Wednesday, February 02, 2005


More Smoking News

Fairfield is also debating a smoking ban. I think it's easy to see that in 5 years, the only place you'll be smoking is outside.

One thing I want to point out in the article:

Pat Edmonson, co-owner of Gilmore Bowling Lanes, doesn't smoke, but all but one of her employees do. She fears bowlers would bypass her lanes and go elsewhere if a clean air ordinance was adopted. "Even if we lose just 20 to 25 percent (bowlers), it will put us out of business,'' said Chuck Edmonson, Pat's husband and a former smoker.

This makes no sense to me. Maybe it's only people I know, but seems like everyone walks out of bowling alley's disgusted by smoke. If you ban smoking everywhere, seems to me that people that don't smoke would frequent you business more often. As far as I can tell the bar and restaurant economies in California and New York haven't collapsed. There's not a flood of people spending their Friday night at home because they can't smoke at bars. Hurting business is just not something that happens.

I say let the "invisible hand" (insert some type of reference to that Smith guy we learned something about in Econ-101) direct traffic.....keep government out of it.

= Joe K =
I tend to agree. But does that mean people should be able to smoke at your work? Smoke on an airplane in the seat next to you? After all you don't HAVE to fly somewhere, you could drive if you don't like the smoke. Point is, supply/demand and the powere of economics normally work. But there are cases in which the gov't is required to step in to make decisions that benefit the 80% over the 20%.

I am still up in the air on the smoking ban though. I think it needs to be regional to work (Hamilton Co, NKY), not just Cincinnati. I know it works in CA, and NY City, and I loved it there. But I'm still going to bars if they don't ban smoking. Just as smokers will still go to bars if they do ban smoking.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?