Insights into the California restaurant 'crash' - no smoking ban that went into effect - Column

John Doyle is director of public affairs for the American Beverage Institute in Washington.

A hiccup in early May cost the stock market a mere 1.6 percent of its value and was front-page news worldwide. Perhaps a similar sense of alarm will be expressed when the public hears that since January, California's bars and taverns have seen sales fall more than 10 times that amount.

Economists can hash out whether interest rates or a sneezing fit by Alan Greenspan caused the market correction. However, the source of trouble for the California hospitality outlets is indisputable. The state's smoking ban, which went into effect at the beginning of this year, has driven customers away. If this draconian law isn't reversed, this may come to be known as the "Bar Crash of 1998."

The dramatic losses were discovered by a survey of 300 California establishments, commissioned by the American Beverage Institute, or ABI. Conducted by KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, the survey found 60 percent of those businesses reported losses since the Jan. 1, 1998, smoking ban. Antismoking activists routinely claimed a ban would bring in droves of new customers as nonsmokers were freed from the threat of olfactory assault. But just 6.7 percent of the survey respondents reported an increase in business. That's a 9-to-i ratio of losers to winners.

The declines aren't inconsequential, either. Among those reporting a loss, the average decrease in sales has been a budget-busting 26 percent. That isn't too surprising when you consider even found 34 percent of Californians oppose the ban

To put the losses in perspective, imagine losing one-fourth of your household income; then imagine trying to make ends meet. Of course, 26 percent is only the average. Some California operators lost 100 percent of their business. They closed after the new law created too big a hassle for customers.

Many hospitality workers haven't felt the ban's wrath firsthand. Sixty percent, many of whom represent second or third family incomes or college students, reported losses of tips and gratuities since January.

All smokers are now familiar with the rules dictating lighting up in the vast majority of public places. But that ban violates the basic reason bars, taverns and restaurants have become the modern town square. People go out to have a special experience. The intrusion of government regulation into that venue, which behind work and home is the third-most-common p lace for social interaction, simply has been too much for many Californians.

A recent study conducted by Yankelovich Partners, one of the nation's leading public-opinion research firms, explains why people who tolerate smoking bans at work would rather stay home than endure similar rules in their favorite establishment. This national survey found that 93 percent of Americans say it is important for them to be able to relax and forget about everyday concerns when they are at a restaurant. Also, nearly 70 percent said they go out looking to treat themselves to something special.

To those who would suggest that having a good time means controlling what the guy next to you eats and drinks or whether he smokes, Yankelovich's study found otherwise. While 70 percent of those surveyed said it is "not very" important for them to have an alcoholic drink in a restaurant, 81 percent oppose government bans on serving alcohol. Clearly, that is a mandate for maintaining choice.

Yankelovich's study has a lot to do with California's smoking ban, because it says people still want these places to remain special. Many realize the bans only lead us down the proverbial slippery slope. In Maryland, for example, three women with asthma are suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, to force restaurant chains to ban all smoking. They say smoking is a barrier to their "handicap." Nonsmoking sections aren't good enough, according to those lawyers.

By that logic the ADA could be used to outlaw the use of perfumes and scented deodorants. Some people claim the "handicap" of being bothered by those fragrances. Could perfume-sniffing dogs become a routine p art of a night out? It doesn't sound farfetched when we consider that California cops already are busting patrons for smoking.

There's nothing relaxing or special about the experience of having armed vice squads bursting into your favorite haunt, rounding up smokers and writing citations. That has happened several times in California this year. That kind of intrusion doesn't leave much guesswork as to why some businesses have lost 26 percent of their customers.

The "protectors" in Sacramento in their zeal to provide a risk-free environment have created one hostile to millions of their constituents and ensured unemployment and lost wages for many others. Somehow they've created a solution that is far more damaging than the perceived problem.

COPYRIGHT 1998 Lebhar-Friedman, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group