Printable View
People don't seem to grasp that the 15% loss of trade, I have seen quoted, after a smoking ban is the fact that there is hardly any cigarette sales. The drink sales are probably the same or slightly higher.
I have been visiting the Republic Of Ireland a lot over the last six years. The smoking ban has had very little effect on trade. The new drink driving laws that they are introducing will, however, decimate the industry.
Don't let the facts spoil a perfectly good argument boab.
To think that 15% of a pubs sales is due to cigarette sales is pretty much delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Cigarette sales in UK pubs are almost always done thro' a machine owned by a different company. The pub receives a very low commission or a flat monthly rate for having the machine on its premises. The pub owners don't mind having a facility which makes hardly any money in itself as it saves the smokers leaving the premises to get ciggies (and then possibly venturing to a different drinking establishment).
Only the commission or rental income goes thro' as sales income and, I can assure you, that is nowhere near 15%. More like 0.15%
===
On the subject of the smoking ban in Wales, it's not such a bad thing. Tennants of public houses and lessees won't feel the pinch on any restructuring as most breweries have taken it upon themselves to fund it. Free Houses will obviously be hit more tho'.
The ban works in more ways than one too. People will definitely smoke less now and, therefore, will have more disposable income - people will now be more inclined to give up altogether. Maybe they'll spend the extra they have in pubs. I'm in the pub a fair bit and I seriously don't know anyone who goes to the pub just so they can have a cigarette so I can't see all that many people cutting off their nose to spite their face.
All in all, I think this is probably only a bad thing for people who get settled in their seat and can't be arsed to go outside for a ciggie (read; old people). Young and middle aged smokers won't be put off going to pubs - in fact, the social implications of speaking to different people in the outside smoking wendy house has its own favourable connotations.
If you see what I mean.
Mother-in-law is thinking about quitting, because she will no longer be allowed to smerk in the bingo hall :01:
Right but I said private bar. Not open to the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccSome bars will lose patronage but as i explained smoking would be just one among many reasons. I would guess that the bars that fell after the bans weren't doing so well before. I know people that prefer to drink at home because they can buy beer cheaper from walmart and don't have to worry about drinking too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I remember going into a bar about ten years ago that was the only non smoking bar in the area, it was packed and frankly hard to get to the bar through the crowd. The other bars in the area although not empty were not exactly overflowing.
The complaint that the bars are not suddenly filling up with non smokers that didn't go out before could be because maybe, just maybe those people don't go to bars anyway or the bars are not set up in a way that attracts them.
I would have no problem with member only bars allowing smoking, but if it's open to the general public they should go by the sae rules that apply to all other public places. The ban is public places, not just bars.
Regarding your other paragraphs, that still doesn't explain bars that were open for years now closing after the ban.
Saying maybe they weren't doing well in the first place isn't a closed bar.
Pointing out a packed bar you went to 10 years ago was filled with non-smokers says nothing about bars that depend on the patronage of smokers.
Saying that you know people that prefer to drink at home (I'm one of them, btw) says nothing about folks who frequent bars for drink then. You may as well had pointed out that you know people that don't drink.:dabs:
Mind you, I'm not saying bars don't fail on their own (like any other business) but I can see this as a nail in the coffin.
I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.
Ah, so this'll be why manker is coming down to Plymouth this weekend. So he can smoke in a pub...
Bars that were open for years closed before the bans, the point being that the industry has been in a decline for some time. Bars don't just have to serve beer these days to stay competitive. They have to offer other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
The bars that seem to be doing the most business these days seem to be the "family friendly" ones. The old fashioned pubs where the men went to get away from the wife, get drunk and have a fight have been in decline for a long long time.
My point about the guys drinking at home was that they could do so cheaper and not have to worry about getting home if they have too much. These are all guys that used to go to bars on a regular basis. As prices rose and crack downs on dwi /public intoxication laws etc. they started going less.
What I am basically saying is that some people may stop going to bars because they absolutely are so addicted to smoking they feel they can't go out without it (sad really) but the suggestion that bars are closing solely because of smoking bans is a little bit of a stretch.
There's problems with the private club thing as well. Part of the argument for non-smoking is to do with staff, suppliers etc. If it was a private club which allowed smoking you would almost also have to have a smokers only policy for staff members and not allow non-smokers on the premises. That would include tax inspectors, people who deliver / repair things, meter readers basically anyone who wanted onto the premises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
That would constitute a restrictive practice, to say nothing of some legal people's rights of entry. There would be legal problems with that.
Staff can't work in a private smoking bar if they don't agree to handle the smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulThere's problems with the private club thing as well. Part of the argument for non-smoking is to do with staff, suppliers etc. If it was a private club which allowed smoking you would almost also have to have a smokers only policy for staff members and not allow non-smokers on the premises. That would include tax inspectors, people who deliver / repair things, meter readers basically anyone who wanted onto the premises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
That would constitute a restrictive practice, to say nothing of some legal people's rights of entry. There would be legal problems with that.
You have a point about tax inspectors, fire marshalls, etc. Appointments can be made.
Suppliers and repairmen have a right to refuse entry much like I do when I'm at work.
Again I'm referring to a private club.
If a repairman comes to my house (private residence), I can smoke up a storm, and he can either work in it or refuse. I might make concessions if I want something fixed or a smoker can be sent over.
They don't have to make appointments, that would defeat the purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™You have a point about tax inspectors, fire marshalls, etc. Appointments can be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul