Reader The DLC took issue with our story about a study released this week contending that area smoking bans are having little impact on the business of bars and restaurants.
Those pesky civil liberties, always getting in the way.
I would argue that the rhetoric on the pro-ban side has been way "rowdier," extreme and self-righteous than on the other.
you state that the study was funded by the Health Care Foundation, you
fail to interrogate how that may have influenced the results, instead
accepting them whole-heartedly with statements like "whining about a
made-up problem." You also fail to provide a link or even the name of
I wish this post had been more open-ended and fair so
that we could actually think about the veracity of claims made on both
sides of the issue.
Speaking of both sides of the issue, Reader RayJames552:
There may be a few folks that are boycotting or still boycotting their
regular places that are now no smoking, but most people that get upset
about smoking restictions decide to get over it in a couple of months.
They have proably gone back to their favorite places. Hopefully spending
more on food and drink and less on addictive cancer causing cigarettes.
course you can name bars and resturaunts that have gone out of business
since the restrictions but if you look at historical data there are
always places opening and closing. Unfortunatly with the economy lately
there have been more closing than opening.
Time to take the
smoking restrictions state wide (with no exceptions-can you say casinos)
thus having a level playing field for all businesses.