On May 5 last year, the statewide smoking ban took effect and extinguished smoking in all indoor public places. The law — passed with 57 percent of the public vote in November 2007 — was hotly contested when it was put on the ballot and divided people into several camps.

Some felt that the ban unconstitutionally trampled smokers’ rights. Others felt that the law lacked teeth and didn’t go far enough in assuring that restaurants enforced the ban.

In addition, many business owners feared that the ban would slowly kill their business.

So how does it look a year after the smoke has cleared?

Most of the fears around the ban have been realized. Revenue at restaurants, especially those that rely heavily on alcohol sales, have dwindled, sometimes fatally. The loss, though, has been distributed unevenly, with some restaurants reporting 80 percent decreases and others witnessing a bump in revenue.

Some businesses have deliberately disregarded the ban and allow smokers to puff away as though nothing has changed — accruing complaints, citations and fines along the way.

Other restaurants have accepted the ban and found creative ways to keep their businesses afloat.

But any way you slice it, the smoking ban has affected more than people’s lungs.

Restaurant losses

For many restaurants, ridding their premises of smoke has sometimes meant an exodus of smokers, as well. With times already tight, these losses have often been an unbearable burden.

Twenty-three percent of restaurants surveyed across the state said that they could be out of business by the end of the year, according to Mark Glasper, director of communications for the Ohio Restaurant Association. And although other factors have likely contributed, such as increases in minimum wage and in the cost of food and fuel, the smoking ban is surely a large culprit, Glasper said.

“Restaurants are seeing less business,” he said. “I’ve heard from many that the loss of smoking business has significantly cut into their profits.”

Frank DeTillio, president of the Lorain County Chamber of Commerce, said that he’s heard from many local businesses reporting revenue drops between 30 and 40 percent. He’s also heard, though, of restaurants that have benefited from the ban.

“It seems that the ones that are down are the bars — the ones that don’t serve food,” he said.

While larger restaurants or chains can absorb the impact of the smoking ban and ultimately adjust and bounce back, smaller restaurants are finding the losses less easily repaired.

Restaurants such as Boomer’s and Hazel’s in Elyria have seen portions of their revenue leave with the smoke.

For restaurants like these, the safety net is a lot more brittle than for larger chains, and they often find themselves in a delicate situation.

In an effort to provide these businesses with more options, the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association is actively seeking to repeal the ban for family owned businesses, according to its vice president Jacob Evans.

“It’s really been damaging for places that don’t have the capacity to withstand a hit like that,” Evans said.

Evans said he’s been flooded with calls and letters from small businesses searching for help to stay afloat.

“I haven’t heard from one person that business has been up,” he said.

But in Lorain County, at least, there are some good signs. Business for many is rebounding slightly. After the initial impact of the ban, effects have been consistently diminishing over the year, according to some.

At Quick and Delicious in Oberlin, the smoking ban and a new restoration gave the restaurant a new beginning.

“A lot of our customers are senior citizens, and they don’t want the smoke anyway,” manager Shirley Owens said.

Profits have rebounded, and the business has evolved.

Similarly, after seeing business drop by more than a quarter last summer, Ziggy’s Bar and Grill in Amherst has completely recovered, according to manager Paul Baraniak.

“We’ve probably lost some regulars,” he said. “But we’ve completely rebounded. I still wish they’d repeal it, but it’s definitely better than last year.”

Creative solutions

As at Quick and Delicious and Ziggy’s Bar and Grill, the smoking ban has caused some businesses to revise their business plan. Sometimes this has meant shifting the focus to food, more specials, or offering outdoor patios and bars to attract exiled smokers.

Church Street Bar & Grille in Amherst saw a large dip in sales after the ban took effect. But by constructing an outdoor patio last September, Church Street might have saved its business.

And Church Street isn’t the only restaurant that the ban had owners thinking outside the box.

Last year, 1,206 bars and restaurants across Ohio requested permits for outdoor patios, nearly twice as many as were requested in 2006, according to Matt Mullins, spokesman for the Ohio Division of Liquor Control.

“A lot of places are looking for these expansions to help keep their business up,” he said.

But for smoking to be allowed at these outdoor patios, they must comply with standards set by state and local health departments. Partitions must separate them from doors and windows, and they must be at least half open-air, according to Lorain County General Health District’s Commissioner Ken Pearce.

The Health District, which is also responsible for inspections and citations, is happy to advise restaurants on how to build outdoor additions that are up to code.

“We’re not trying to be really nasty about it,” Pearce said.

