Bar opens bogus 'smoking research' area to bypass cigarette ban
Filed under: Entrepreneurship, Health
Second only to "last call, Ms. Handler," it's the most common refrain among bar and club owners: "Smoking bans hurt business."
As a non-smoker, I love being able to come home after drinks without stinking like Patty Bouvier, but bar owners have claimed that indoor smoking bans, where they exist, have driven away a percentage of their business. A regular at the aptly named pub Cutting Edge, in Barnsley, England, studied the two-year-old ban and found a loophole: If smoking is conducted in the name of research, it can be done indoors.
So last week, the pub's owner (non-smoking, but pro-choice) opened a "smoking research centre" where patrons can simultaneously have a beer and a cigarette. All they have to do is fill out a legal questionnaire about their smoking habits first, mostly to satisfy the requirements of the letter of the law.
In Britain, the pub industry has claimed that some 2,000 establishments have shuttered because of the ban (although personally, I think other health-conscious trends in society have contributed equally if not more). The Cutting Edge hopes that the (maybe not) legal smoking area will set it apart from its competition and keep it in business.
It's an old trick. In North Carolina, you'll find places that won't serve you booze unless you're a "member," which is just a way of getting around prohibitionist rules and state-controlled liquor sales.
The smoking prohibitionists will be sure to choke off the research loophole in Britain, but isn't it inspiring when someone who feels wronged by the law turns finds a way to turn the rulebook against itself?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-16-2009 @ 3:15PM
egon said...
That's excellent, now other states that ban smoking in public should find loopholes like this.
BTW, I live in NC and it's not restaurants that have to do the member thing, it's all bars that *don't* also serve food.
Reply
5-17-2009 @ 12:16AM
Sher said...
There should be 'Smoking Bars' & 'Non-Smoking Bars'..........let people make the choice...............this is America, or did someone forget, again !!!!
Reply
5-18-2009 @ 12:53PM
Elizabeth said...
I never did understand 100% bans esp. when the bar is a hole-in-the wall gin joint dive. 90% if not more of the patrons smoke, the bartenders all smoke and the average age is 82. These old folks should be able to smoke inside without having to risk frost bite, heat exhaustion, being caught in a thunder storm,etc. What difference does it make really?
Just one example.
And aren't more people exposed to smoke if the person is smoking outdoors?
I really think people are beginning to de-evolve.
5-17-2009 @ 10:29PM
Thomas Laprade said...
What if the governments mandated that all currently smoke-free hospitality venues MUST provide a smoking section to accommodate smokers, against the wishes of business owners who choose
to go smoke-free of their own free will?
That wouldn't be fair, would it?
Neither are government mandated smoking bans.
Reply
5-18-2009 @ 2:35AM
Cindy said...
Do you forget second hand smoke is a health hazard to the innocent patron that has to breath the harmful fumes of cigarette smoke? Please do not forget this law is not just a "rights" thing it is also a health hazard to have to breath in second hand smoke and the law just seeks to protect the innocent nonsmoker from unwillingly having to breath in the putrid poison! If one must take up the filthy stinky habit, please don't think it is right to make others have to suffer for it.
5-18-2009 @ 12:55PM
Elizabeth said...
Cindy, even the EPA admits that threat is miniscule. Read the ENTIRE report not just the headline.
Reply