April 11, 2006


Pub sales soaring despite ban on smoking (LAURA ROBERTS , 4/11/06, The Scotsman)

TAKINGS in Scottish pubs and bars have risen since the introduction of the smoking ban, confounding fears it would hit the licensed trade.

Publicans across the country said sales of food and drink had risen significantly since the ban came into force two weeks ago.

One bar in Edinburgh reported a 25 per cent boost last weekend as drinkers were attracted by smoke-free rooms.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 11, 2006 7:51 AM

I don't know about drink, but surely it should have been apparent that smoking suppresses appetite?

Posted by: Mike Earl at April 11, 2006 10:25 AM

Here in Minneapolis, they keep telling us how great it's been for the bars. But in my neigborhood (urban mix of working class, U of M, middle class professionals) one working-class bar has been driven out of business, and the other one, an East-side instititution for over 30 years, is on the ropes. I know this because my wife is on the youth hockey board, which depends on charitable pulltab gambling, and since the smoking ban the funds have dried up. The place is empty during the week, and on weekends it has 1/3 the people it used to.

So I think they're lying. Or at least not telling the whole story.

Posted by: ted welter at April 11, 2006 10:52 AM

Just more fake statistics to support OJ's hatred of the smoking classes. It's fine to drink yourself to death, but don't do it while smoking. The first thing all governments do after outlawing smoking is release phony numbers showing pubs, bars, clubs increasing their revenues because of the smoke-free ambiences. Global warming, second hand smoke deaths, etc., etc. Malarkey.

Posted by: ed at April 11, 2006 11:05 AM


Know any doctors?

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 11:33 AM

Even if this is true, I'm not sure why we'd prefer drunks to smokers.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 11, 2006 11:34 AM


Or your neighborhood isn't as working class as it was....

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 11:34 AM

Drink has health benefits and a vital social function. Smoking is naught but pathology.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 11:41 AM

I know that the smoking ban in Tempe, AZ killed many of the pubs there and mobilized all the bar owners in the surrounding communities to prevent their towns from likewise banning smoking.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at April 11, 2006 11:58 AM

Oj, the demographics in my neighborhood haven't changed overnight. The drop in revenue for youth sports (not just hockey, but little league and football) coincided with the smoking ban. As in, the month before the smoking ban, the pulltab take was fine; the month after the smoking ban, revenue was 25% of what it was. A year later and it hasn't recovered.

There are people who like to drink and smoke and gamble, and people who don't. The people who don't ought to leave the people who do alone. Or at least stop being so hypocritical. If tobacco is so evil, fine, ban it (good luck). But the people who are anti-smoking in bars are generally the same people who want to use the tobacco tax revenues for light rail and ball parks such.

Posted by: twelter at April 11, 2006 12:00 PM


Riding a train won't kill you--tobacco does.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 12:07 PM

Tobacco stinks and I've walked out of restaurants where bar smoke reaches the dining room. When I used to smoke I'd often enjoy eating in the bar for its informality and conviviality, but can't stand it anymore.

If tobacco taxes were only applied to medicare and medicaid to offset the costs of keeping the lung impaired alive, that we nonsmokers have to bear, I'd drink to that ... and often.

Posted by: Genecis at April 11, 2006 12:23 PM

Genecis: In a free country one can walk out of a bar or restaurant where smoking is allowed and into a non-smoking establishment.
OJ, I don't for a moment imagine that smoking is a benign activity, I simply want to have the opportunity to smoke and drink with others who practice these vicious but legal vices.

Posted by: ed at April 11, 2006 1:20 PM


Tough. You live in a Puritan Nation.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 1:23 PM

When I smoked, I couldn't imagine a life where smoking was banned, We smoked in the balcony at movies, in the supermarket, in hospital sick rooms, buses and airplanes.

Now I can't stand to be a room where people are smoking, but that's my choice. I don't want big brother getting into the act... and oj. didn't Puritans enjoy their pipes too.

Posted by: erp at April 11, 2006 1:48 PM


Puritan cancer rates were around 0%.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 2:00 PM

Puritan men died at early ages before they had a chance to get cancer and of course, women didn't get cancer much either, they died like flies mostly of childbirth and related infections. Kids had their own plethora of diseases and cancer was probably low on that list too.

Smoking is unhealthful and smelly, but it's legal, so it shouldn't be illegal in privately owned places. Bite the bullet and ban it, or leave it alone.

Posted by: erp at April 11, 2006 4:11 PM


Yes, so their ignorance can be excused. Smokers today have no such excuse nor can a decent society ignore their pathology.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 4:14 PM

Then ban tobacco. It can't be both legal and illegal.

Posted by: erp at April 11, 2006 7:35 PM


Yes, that's the direction in which we've steadily moved and we will ban it by the end of the decade.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2006 7:41 PM

Are you saying that all tobacco products will be banned by 2010? On the federal level? You wanna put some money on that (or are friendly wagers also banned by the Puritan Nation)?

Instead of cash, how about you buy me a carton of Shermans or Dunhills if they're still legal in 2010, and if they're not, I buy you a couple of bottles of whatever wine you like for under 100 bucks?

All levels of government make too much money from tobacco. One of the reasons we still subsidize the tobacco farmers.

Posted by: ted welter at April 12, 2006 10:42 AM

Between public bans, taxes, and the like there'll certainly be a constructive ban, a complete prohibition may not be in place by then but won't follow too much later, yes.

Posted by: oj at April 12, 2006 10:46 AM