Next year, residents and visitors may not be able to complement their cold beer with a cigarette, should a smoking ban pass in November.
Christie, as she wanted to be identified, a bartender at McKee's Pub and Grill on McCulloch Boulevard, said, “I think it will hurt business. It hurt Tempe for years.”
Evidence supporting this claim nationwide is largely unsubstantiated.
After California enacted a smoking ban in 1995, bar and restaurant revenue increased 30 percent between 1997 and 2001, according to Smoke-Free Arizona, a sponsor of one of the two smoking initiatives which are in the process of qualifying for the November ballot.
In Tempe, a city which went smoke-free, 84 percent of tourists said the ban on indoor smoking was one of the positives of the destination, said the Tempe Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Research from New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maine has shown a small positive impact, or none at all, on restaurants and bars, said Smoke-Free Arizona.
However, Christie suggested McKee's patrons might find their way to locales offering outdoor patios, where smoking still would be allowed. Since her bar lacks an outdoor patio, their sales would suffer, she reasoned.
Thom Felke, manager of Shugrue's restaurant, feels the topic of a smoking ban has lost some of its divisiveness over the years due to customers' pursuit of healthier lifestyles.
“Ten years ago, all restaurant people were up in arms about civil liberties. I don't know too many people who are concerned now,” Felke said.
Since Mad Dog's Bar and Grill is the only Shugrue's establishment that allows smoking, Felke felt any possible ban would have limited impact on his company's operations.
“If there's food around, people don't want to be around smoke.”
This November, two measures dealing with smoking in public will be before voters, should the measures be certified by the Secretary of State's office.
They differ in a few key ways:
The Smoke-Free Arizona Act, Proposition 201, would prohibit smoking in enclosed public places and places of employment. Limited exceptions would include private residences, retail tobacco stores, and outdoor patios. This version would effectively ban smoking from all bars throughout Arizona.
Another key provision of the Smoke-Free Arizona Act is an additional cigarette tax, which would be used for enforcement should the measure pass. A tax of one-tenth of a penny per cigarette, or roughly two cents per pack, would be levied on smokers.
Contrastingly, the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act, Proposition 206, would allow smoking in bars and tobacco shops. Like the other measure, smoking in all other public places and offices of employment would be outlawed. This version would not levy any new cigarette taxes.
According to Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights, a lobbying group, RJ Reynolds paid up to $4 per signature to signature gatherers during successful efforts to put the competing initiative on the November ballot. RJ Reynolds, maker of Camel and Kool brands of cigarettes, and the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, are the major backers behind the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act.
American Cancer Society and American Lung Association, among other healthcare organizations, support the competing measure, which would ban smoking in all public places, including bars.
These organizations support the wider ban due to risks posed by secondhand smoke, including its association with asthma, lower respiratory infections, lung and nasal cancer, and retarded fetal growth, according to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
You may reach the reporter at hays@havasunews.com





Article Rating