Truesday: Resolve Is Up In Smoke

columnist graphic banner.jpg

*The views expressed in Truesday are those of the author and do not represent Austinist as a whole. Thank heavens.* -The Editors

Alright, alright. I concede. The smoking ban has not, as far as I can tell, done anything to damage any businesses. Sure, there was a down spot for a couple of months there. Some businesses, which were already suffering financially, took the ban as an asthmatic death rattle. But taps would have played soon enough, with or without the ban. The guard needed changing anyway. A re-ordering, if you will.

Those which could adapt to the new smokeless landscape, have done so with only slight pain.

In fact, months later, there are some places who are still filing for permits to turn their fire escape into, quite ironically, a smoking patio. So, adaptation is occurring, regardless of dwindling (but healthier sounding, so there’s that) moans.

My favorite place of binge-drinking choice, Deville, appears to have suffered no real loss at all. The fact that the place is 75% patio probably has a-lot to do with that. That, and the fact that they have a Vegas-esque blinking crown for a sign. Sha’nt discount the power of that crown.

Shant? Shaunt? Fuck it. I’m sticking with the obvious contraction: sha’nt.

But I maintain my stand that the passing of the ordinance was one strictly of preference. And as for that report put out by the Surgeon General? Man, fuck that guy.

Before I launch into a quick slight on the man for his poor choice of words, please make a mental note that I have not smoked a cigarette in two weeks. So I’m not trying to rally for my right to blow smoke into baby carriages. Not that it should make a difference, but it might, and I just want to clear things up a tad by admitting that my biases are all over the place here.

Okay. Richard Carmona, our benevolent Surgeon Whatever, has made the bold decision to rail against not just smoking, but smokers as people, which is pretty awesome (in a really rude and Them-vs-Us kind of way). His latest report rambles on and on about a whole slew of shit that no one needs official backing to understand: breathing smoke, first-second-third-fifteenth hand, for even a brief period, in confined spaces may result in a lessened probability of good health.

Seriously? Wow. Does one need to attend Genius School to get an advanced degree in No Shit?

I’ll go ahead and postulate that the same goes for anything else you may choose to light on fire and/or inhale in confined spaces. Why is just tobacco getting burned at the stake here? There are others. Like paint-huffing, your Aunt Clementine’s eye-twitching perfume, or burning garbage. Gasoline fumes. Well, pretty much anything ENERGY RELATED will give you cancer if you smother yourself in it. I’d bet that snorting powdered bleach is as bad as snorting taco seasoning. Steer clear of all that shit. In fact, don’t leave your crib. Stay at home, and in between crying fits you can start formulating all those lawsuits against everyone for every ailment/inconvenience you ever conceivably experienced. Feel free to completely make some shit up.

Because it always has to be someone else’s fault, goddamnit.

But what really bothers me about Carmona’s superfluous and unreasonable statement denouncing second-hand smoke, was his inclusion of the following wording:

“Stay away from smokers.”

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Do we quarantine them? Is this like the Red Scare? Am I supposed to turn in my neighbors if I see them puffing away on their back patio? Are they contagious, or radioactive in some way? Will their smoking molecules fall from their hair into my mouth and make my unborn children three-armed and really queeny-gay? Can we legally kill them if we see them in the streets, or are we going to get a toll-free number we can use to call officials with guns to do it for us? Can we stab them on sight?

Oh-Oh-Oh!!! Can we set them on fire?!! Damn you, sweet-sweet irony!!!!11!!

Again, don’t get me twisted. I’m no longer saying (as I have said in the past) that there is no real evidence of cancer being caused by second-hand smoke. I have no doubt that it does, however improbable or statistically insignificant. I read all the documentation I could find, tracing references in disturbingly similar circles, where they all cited the same two goddamn studies done YEARS ago, both of which had mixed and hipshot results. Frankly, I don’t give two shits about the “studies” anymore. If nonsmokers in bars want to blame smokers for their eventual cancers, then so be it. Crybabies.

Shoveling off responsibility appears to be the favorite national pastime.

Point is, there’s no sense in fighting the ban anymore. I’m tossing in the towel. We have been frog-boiled into following the thing, regardless of the evidence in either direction. Well, “following” is a bit strong considering all the smoking I’ve seen as of late, but no one’s really putting up a fight to get the thing repealed. And why should they?

15 feet from the door? Yeah, whatever.

Looking forward, I’m patiently waiting for the following potential eventualities, which I believe to be natural extensions of the smoking ban logic:

1. First multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Denny’s for an ex-employee’s lung cancer (smoker or not).

2. First multi-trillion dollar lawsuit against Philip Morris brought by two-pack-a-day smoker whose child has asthma (like, magically!).

3. First multi-gadupatrillion dollar lawsuit against random Green Bay bar for nic-fit induced rage brought on by a patron’s inability to smoke indoors during especially cruel Global-Warming winter.

