According a survey trumpeted and conducted by the less than honest Michigan Restaurant Association (MRA), 42.4 percent of its members say their business has decreased since the workplace smoking ban went into effect on May 1.
The MRA and the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association (MLBA) have in the past floated debunked studies to make a point, so I would take this with a grain of salt. But what has been missed is that a majority, 57.4 percent, have shown an increase in sales or no change in sales since the ban went into effect three months ago.
The survey found 14.8 percent reported an increase in sales since the ban went into effect while 43 percent of restaurant operators reported no change in sales since the ban was implemented. With only 20.4 percent of the Michigan population, it’s hard to impossible to see how they can have much of an effect on any business, other than the tobacco industry.
The real bonus is that the public and employees have been protected from deadly secondhand smoke and this has always been a public health issue. Even though the media buried the lead on this one, they have been doing an excellent job in reporting how poplar the ban is with 75 percent of Michigan residents supporting it and how well bars and restaurant are doing.
Emily Palsrok, spokeswoman for Campaign for Smokefree Air, summed it up nicely.
"Michigan residents have been overwhelming supportive and pleased with the new smoke-free air law,” she said. “We stand firmly behind our research and data that smoke-free air is good for business and good for our health."
10 comments:
The population of Michigan is 9,969,727.
Imagine if 42% of those people left the state of Michigan. That would be 4,187,285.3.
The median income in Michigan is $42,000 per year. At a tax rate of 4.5%, that would be $7.5 billion in taxes lost.
Oh but that won't happen. Our exodus from Michigan is about 30,000 people per year. So they aren't all going to leave. However, if their businesses fail, or they change because they have no hope of increasing their business, or they can't afford to hire help (which I haven't included in the losses above), the state will lose some taxes as these people take on jobs in Michigan working for someone else. Of course, Michigan will lose the business tax as these businesses fold.
If it was better for business to have non smoking, the businesses could and did choose to have non smoking businesses. People then have a choice to either be a patron or not. They'd have a choice to go to a non smoking establishment or to a smoking one. But the heavy hand of government has instead mandated the entire state go smoke free, costing 42% of the businesses to lose money. I wonder if any of those business owners have children they now are having a hard time feeding or putting into school. But that's okay, at least the heavy hand of government can choose the types of people that they want in this state.
I'm trying to think of the last time a country tried to manipulate mans health. The Arian nation comes to mind. Wonder if there's been one since then. Hmmmm.
Please explain to me, anonymous coward, how 20.4 percent of the population can have any effect on any business, other than the tobacco industry. With your record of honesty, I’m skeptical of any number you put out.
It is better for business, as well as health – which is the most important consideration – to go smoke free. Let the 20.4 percent make a sacrifice. After all, it’s their behavior harming the 79.6 percent of us who care about our health. Government has a constitutional duty to protect the public health, and that is what they are doing. You should read the Michigan Constitution, anonymous coward.
Michigan is the only state to show a loss of business, and you need to look at who did the survey.
Seriously? You’re playing the Hitler card? Good thing you lost any credibility a long time ago because you would have lost it with that ridiculous comparison.
Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”
That’s just one reason you have no credibility left, anonymous coward.
Now, you're just being dishonest Mr.Guru.
I explained this very simple concept to you on another blog yesterday, 3 months ago, and again about a year ago.
Sadly, you're simply lying when you say that no one has explained how 20$ of the population can greatly affect certain businesses.
And the 40% numbers are pretty much as expected. 15% say their business has increased, and 85% say that their business has stayed the same or declined. And that's with a summer implementation.
It's simply wrongheaded to expect that all businesses would be affected in the exact same way.
As I've said before, and will say again, you're no better than Beck when you talk about the business impact of the smoking ban.
You explained nothing; nothing that made sense, at least. Again, explain to me how 20.4 percent of the population can have such an effect on business. Even if every single smoker - all 20.4 percent still left - stopped going to the bar and the people who cannot stand smoke didn’t come back to the bars and restaurants, there is no way that would account for a loss, least of all a 40 percent loss that opponents are claiming. Are you trying making the claim that only smokers go to bars and restaurants? Are you trying to make the claim that smokers drink more than non-smokes. None of that is true.
The facts are pretty simple, smoking bans do not have a negative effect on business, and there is no credible study that says that’s the case, not from any of the 37 other states that are smoke free. You also need to look where those numbers are coming from.
As for your Back comparison, I have two words for that.
Well, gee. Why would I give you the numbers? You put the numbers on yourself. I used your numbers. The only number that I put out that you didn't have on there was the population of Michigan. You can always look that up and find out for yourself. Well, if you have half a brain you could. Hmm, guess that answers itself.
So, if 42% of the businesses are losing money, have lost money since the ban went into effect, I'm not sure why you'd ask me how 20% (which you used to say was 23% and prior to that 25%) can have an effect on business.
It's interesting that you say it's not true, but you don't prove it and you also state that Michigan is the only state to lose business from the smoking ban, but you claim nobody has lost business due to the smoking ban.
Golly, I caught you in a lie, but I have no idea which side you take is the lie. I guess it could be worse. You could have a clue what you're talking about. But never fear, that's not likely to happen. You prove that the old saying that a stopped clock is at least right twice a day, doesn't apply to what you say.
Bullshit, anonymous coward. I never used the made up numbers you supplied.
The fact is more bars and restaurants, 58 percent, are doing as well or better since the ban. The minority, 42 percent, claim they are losing business. I don’t trust the MRA. But even if it were true, it’s not because of the smoking ban.
I say 20 percent, 20.5 actually, because of this:
http://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2010/08/smoking-costs-michigan-33-billion-in.html
Michigan would be the only state to lose business because of a smoking ban, if it were true.
You have never caught me in a lie, anonymous coward, and you never will.
Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”
The only liar is you, anonymous coward.
Buy a marketing book, or download a marketing paper explaining segments etc. This isn't the forum for it.
If you really don't understand that, then you shouldn't be writing about it.
What the data shows is that declines outnumbered gains 3:1. That would be a pretty bad day on Wall Street. On Main Street it's catastrophic. That's layoffs and short hours all round.
And that's in the middle of an recovering economy.
Another report showed that sales for home consumption increased. Which is the same as happened in other states and in Ireland, England, Germany etc.
Once again, I’m still waiting for you to tell me how 20.5 percent of the population can affect bars and restaurants as much as the claims from a group that has done everything possible to kill it. It has nothing to do with marketing or Wall Street.
What I understand are facts, and the facts are there is no credible evidence, results or study that indicates a workplace smoking ban is bad for business, and, in fact, in many cases it has improved it.
Like I said - do your own marketing study. I'm not wasting my time covering the same ground with the deliberately ignorant.
You can lead a horse to water....
You're just a Glen Beck of the Michigan Democrats.
Glen Shopshire- has a nice ring to it, don't you think.
If the hat fits....
You just don’t have an explanation fir your unsubstantiated claim, and a false smear simply does not change that. The difference between rightwing hero and nut Glenn Beck and me is I use facts. The fact is there is no credible study or results that say a workplace smoking ban hurts business, and you have no explanation as to how 20.5 percent of the population can possibly have so much economic effect.
Post a Comment