A Little On Statistics and A New Personal Hero

In one of my earlier blogs I have some percentages on businesses in Austin that allowed smoking before the ban. I have recently learned these numbers came from a group called "Keep Austin Free" who were against the smoking ban in Austin. I found the same set of numbers attached to an article on "blogcritics.org" where I found a man named Ben Rollman that said everything I wanted to with my blog. Haha. Hopefully I have somewhere to take this blog now that my idea has already been perfectly articulated. Here's a link to what I wanted to say, but didn't get out fast enough.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/120434.php

This Is Priceless

So 52% of the 16% of voters that approved the smoking ban are ecstatic they can go to their favorite bar/club now and get wrecked on Jager without feeling the effects of second hand smoke. Until they walk outside. That is hilarious!

I went to 6th street Saturday night with a few friends from out of town. We were in a bar that had a line to get in so all the smokers were crowded around the exit to make sure they could get back in after smoking their cigarette and not have to wait in a 20 minute line. As my friends and I left the bar, we were hit by a literal cloud of smoke hanging infront of the exit. At least ten people were huddled together close to the exit hotboxing their cigarettes as quickly as possible. I'm a smoker and I almost choked coming outside. There was probably enough smoke in that little walk from the exit to the street to be compared to me smoking a full cigarette with a 2x2x2 box sealed around my head. AWESOME job the smoking ban is doing, haha.

I wonder what the difference in second hand smoke inhilation is when you compare the group of military guys crowded in line behind me, waiting to get into The Dizzy Rooster, puffing down their Camel Wides 2 weeks ago, and the blonde, sorority girl trying to hide her cigarette from prospective husbands, as she carefully drags it right next to me inside Chugging Monkey 2 years ago. I don't think I coughed either time. Jessica 1, second hand smoke 0.

Did Austin Need A Smoking Ban?

Before everyone gets all excited over these percentages let me start by saying these numbers are meant to be food for thought offered by a libertarian anarchist's blog here in Austin. According to his research:

Before the smoking ban
-of 46,000 businesses in Austin, over 99% were smoke free
-no smoking was allowed anywhere children under 18 were present
-over 2000 restaurants were smoke free, only 6 allowed smoking

you can check out this guy's site at "http://drizzten.com/blargchives/001135.html"

So pretty much, we had 16 percent of voters go to the poles, they almost tied (the ordinance passed with 52%), and all it changed was the fact that you can't smoke in bars and music venues. In my experience (3 years of going to bars, 7 years of going to music venues) I have never heard anyone complain about the smokiness of a bar or venue, smoker or not. I have also noticed that most of the people at these venues (usually half in my perception) are smokers. So what was the big deal?

You can tell people not to use a certain hair product because it contains propolyne glycol ( a cancer causing preservative also found in some foods) and more than likely, if they like the product, they will use it anyway. I think the same is true of second hand smoke. You can tell these people the harms of second hand smoke inhilation, but if they like the band enought (who probably smoke themselves, haha) they'll stay for 2-3 hours and watch the band and ignore the smoke.

Ulitmately, the venue should decide if they want to be a smoking venue or not. If you don't like the smoke, don't go to that venue.

Like For Like

"Drink Sales Suffer Under Scottish Smoking Ban"

Of course upon seeing this article, I immediately opened and read it hoping for something good to write about in my blog. Well suprise suprise, the title is more of a joke than an actual representation of how the author feels about the effects of the smoking ban. This artlice went on and on about "like for like" sales. For those who are unfamiliar, "like for like" sales is a term used to describe the loss of sales because of the smoking ban in contrast/comparison to the sales gained by the smoking ban.

What struck me about this article is the use of "like for like" as the only evidence of the effects of the smoking ban, most of which are positive. The ban meant a decrease in the amount of alcohol sales, but there was a comprable or better increase in food sales. Most of these businesses report that the food sales will even them out or gain them more profit on their expected year end totals.

What intrests me is the fact that not all establishments, in fact not most, have a "like for like" system. Many pubs in Scotland don't sell food, just as many of the bars on our very own 6th Street do not. If a bar/pub isn't selling food, where will the balancing out - the "like for like" - come into play for them?

Moreover, some local bars sold/still attempt to sell cigarettes from behind the counter. They charge a higher cost than the convenience stores (I wasn't happy about that but it was worth the extra convenience) in attempt to gain extra revenue. I would venture to bet that cigarette sales as well as alcohol sales have come down noticably from where they were before the smoking ban. And if there is no food being sold (I've never walked into Jackalope and ordered a pizza or hot dog, nor have I had a hamburger at the Chugging Monkey), how will area bars be able to sustain their profit margins and stay in business?

TEST

hooray!