4. First public stoning of a smoker, to death, based on accusation that the scent of smoke on their shirt caused someone else’s child to stab a convenience store clerk, to death, amidst an armed robbery. In another state. Eight years after smelling the smoker’s shirt.

5. Pharmaceutical studies show tobacco smoking to be leading cause of Political Bribery, Jihadist Terrorism, Marital Infidelity, Ds on fifth-grade math tests, and the general decline in the value of the dollar in South Asian markets. New Pills are capable of solving said problems. Dividends skyrocket.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By truecraig in Other on July 11, 2006 12:24 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

anonymous

Yes, it certainly is amazing how these other factors kicked in exactly on the first night of the smoking ban. Will wonders ever cease?

Of course, those venues that saw an increase in revenue was a direct result of the smoking ban. Those that lost money was just a coincidence!

Those stupid bar owners. They are not smart like the anti-smokers!

It's like Dallas Night Club complaining they were losing money because of the TABC raids. That is just an excuse. People love undercover cops in bars making sure no one has more than a few drinks. They are happy to be spend the night in jail if they do not! It is like having their mother right there making sure they are behaving!

Edward

"From that NPR link:

According to tax reports from 65 mixed beverage venues that formerly allowed smoking, there's been an average $13k drop in revenue since january."

Even worse, in that same time period, gas prices have skyrocketted, North Korea has become even more of an international menace and hem lines have gone down. Damn you smoking ban!!!

anonymous

Those are not estimates. They come from alcohol sales that must be reported to the Comptroller's office.

truecraig

I didn't see any links to data off the KUT page. And I'm too lazy to go sifting through it, looking for spreadsheets and shit.

But I will say the following about whether or not there is an average $13k drop in revenues for bars in this calendar year:

1. Those are estimates based on two quarterly filings calculated by the bars themselves, and are NOWHERE NEAR OFFICIAL BY ANY STRETCH OR STANDARD. True year-end numbers won't be available for another year, and even those are suspect. WHO IS GOING BANKRUPT or CLOSING? Eh? Hm. At an average loss of $156,000 per year, how could a place like Flamingo Cantina stay in business? Yet, they're doing swell. Hm. (again)

2. Is it possible that revenues are ALWAYS down between New Years' Eve and the beginning of summer? Perhaps the fall semester is the big money time for bars in Austin?

3. There are other variables at play here. Property taxes went up, therefore rents will go up, therefore bars' margins will go down. Gas is more expensive this year. Tuition went up like a motherf*cker so the kids have less cash to throw at Emo's. Blah blah blah blah.

Regardless, I still don't see any more bars shutting down than have always shut down/reopened on the usual Austin cycle. I don't want the smoking ban to become everyone's excuse for sucking ass. That's not fair to we smokers who ARE STILL going out at the same rate as before.

It's all very anticlimactic.

CBOT

As everyone knows but no one is mentioning here, the smoking ban is about the employees at these businesses. Sure, the bartenders could get new jobs if they wanted to be protected from secondhand smoke, but you could also argue that factory workers could get new jobs if they are concerned about dangerous equipment cutting off their hands. Why make the factory owners buy new equipment to protect their employees -- it's all about personal choice! Obviously this is a bit of a logical leap, but so is saying that we're about to cart away smokers to concentration camps.

adamr

Why do bars still sell cigarettes for $5-10. They're a crafty lot. They should start putting crack in their bevies. That'll get biz bustling again.

What indy bars are suffering in Austin? Where are the quantifiables? It looks like Chuggin' Monkey is doing fine and that's all I care about really. Who goes out to Applebee's for drinks anyway... besides University of Maryland students?

sean

From that NPR link:

According to tax reports from 65 mixed beverage venues that formerly allowed smoking, there's been an average $13k drop in revenue since january.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

spyglass

Yes, I agree, it is all about personal preference. The imposition of personal preference on business, that is, by force.

I suspect we will have a state-wide ban pass during the next Legislative session. The anti's will use Austin as an example of what a success smoking bans are.

It will be interesting what the next step of the anti-smokers will be the September after next. I wonder if they will ban smoking on outdoor patios and in the city parks. Banning smoking in cars and in apartment complexes seem to be the next front for the anti-smokers.

truecraig

Actually, I don’t remember anyone promising MORE business. I remember hearing the droning, ho-hum chant of nonsmokers who claimed they’d be willing to go to MORE shows if it didn’t stink so bad.

But no one honestly believed they would.

And (big surprise) it doesn’t look like they have.

So, business isn’t booming OR busting, really. What a waste of time. Back to my original statement, the vote was about preference, not business or health. And the nonsmokers’ dry-cleaning bills won out. Much ado about not-a-goddamn-thing. Bygones.

spyglass

That's funny, we were told that the smoking ban would result in a big increase in business.

