dislikes should be the basis for legislation.

The argument is that people should be able to decide what to do in their own businesses. Frankly, I'm surprised that more restaurants are not completely non-smoking.

As for the bars, if so many people want non-smoking bars, why not open one? If there is such demand for a bar with no smoke, the owner would make lots of money. Let the market decide the matter.

Dave said...

Actually, I have heard opponents to the smoking ban suggest that very thing...Springfield is some how different.

John, your arguments are simply stupid. It is not incumbent upon non-smokers to put up with smoking. It is not we who are polluting others environment. The reason establishments are not going non-smoking in bigger numbers is simple inertia; smoking is the norm so why rock the boat. We need to get that out of society’s system. And you know what, it’s very easy. Businesses do fine EVERYWHERE these bans are implemented. You are the one posing straw men, John.