But the trend toward outdoor smoking facilities rewards businesses with the capital to invest substantially in them.

Quaker Steak and Lube in Sheffield, a chain with 24 locations around the country, had a relatively smooth ride toward accommodating smokers.

Outside the restaurant is a horseshoe-shaped bar that seats about 50 and is fully equipped with televisions, wind-blocking partitions, heating and a pool table.

If the smoke had to be taken out of the bar, Quaker Steak management decided that it might as well bring the bar out to the smokers.

Benefits to workers

All of these results were unintended consequences of a ban so wide in scope. But what about the changes the ban actually intended to inspire?

In this respect, the ban has almost universally accomplished its goal of lessening the potential dangers of secondhand smoke and freeing employees from poisonous environments.

Unanimously, servers sang the praises of a smoke-free workplace. Citing colds that didn’t linger like they once did and clothes that didn’t reek of tobacco, employees found that work was a more enjoyable and healthier place to be.

Fears that the ban would dip into employees’ tips,  either due to shorter stays or less-generous moods, seem to have largely been overestimated.

“Sales might have dropped a little, but my tips pretty much stayed the same,” said Scott Richter, a bartender at the Oberlin Inn.

And he said there was an unexpected bonus from the ban. Smokers tend to head for the overhang by the door in clusters, allowing him a brief intermission.

“I can dip into the bathroom for a second, which is nice,” he said.

An employee at Scorcher’s in Lorain, who wished not to be named, said that the ban has made his job a little easier. The necessity to clean walls and ashtrays, once a regular event, has been removed from his job description.

Pearce, at the Health District, said that although there won’t be an immediately visible effect in terms of public health, it is indisputably beneficial.

“It’s more of a preventative issue,” he said. “Lungs will recover, asthma will reduce.”

He’s also seen data to suggest that there’s already been a decline in sudden heart attacks among other areas that have banned smoking.

“This is the single most important decision the public has made in my career,” Pearce said. “The career is now worthwhile.”

Enforcement woes

Of course, banning smoking in all public places is one thing, enforcing  the ban is quite another.

The three local health departments — Lorain County and the cities of Lorain and Elyria — are responsible for enforcing the ban, although without extra money or staff, this can seem like a fool’s errand.

In fact, so many establishments have completely ignored the ban and publicly flouted it, that Pearce has sent a letter to Columbus requesting the fines be doubled.

The fines range from $100 for a first offense to $2,500 for a fourth, but the process for citing an offender is complicated and often tangled in red tape. The

Health Department must receive a complaint, plan an investigation and actually see someone smoking indoors before they can issue a citation.

And, due to arcane rules and regulations, it is often difficult — if not impossible — to catch someone in the act.

In social clubs, the inspector must be buzzed in before entering, which gives smokers ample time to put out their butts and cover ash trays with towels, which health inspectors are legally forbidden to move, according to Pearce.

“It makes our job very difficult,” he said.

And it allows businesses to permit smoking much of the time without being regularly punished.

The Lorain County General Health Department, for example, received 635 complaints. That resulted in 276 investigations, 23 warnings, six first fines and three second fines.

The low number of fines provides little disincentive for businesses to covertly — or even openly — allow patrons to light up. This, in turn, unduly punishes those establishments that comply with the law.

“We are at a point where some groups are intentionally allowing smoking,” Pearce said. “These clubs are illegally stealing business from other establishments. It’s an unfair class, an unfair business practice.”

He’s heard of clubs that turn a blind eye or even have a bucket where smokers can sporadically drop a buck to cover potential fines.

The infrequency of fines has given some of these businesses confidence in their decision to disobey the law. Reports of clubs intimidating or banning members who have complained about smoking, isn’t uncommon, Pearce said. And even Health Department workers aren’t exempt from intimidation.

“I had an inspector walk into one of these social clubs, and an officer walked up to her and shoved a cigarette right up to her nose,” Pearce said. “This was a woman — a pregnant woman — just trying to do her job.”

Aside from direct intimidation, businesses are seeking other creative ways of allowing smoking.

“Places are permitting smoking during health department off hours,” said Jack Kurowski, director of environmental Health for the Lorain City Health Department.

To combat this, the Health Department is going to start assigning workers to night and weekend shifts. However, Kurowski said that the complaints have been dwindling as of late and are often directed at the same few facilities.

Contact Michael Baker at 329-7128 or mbaker@chroniclet.com.

---

Print this story
Report an inappropriate comment

---

In order to comment, you must agree to our user agreement and discussion guidelines.

Need help? Email Us.

---