August 3, 2007
Taxes Show Overall Effect of Smoking Ban Positive
Via The Examiner, it looks like it's finally been long enough that we can start to measure the financial impact of the District's smoking ban, thanks to reported tax revenues on both alcohol and cigarettes for the fiscal year now being available. Overall, the news is good: alcoholic beverage tax revenues are up 1.6 percent for fiscal 2007, while cigarette tax dollars are down a whopping 7.5 percent for the year. Taken at face value, these figures make it look like fewer people are smoking, which is good for everyone's health and reduces long term health care costs, and people are spending just as much if not more on booze when they go out. So great, right?
Well, not exactly. The article goes on to note that most bars are in fact reporting reduced profits since the ban, but that taverns and restaurants that focus more on selling food are the ones reaping the benefits of higher alcohol revenues. Indeed, when we've chatted with various bartenders and bar owners over the last few months, we've always asked them how they feel the smoking ban is affecting them, and they all say they notice a difference, if relatively small, in how much they're making. Back in June, Dante Ferrando, the owner of the Black Cat, told us that there's been a significant change in his club in the last hour of business -- instead of sticking around for one more round, many people are opting to leave earlier.
Still, it's hard to make the argument that the business community is feeling an overall negative effect from the smoking ban with these numbers in hand. And given the popularity of the ban among a majority of consumers, there's little doubt it's here to stay. It will be interesting to see if many bars apply for economic-hardship waivers under the smoke-free law, as the Examiner points out Cleveland Park cigar bar Aroma has now done.
|
Huh. Carol was wrong, eh?
Meanwhile, forget second-hand smoke, folks! It's laser printer TONER that's killing us! Did anyone read this today?
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/36077
Aroma is a cigar bar??
Any comments from Flack Mark Lee or Hack Andrew Kline? C'mon, guys. I know you must have *something* to say...
I'm as glad as anyone except for cig companies that tobacco tax revenues are down, but it's actually probably not good for the city's long-term fiscal health, ironically enough.
Cig smokers pay so much in taxes these days, and die that much younger and quicker than non-smokers, that their revenue contributions generally outweigh their public health costs. Numerous studies have shown this.
Apparently Aroma isn't really a cigar bar after all: "Cigar bars are exempt from the ban if at least 10 percent of their revenues come from the sale of tobacco products, and Aroma didn't make the cut."
Overall, the news is good: alcoholic beverage tax revenues are up 1.6 percent for fiscal 2007, while cigarette tax dollars are down a whopping 7.5 percent for the year. Taken at face value, these figures make it look like fewer people are smoking, which is good for everyone's health and reduces long term health care costs, and people are spending just as much if not more on booze when they go out.
Okay, so you're saying people are buying more booze because smoking's illegal? And since cigarette tax revenues are down, people are smoking less? Maybe nonsmokers are coming into bars they wouldn't otherwise come into because the smokers aren't there. And maybe the revenues are down because the hardcore smokers are buying their fix in MD and VA. They're not smoking less, they're just buying it someplace else.
Like I was telling the Pope this morning, "Benny," I says, "The only thing I take at face value is when someone is peeing in mine." He just shook his head knowingly, like he'd ridden that horse before. They guy may wear a dress, but he's a straight-up gee.
Most of my friends are now shift their booze and smoke time to Virginia establishments and stopped going to Georgetown and Adams Morgan.
What can be said about our worldview when we are inspired by increasing revenues for purveyors of vice and bad habits. How about the fact that the smoking ban is a good thing for everyone, and who cares whether bar revenues fall? Maybe it will encourage them to expand their service, serve some decent food, and actually create some motivation to compete for their customers in a way besides simply standing out front and yelling 'first shot free, no cover'.
I'm not surprised that bars and taverns are being hurt by the ban. Since the ban went into effect my wife and I nad some of our friends have cut down on drinking out except for places with outdoor patios for smoking. Now we do most of smoking and drinking at home or at homes of friends. It's a real shame that independent bar owners are feeling an economic hit over the ban. I hope the ones that are losing money are able to get an exemption. Good luck to Aroma. We'll be one of the first ones in there if they get their exemption.
Hello? The quoted "statistics" from the DC Dept. of Health regarding alcohol tax revenues are not even relevant as they include all alcohol product sales (including at retail stores, etc.) and are not related to nightclub/bar/restaurant sales. An "increase" of 1.6% is actually a LOSS after factoring in substantial increases in alcohol product wholesale costs AND the inflation rate.
In addition, tax figures cover both 6 months with and 6 months without the smoking ban at bars and restaurant bar areas and, importantly, also include sales figures for those establishments which were already non-smoking before the ban.
In any event, even if the "statistics" were related to hospitality venue sales, many -- if not most -- establishments have had to also raise consumer prices to offset some of their widely-reported losses, further converting the so-called "increase" into an actual, and even larger, decrease, when compared to baseline figures.
Good grief, is this what passes for "proof" these days?
Despite living in Arlington, I refuse to go to bars there. I always travel into DC because of the draconian smoking in Virginia.
I don't want to come out of a bar smelling like an ashtray.
Well, at least I can go into The Fox without choking, nowadays. Really, it pained my heart that I couldn't avail myself of their $4 gin and tonics (with tonic on the side) without pain in my lungs.
