|
Posted: 10:20 AM Jul 1, 2010
Smoking Ban 1-Year-Later, Not Good For Business
Lincoln, Neb. It has been one year since Nebraska passed its indoor state-wide smoking ban. In that past year, those for the ban said it has improved people's quality of life, but some said it has made their lives a struggle.
Reporter: Alicia Myers Email Address: alicia.myers@1011now.com |
Smoking Ban in need of second look
|
95 Comments 
It has been one year since Nebraska passed its indoor state-wide smoking ban.
In that past year, those for the ban said it has improved people's quality of life, but some said it has made their lives a struggle.
Smoking outside is still an option, but with Nebraska's hot summers and cold winters, bar owners said smokers are opting for different venues.
When the clock struck midnight January 1, 2005, smoking was no longer allowed inside Lincoln bars.
That ban sent people outside town, to establishments like the Silver Spoke Bar, where Terry and Teri Ernisse have spent nearly ten years serving their customers.
Then, June 1, 2009 hit, the day Nebraska passed its state-wide indoor smoking ban, and a busy bar turned into one that is now struggling.
"When it started in June, it wasn't too bad, because people could go outside, it was summer-time. After that, we were down about 30-40%. People would come in and maybe have one drink, and leave," said Teri Ernisse.
Teri said one year later, her business has not improved.
"It's not fair to us as bar owners. Your customers are the people that dictate to you what type of beer you carry, or if they're going to frequent your place, they are the ones that say I want this, this and this," said Teri.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nebraskans pay $537 million a year in tobacco-related health costs.
That is just one reason Sara Morgan with the Department of Health and Human Services said the ban was a must.
"Second-hand smoke has some very serious health effects. For that reason, the state passed this law to help protect the health and safety of the general public, as well as employees and their work places," said Morgan.
For Teri Ernisse, the ban could eventually mean a loss of business.
"Ideally, yes, we would like to sell out. The bottom line is, there are smokers, and they will continue to smoke," said Teri.
In the past year, the Department of Health and Human Services said they have received 160 smoking-related complaints of businesses across the state.
Only one violation has been given, to an establishment in Custer County.
Latest Comments
JM, Best of luck.
non smoking joe- not a glen beck fan, you are wrong , and I am done with this ,
JM, Your definition of Socialism is weak at best. You are using it in the Glenn Beck, cherry-picking way. By your definition of Socialism, the efforts to build and maintain roads, build and maintain water treatment plants, and build and maintain the military. Even Libertarians support these things. Does that mean Libertarians are Socialists? My point is this: We already have government regulation, which by your definition inhibits freedom, in place, and we all think it's a good thing (roads, clean water, and the military).
non-smoking joe- you speak as though socialist were a bad word, its is only a way govern, by definition Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources, and this is about big government, you want big government , so socialism by definition is what you want, as far as choice, if I were to choose to engage in illegal activties, I need to accept the consequences of my choice, if smoking were illegal, I likely would not smoke, we are all free to make choices, it is the consequence of those choices that I may want to avoid,
JM, I am disappointed by the turn in your recent comments. We were having a productive discussion, though our opinions were different. Just throwing around loaded terms like socialist ads nothing to the discussion. I am questioning the way you think of choice. By your definition, all drugs should be legal: pot, heroin, meth. Ultimately, the choice to use these drugs is make by one person, and the negative effects are felt by one person. Of course, this isn't true; the negative effects ripple out. How far does this freedom of choice ripple out in your mind?
non-smoking joe- yes, I do have a choice if I visit a resturant, I choose not to visit many resturants, that is my choice, It clearly sounds difficult for you to understand the word choice, and your definition of socialism is not my definition, with a liberal mind such as yours it is difficult to think freely,or clearly, go back to the drawing board, and wash away those liberal thoughts and begin thinking with a clear mind, you then will experience true freedom,
The government has not taken away the choice to smoke. You can walk into virtually any store, buy a pack of smokes, step out the door, and light up. (As a side note, Big Tobacco is firmly embedded in our government- They definitely don't want you to quit smoking). I disagree with helmet laws, I disagree with seat belt laws (except in the case of minors), because they take away my individual choice. When I choose not to wear a helmet, when I choose not to wear a seat belt, my choice affects only me. My choice to smoke in a confined area affects more than just myself, it affects everyone around me. I say a person should be able to do anything they want as long as their choices do not affect anyone else. To think a smoker has a right to walk into an establishment and spew toxic fumes over everyone else is very selfish (again, I am a smoker- but a considerate smoker).
well said JM2
JM2, Your point is clear. However, you did not address my main point. Our government already institutes and enforces health regulations on private businesses. You do not have a choice to visit or not visit a restaurant or bar that does not wash its dishes. You have the freedom to eat or drink knowing you are being served on clean plates. I am arguing we extend these regulations, not create new regulations. There is a line. You lived in a Socialist system under Reagan, Bush, and W under your definition.
Smokin Joe -- Government should not be allowed to control our legal choice to smoke. You're correct in the statement that one's smoking is a detrement to others health. But drinking also hurts one's own health. So, a bar should be given the choice to allow smoking, and customers have the choice to be a patron of that bar. It's your choice whether to walk into a bar that allows smoking. That is democracy, Government telling us how we should do things is a Socialist way of control. Government has controled smoking in some outdoor public areas, with "designated" smoking areas. It all comes down to choices we make. If it's legal to smoke in bars and you choose to be a patron of that bar then you choose to put your health at risk. The goverment has taken away the freedom of choice.
non-smokin Joe- Big government is,
JM, The health of our communities is not political. Health should not be exclusive to Republican or Democratic ideologies. Do you not like what I am saying, or do you not like that I sound like a Democrat? Those are two very different things.
keep the ban
non-smoking joe- I have read your posts and you do repeat the same thing over and over again, you seem to be a very gracious and patient man, I belive you are a democrat with democratic ideology, ideology is not based in reality , it is based only on a belief system, that is aquired through experience and some information which is supported by liberal interest groups,and that is not an opinion that has been researched with an open mind, , I am just saying it is a waste of time,
JM, Just out of curiosity, have you read my posts? I feel I addressed your issue directly. We have government enforced safety precautions in place already, and I bet you do not object: The Food and Drug Administration, local permits to open a restaurant, etc. My point is these enforcements, which require business owners to maintain and sell safe products, should be extended to smoking. You are right that advertisers are powerful. What's more powerful? Government. That's true freedom, if you ask me.
| Stories with Most Comments |
| LPD Officer's Death Raises Seatbelt Concern 17 Comments |
| Coach Pelini Not Injured in Lincoln Crash 16 Comments |
| Nebraska Student Vows to Help Make Patriotism 'Cool' 15 Comments |
| Lincoln Southeast Teacher Collapses, Passes Away 14 Comments |
| Neb. AG Planning Lawsuit Against Health Care Law 13 Comments |
| R.A. Fears for Her Job After Telling Residents About Bed Bugs in Her Room 12 Comments |
