Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Car Pushed Into Anacostia River By Train
The Saturday Morning Post
If you're a smoker still smarting over the ban on lighting up in District bars, fear not -- a Cleveland Park watering hole is now your refuge.
According to the AP via WJLA, the District has granted its first exemption to the 10-month-old smoking ban, with the prize going to Aroma in Cleveland Park. The bar, which sells cigars and claimed a loss of 20 percent in the six months after the ban was imposed, had to submit records to prove that the downturn hadn't been caused by other factors. The ban, which was originally endorsed by the D.C. Council in December 2005, allows bars that lose 15 percent of their business to apply for an economic hardship waiver.
Does Aroma's exemption prove the fear that the smoking ban will lead to a general loss of business for District bars? Not really. The bar's owners, who also operate Bedrock Billiards, Atomic Billiards, Buffalo Billiards and Mackey's Pub, note that business at the latter two is actually up. Some bar owners have reported lower sales, though others seem to be doing just fine.
We do find it amusing, though, that one of the few bars where people will be able to smoke is called Aroma. After all, one of the most common complaints of many smoking ban supporters was that they hated the post-night out cigarette aroma on their clothes.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
First of all, the nastiness of tobacco smoke is debatable and non-smokers aren't the only ones whose opinions on scents count. I don't know how, but there are apparently some people who find cigar smoke pleasant.
Second of all, the aroma of smoke is certainly not too much worse than the aroma of bar vomit.
And finally, to provide everyone with public social venues that cater to their interests, I think it's only fair that a few bars and even restaurants allow smoking. The owners and employees are aware of the health risks of smoking, and the ones that appreciate working in a smoker-friendly environment will be most likely to provide good service at establishments that allow smoking. And the majority of businesses that continue to be smoke-free can offer a healthier atmosphere in place of the social smoking experience. I think cities should experiment with policies that don't totally ban smoking, but limit it to something between 10 and 25% of the businesses of a given category. I know that kind of system would be somewhat arbitrary and subjective in terms of who gets the limited smoking licenses...but it wouldn't really be much different than DC's bureaucratic system for liquor licenses.
There's an exception in the law for "tobacco bars", which derive more than 10 percent of their revenue from tobacco sales. Aroma must not be much of a tobacco bar if it couldn't meet that definition.
I'm curious about what sort of records would "prove that the downturn hadn't been caused by other factors". Bars presumably have ups and downs all the times, for all sorts of reasons, just as they did before the new law.
I support the smoking ban but I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to light up in cigar bar if it was designed for that purpose.
I can't wait until a city starts to regulate bad food out of the dinning experience. Oh, wait NY city is almost there. Soon we will not have to make a decision about where or what to eat. Government will do that for us.
I don't know what the specifics are for reporting a bar's financial downturn, although I think they submit records for a fiscal year...they don't pick one really slow weekend and claim that that small a period will reflect data for the long-term.
As far as tobacco bars, hinging the smoking policy on whether an establishment sells tobacco is not sufficient in my opinion. There should also be a few regular drinking bars, restaurants and even coffeeshops (Jim Jarmusch would most likely agree with that one) that also allow people to smoke while they eat, sip coffee, telecommute, etc. I don't smoke, but see it as an unhealthy but culturally rich tradition akin to drinking wine or eating fattening foods. It just doesn't make sense to me to ban anything like that altogether since in moderation they're all fine...so the alternative is to provide for a few venues that allow people to do as they wish, while the majority of businesses are smoke-free.
This exception makes absolutely no logical sense. I understand what it's trying to do, but as a matter of pure logic it is dishonest.
Ok, so if in 2006 Bar A had revenues of $100k, then in 2007, it's on track to pull in $80k, it somehow gets this exemption. But the thing is, the moment this bar gets an exemption, its revenues will skyrocket because it'll be the only bar around that allows smoking. Does that mean that in 2008, the bar needs to somehow prove that its revenues would have continued to be at $80k/yr for 2007-2008 to keep the exemption? Or does it continue to cash-in indefinitely on the huge government subsidy that is in essence a free "tabacco license".
The stated purpose of this exemption was to preserve the proverbial "corner bar". Personally, I think there would be better approaches to take to encourage the preservation of such places and I don't think something as clumsy and internally inconsistent as a smoking ban exemption is the best tool. Preserving these corner bars (and having never been to Aroma, I can't speak on it's "corner-ness") should be part of a greater city-wide effort to change zoning laws and tax assesment procedures to preserve places like the Warehouse that was not so dependent on smoking drinkers to thrive.
So instead, we lose great places like the Warehouse or the Waffleshop to tax assessments or development, and some bar gets essentially a put option from the city priced at their 2006 revenue numbers, however arbitrarily those revenue numbers may have been reached (bars are not exactly the models of GAAP accounting).