But this happy new world, it's like a breath of fresh, juniper scented, air!
For all of the poeple who have stopped going to bars, my boyfirend and I have started going to bars in DC. I refuse to go to smoking establishments in Virginia. I can't take the smoke. And i am not alone.
Well, it might be good for Taxes and it might be good the NANNY STATE, but it sure is not good for Personal Liberty, but in this day and age, and especially in this city, I'm apparently alone in believing that the rights of property owners (businesses) outweigh some made-up right to go into any private establishment you want and dictate policy. (I don't even like smoking) Rather than legislate a smoking ban, if you don't like smoking then I suggest don't go to the restaurant. Isn't that easier?
The illusory "fact" cited in this post that a "majority of consumers" support the ban (where is the evidence for this statement?) doesn't justify the ban or the trampling of individual liberty and the right to property as commonly understood for hundred of years (weren't you awake for your John Locke and Thomas Jefferson?). A majority is unable to create morality. Isn't a democracy about the protection of minority rights?
BostonRay says: Guest # 10 is right on the money. Everywhere there is a smoking ban Robert Wood Johnson directs the exact same news article be released by the local flacs at the "health dept." . It is composed and printed in Princton, N. J. and released here. Of course it always claims success, but as Guest # 10 says, it really indicates complete failure. The trick they use is to use seperate tax numbers for bars, restaurants, take-out and retail sales BEFORE the ban. After the ban they COMBINE bar restaurant, take-out and retail receipts to hide the fact that there has been a large migration of smokers to take out and go home. When you look at the sales increase in non-hospitality businesses as opposed to hospitality you will see a greater disparity indicative of failure. As Guest # 10 points out a 1.6% gain is way overtaken by a 4.5% escalation factor during the same period.
You are losing a lot of money because hospitality is the largest industry in D. C. Someone will have to make up the loss.
"I'm apparently alone in believing that the rights of property owners (businesses) outweigh some made-up right to go into any private establishment you want and dictate policy."
What made-up right? You mean laws? The government has for years beeen telling business owners how to handle their food, what age patrons they can serve, the maximum occupancy of dining rooms...I could go on. All of those previous laws exist for the safety of the customers, and for their overall comfort. This smoking ban is no different.
"Most of my friends are now shift their booze and smoke time to Virginia establishments and stopped going to Georgetown and Adams Morgan."
GOOD!
Guest [16], it's a crock just like the rest of those laws for your 'safety'. When you get put into a camp for your 'safety' don't come crying to me.
BostonRay says: Guest #10 - Food safety, fire egress laws and occupancy are safety and health related and deserving of laws. Food poisoning, ecoli, and the Coconut Grove proved that. Smoking bans, however, are based on a fabricated and fraudulent lie. Tobacco smoke has never been shown to harm or injure anyone, anywhere. The "overall comfort of customers" was easily handled before the ban by business owners who chose to go non-smoking on their own. Why is it that "overall comfort" only applies to non-smokers? Why is it that this "overall comfort" for non-smokers takes a law to apply and not the choice of business owners?
Because it loses large amounts of customers and money.
BostonRay also says: RE: Whopping decrease in cigarette tax receipts.
Think they quit smoking, huh! Minus 7.5%
Unless one is really dumb a smoker has numerous other places to buy cigarettes other than state taxed stores. They get them from out of state at about $1.40 per pack. Why pay $5.00? No one I know buys smokes in a store anymore. Cigarettes used to be the biggest seller in convienience stores. When you raised the tax smokers have voted with their feet. It's only common sense. No one has quit smoking, we have just quite paying your illegal tax. The amount saved pays my brand new car payment (Hummer H2), gas and insurance. Al Gorebal sure sold me!
Between Md. and DC its close to a $ 400 million loss. Guess why the gov. "leaders" are talking tax and fee increases? Add that to bar receipt losses. Now your talking real money!
The statistics used to "prove" smoking bans don't hurt business are a bunch of crap. They generally include ALL restaurants - the vast majority of which NEVER allowed smoking in the first place, like McDonald's and Starbucks. When looking ONLY at primarily drinking establishments (e.g. bars, taverns, pool halls) the story is very different.
The proof is very simple. Remember Champion Billiards in Silver Spring? Remember Uncle Jed's Roadhouse in Bethesda? There are dozens of other examples in Montgomery County alone.
Smoking bans kill bars and pool halls. These are not places that anyone takes their family for dinner. And these are certainly places that anyone could have chosen NOT to go. In fact, I'm guessing that the typical anti-smoking, Camry-driving, baby-to-bar-bringing yuppie would never have dared set foot in such places in the first place.
So great. All you self-righteous snobs who think you have a right to go to any dive and breathe clean air got what you wanted. Except, of course, there won't be any of those dives left to go to.
BostonRay Points out: Right now there are 77 basic bars up for sale in DC alone. (Some in Adams Morgan) The current owners want out. So far no takers. That is an increase of 800% over this time last year. At one year into your ban they will start to close. Smokers will still be able to smoke at home. Where will the non-smokers go?
Not to a smokers home - you will not be welcome. This is exactly what happened in Boston. Come Football season the bars will be empty. Who would want a bigot non-smoker into their good home after they discriminated against them for a purely fabricated reason!!???. Smoking harms no one!!