Apparently, the bars just outside of Austin and all the bars flaunting the smoking ban are just too dim-witted to realize all the big bucks they could be making.

truecraig

It isn't that there is ABSOLUTELY NO effect on business, it's that the effect, if it's there at all, is rather marginal. It isn't the catastrophic abandonment of Austin nightlife that it was Chicken Little'd to be. Even according to that KUT story. Only the musicians are calling foul, but their money comes directly from bar owners (who appear blasé or even happy with business since the ban), not out of smokers' wallets.

Sounds like musicians need to put pressure on the still-pretty-happy bar owners to me.

Anon, keep on grindin' that axe!

spyglass

I agree with your statement, but smoking bans mostly come from the Left. One of the main backers of the ban in Austin was the Democratic Party.

As far as know, there is one lawsuit still pending from the Warehouse Saloon.

Smoking Bans are just a part of the Nanny State trend. The anti-drinkers are just as well financed and just as zealous about alcohol. They are just not as far along as the anti-smokers. One of the problems with the ban is that it opens the door to the anti-drinkers. We saw some of that recently with the TABC stings on over-drinking in bars. (By the way, a report from a Houston news outlet says that the TABC undercover stings in bars is due to start up again, possibly this month.)

As a matter of interest, I was in an Austin bar recently. The bar was pretty busy that night. The bartender happily remarked that it was just like the "Old Days." The "Old Days" of course, were before the smoking ban.

What the ban is doing is shifting business away from the small mom and pop bars to the chain bars. The Continental Club will do fine because it is so well known, but there will never be another Continental Club. There will be, however, plenty of Applebee's and Benigan's and Sherlock's for Austin.

adamr

Whoa, don't get to slippy slopey logical conclusions... It's not just self-righteous folks with their babies, SUVs, and posh Lake Travis houses, but also normal bar goers (20/30-somethings that waste their money on booze instead of babies, suvs, etc) that want to enjoy a smoke-free environment when they go out. It's too facile to blame the ban and uppity Austinites for bar closures and it's outrageous to think of the ban as a slight of civil liberties. It's also outrageous to forget that smokers are people.

No one is going to be sent to a concentration camp for smoking... just step outside of the bar or restaurant where you're hangin' until you realize you have an addiction that's killing you and making rich white guys richer and whiter.

anon

Its not the issue of whether or not the ban has hurt local businesses and bars. The issue is that the law was passeed by self righteous people who don't even go to the bars and those who said they would start going have not. They just wanted to control everyone else. Unfortunately this is becoming more and more of a trend and soon we will see state and federal regulatede entertainment businesses and no one will be safe from the tyranny that is the right wing.

spyglass

There are some local musicians who would disagree with you that the smoking ban is having no impact on business: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kut/arts.artsmain?action=viewArticle&pid=71&sid=13&id=903582

Anonymous

Private rights groups are ruining America. Go look and see who's paying for the majority of social reforms rght now in America, smokers with the taxes being forced on them. Austin and many other cities have decided it's "un-American" to have the owner's right to decide if his establishment is smoking or not. I do not smoke, I am asthmatic and have more issues than 99% of the people as far as breathing in smoke, but guess what I am not about to give away my freedom for some idiotic private rights group. We're closing in on a complete Police state, where things like the TABC going undercover in bars will be allowed. Its just sad that Americans are so selfish and dumb that they can't see they're we're screwing ourselves with these laws. One Nation Inprisoned by a Police State.

truecraig

S'han't. Bla-dow.

I'm suing my parents for my ethnicity. After all, I've always wanted to be Sri Lankan, and they RUINED it for me. Plus, I'm suing all my school districts and employers for denying me the ability to claim Sri Lankan as my ethnicity. I have my rights, damnit.

I don't like the idea of vice-trading. Going from cigs to wellbutrin to nic-o-gum to patches to shock therapy. It's a dependency cake-walk, but with a constant stream of new walkers. Keeping with the same weak analogy, The Cake is your life, so why fiddle with all the assholes shuffling around it, jockeying for their piece?

Addiction is mad irritating, yo. Maddening madness.

adamr

Why did we ever get rid of the masturbating surgeon general? Beautiful insights as always TrueC.

Tabacky companies should take more of a hit though. They pretend like these bans really hurt them when they're making gajillions of dollars getting people ages 2 to 32 in developing nations to smoke up like it's their job. They've got MDs and our non-pro-whanking surgeon general recommending expensive-ass nicotine replacement therapy (that doesn't work BTW). RJR and Philly Mo are the ones that make your overpriced gums, patches, and silly-ass nico-inhalers.

Jonathon

I wonder when kids will start suing their parents because all the sugar cereal and candy they ate when they were kids made them fat.

Personally, I'll be suing my parents for giving me inordinate amounts of SPAM.