Will Virginia's Smoking Ban Bring More Patrons to Restaurants? (Richmond: school, allergies)

[JD984]

Amen to that. Would have liked this to have happened sooner, but with Virginia's tobacco-growing past and Philip Morris USA headquartered in Richmond, it's not surprising this took a while.

[Moe III]

Originally Posted by blu_monk

No.

Not helping Ohio, don't think it will help Virginia either.


Find Smoking Restaurants Home

[Moe III]

Originally Posted by Gottasay

Absolutely will encourage non-smokers. I am happy for the restaurant staff as well. This is a victory for them! I can't imagine working in that kind of environment inhaling other people's cigarettes all day long.

Their are plenty of jobs I would not do, so I don't. Restaurant staff that's bothered by smoke can work in the 75% of the restaurants that are non smoking. The Restaurant staff that prefers smoke limits their search to the other 25% that are smoking. You see how that ratio works. The free market has business resembling the population that it serves.

It's such a great day in Virginia when you can take something that works that well and bring in big government to break it.
It makes as much sense as a law requiring restaurants to accommodate smokers.


Find smoking restaurants Home

[Stephen 81]

Originally Posted by cdmurphy

I do not smoke and I do not like smoke, but I personally think that Virginia's priorities are off when you can't smoke in a restaurant but you can openly wear a handgun in one. (just my humble opinion)

Agreed. I almost never think "the market" should sort things out, but the market was doing a pretty good job in this case, as even today's Post article pointed out that 75% of restaurants had already enacted anti-smoking policies by the time the law took effect.

Moderator cut: Off-topic

[blu_monk]

Originally Posted by Moe III

Not helping Ohio, don't think it will help Virginia either.


Find Smoking Restaurants Home

I don't know why people think there are THOUSANDS of people not going to restaurants because of the smoke. If the food is good enough, if the right band is playing or whatever, people will be there no matter what. It has nothing to do with smoke. The people that don't go out to eat, don't go out to eat because it's expensive to go out to eat all the time, not because they can't deal with the smoke. Restaurants will not see an increase in sales, actually, they'll probably see a decrease in sales because smokers are more likely to just stay at home where they can smoke in their own home.

[guyincognito]

Originally Posted by blu_monk

I don't know why people think there are THOUSANDS of people not going to restaurants because of the smoke. If the food is good enough, if the right band is playing or whatever, people will be there no matter what. It has nothing to do with smoke. The people that don't go out to eat, don't go out to eat because it's expensive to go out to eat all the time, not because they can't deal with the smoke. Restaurants will not see an increase in sales, actually, they'll probably see a decrease in sales because smokers are more likely to just stay at home where they can smoke in their own home.

So you believe that non-smokers will just settle and see events regardless of whether there's smoke or not, yet smokers will avoid places where they cannot smoke?

Just to provide an update on how all of this is turning out, I was down in Clarendon this evening and can see that this law has some holes in it. At RiRas smoking was still occurring in the main restaurant bar area. When I asked the server what the deal was, he said that the back room area (much smaller, no bar) was the non-smoking area. It apparently satisfies the requirements because it has a door to a patio, although it is not an "entrance" per say (the law requires there to be an entrance into the restaurant into a non-smoking area). I understand Whitlows has segregated their bar into smoking and non, and Hard Times has also built two separate spaces for smoking and non. I think there will be a lot of issues over the next few months as this law is tested and pushed to see where the boundaries are.

[blu_monk]

Originally Posted by guyincognito

So you believe that non-smokers will just settle and see events regardless of whether there's smoke or not

yes, i've never heard someone say they aren't going to a place that has GREAT food just because of the smoke or they aren't going to see a GREAT band just because the facility allows smoking.

Originally Posted by guyincognito

yet smokers will avoid places where they cannot smoke?

it's the law now. no, i think smokers will be less likely to go out to the bar/restaurant, because they can't smoke while they drink now, but they can at home.

[Jimrob1]

Originally Posted by blu_monk

I don't know why people think there are THOUSANDS of people not going to restaurants because of the smoke. If the food is good enough, if the right band is playing or whatever, people will be there no matter what. It has nothing to do with smoke. The people that don't go out to eat, don't go out to eat because it's expensive to go out to eat all the time, not because they can't deal with the smoke. Restaurants will not see an increase in sales, actually, they'll probably see a decrease in sales because smokers are more likely to just stay at home where they can smoke in their own home.

No they won't be there. The best food or band won't matter if smoking is there. There are many people that literally cannot go near these type restaurants because of Asthma. That is a different ball game than finding the smell of smoke disgusting. The asthmatic is deathly afraid they will have an attack triggered by the smoke. They must avoid some times tons of restaurants, and their only choice is the smoke free fast food joint.

[Gottasay]

I eat out at least once a week. Yes, I do avoid smokey restaurants -- like the plague

[guyincognito]

Originally Posted by blu_monk

yes, i've never heard someone say they aren't going to a place that has GREAT food just because of the smoke or they aren't going to see a GREAT band just because the facility allows smoking.



it's the law now. no, i think smokers will be less likely to go out to the bar/restaurant, because they can't smoke while they drink now, but they can at home.

It is the height of arrogance to assume non-smokers will or should just kowtow to the smoking minority. The threat that smokers wield all this economic power by not eating out but non-smokers will just put up with it and spend money anyway is a demonstration of how warped out society has been for the past 50 years when non-smoker's rights were just given lip service. As if a flying sealed aluminum tube could keep air separated on two sides of the plane, or a half wall in a restaurant made both sides happy.

It has been true in the past that non-smokers have simply put up with the disrespect dealt them by the smoking public, but that time is no longer. We are not just the majority, we are the vast-majority. Anyone who finds it inconvenient to eat their food or drink their drinks without being able to take a drag off their cig needs professional help to break their chemical dependency. I frankly don't care what smokers do, as long as their habits don't affect me. Currently they do. Let's hope this law helps convince a few more to break the habit, or failing that, to do their habit in private where it will not be a burden on anyone else.