I hope more bars are granted an exemption!
Fun Fact!
During prohibition, bars that catered to drinking aficionados could apply for an exemption from the drinking ban.
These so-called "drinking bars" had to show their revenues had declined by at least 20 percent over six months. They also had to submit records to prove that the downturn hadn't been caused by other factors, such as the Spanish flu or whatever.
However, the paperwork was complicated and required advanced reading, writing, and mathematics skills that were beyond the capabilities of your typical, uneducated 1920s tavern proprietor.
I'll be at Aroma later if anyone wants to learn more. Bring your own smokes.
Here is the exemption application....
http://doh.dc.gov/doh/frames.asp?doc=/doh/lib/doh/services/administration_offices/phsa/tobacco/pdf/econ_hardship_waiver_app_final.pdf
Unless I'm missing something it seems like it'd be pretty easy to make a successful application.
All you really have to do is show reduced business.
That could be because you have a crappy new manager with terrible business skills (or intentionally terrible), you reduce staff (thus reducing business), you hire crappy staff nobody likes, etc., or you just have an off three months. That happens in all businesses.
Or maybe a better bar opens next door and steals some of your business. Under this exemption apparently that's enough to claim a hardship.
I smell Marion Barry's stinky fingers all over this one.
So instead, we lose great places like the Warehouse or the Waffleshop...
Actually, we didn't lose Waffle Shop. They just moved two stores down and took over the Lincoln House Deli.
Of course, it's only a matter of time before DC outlaws the $5.98 Ribeye Steak and Eggs special, and Jim Graham shuts the place down because someone had a coronary inside.
I just thought of a nice control to put on: If you get this application based upon a decline in revenues, your revenues going forward must be capped. In other words, in the example above, I suggested a bar that goes from 100 to 80 and gets the exemption. My proposal would be that any cent it gets over 100 in 2007-2008 should be forfeited. Build in a COLI adjustment for going forward and you just created an incentive for the bar to get off the exemption train.
Any legislation that is based on the idea that second-hand smoke is harmful and has no place in a public space should not reward an establishment that can't live up to that standard, while it punishes those that can.
I don't really mind going outside to smoke. I am trying to quit, after all.
However, without the smell of smoke to cover it up, there is nothing to block the smell of unwashed bodies and the ammonia used to clean the bathrooms. If the District is going to ban smoking as a public service, they at least need to institute a 'bath test': those people who haven't bathed and are too smelly must go home and wash before entering any non-smoking tavern establishment.
We do find it amusing, though, that one of the few bars where people will be able to smoke is called Aroma. After all, one of the most common complaints of many smoking ban supporters was that they hated the post-night out cigarette aroma on their clothes.
No, no! That's not why it's funny! It's funny because smokers have an aroma all their own!
And for those who are apt to compare smoking bans to Prohibition, take note that people who drink don't usually emit a foul odor -- unless, of course, they've thrown up all over themselves, but even so, secondhand vomit stench doesn't have a strong correlation with lung cancer.
Calling Aroma a "cigar bar" is laughable. I've been going there regularly for years, and I have yet to see anyone smoking a cigar there.
I love that "it's stinky" is now an adequate justification for legislating.
Can I call for a ban on ugly people or idiotic conversation in bars? Those things offend me.
Jeffrey:
Sure. You can call for a ban on ugly people or idiotic conversation, just as soon as those things cause cancer in innocent bystanders.
The few times I've been in Aroma it has definitely had more of a Euro crowd than bars usually have in that area. Euros tend to smoke more than Americans. Considering how many smokers I saw when I was there, I'm not surprised their revenues are hurting.
And for those who are apt to compare smoking bans to Prohibition, take note that people who drink don't usually emit a foul odor
You obviously never drank an entire sixpack of Yuengling in one sitting. And by "sitting" I mean "floating on a cushion of drunken Irishman's pickeled egg poo gas."
Cancer! Cancer! OMG!
Meanwhile, seemingly 90+ percent of what people -- and I'm not referring to activist types here -- write and say about smoking bans relates to how their clothes and hair smell, not to the marginal increase in one risk factor for cancer that is associated with as much as several hours a week in places that have some tobacco smoke in the air. This isn't exactly like having your house lined with flaky asbestos. Or like smoking 15-25 cigarettes a day, to use another example.
Honestly, it's a wonder any of our parents and grandparents survived long enough to conceive us, what with the secondhand smoke floating around inside absolutely every indoor space everywhere back in the day.
Anyway, this ship has sailed and there's no real point arguing about it because it will never be repealed. I could do without the gloating, though.