The Royale Smoking Study
About two weeks ago, the Royale Food and Spirits put out a poll via the Royale email listserv and Myspace.
The Question
I am taking an informal poll amongst my finer customers. What are your thoughts on going smoke-free? At the Royale? Feel free to go into detail, but please be civil. For the record, I really like smokers.
The current policy allows smoking anytime indoors at the bar and outside anytime and anywhere. After dining hours, smoking is allowed at the tables. This is an update of the policy last year, which allowed smoking anywhere at any time. The indoor room is small, with a capacity of 49.
At the Royale, we like to solicit input from the customer to help improve the experience. We conducted the sampling without prior announcement to the email lists.
Hypothesis
We expected this poll to come back even between the different policies, with many responses being non-committal.
The Sampling
The Royale listserv is made up of customers who have voluntarily signed up for the electronic newsletter over the past two and a half years. Most signed up using the comment cards, while others signed up via the web. The total list serve is of 550 people. 155 people voluntarily responded to the poll.
The Royale Myspace page poll was put out as a bulletin. (The Royale has about 1100 friends on Myspace.)
The Venue
The Royale Food and Spirits is a full-service restaurant that has been open for nearly three years, and has operated as a restaurant for over two and a half years. It is located in highly dense, robust and diverse area of South Saint Louis. The Royale is relatively reflective of the area, with the vast majority of the clientele hailing from the surrounding neighborhoods. There is a mixture of young professional, blue collar, service industry, new residents and old. The age range changes throughout the day with the majority of the older clientele and families drawn in for food and drink during lunch and dinner hours. The demographic skews younger as the hour gets later, with the median in the 30s, but many in their 20s and 40s.
The Royale is mainly a bar, with approximately 70% of the revenues coming from alcohol. It was originally a corner tavern, and has been a fixture in the neighborhood since Prohibition. The core neighborhood tavern tradition has been not only retained, but it is stronger than ever. The place is open every night until 1:30 a.m. and midnight on Sundays. There is a crowd in the house the entire day, which continues well into the later hours.
We considered going smoke-free when the Royale was created in 2005, but we decided against this out of fear of the potential negative economic impact. At peak bar time hours, (after 10 p.m.), the vast majority of the clientele is smoking cigarettes.
It is also to be noted that the owner of the Royale lives above the restaurant in the true public house tradition. He does not smoke.
The Results
In the first three minutes after the email poll was sent out, there were five responses. Within the first 45 minutes there were 35 responses. Most of the responses came back within 36 hours. There are still responses coming in, about two or so daily. As of the printing of this report, there were 155 responses. There have been many verbal opinions expressed as well, but we are not going to include them in this survey due to the fact we are unable to accurately tally these opinions. However, the verbal opinions did not seem to vary from the email poll.
The responses fall into these categories:
Keep the current policy of smoking indoors: 9 total votes 6% of the respondents
These respondents indicated that they were in support of smoking indoors and/or they would come less if we went smoke-free. Of these, one respondent wanted us to go back to allowing smoking at the tables, indoors, anytime. All of these people indicated that they are smokers.
Smoke free: 146 total votes 94% of the respondents
Of these respondents, 15 of them volunteered the information that they are smokers. Seven of the responses that were included in the smoke-free tally did not give a clear answer, but indicated that they would not come any less if a smoke-free policy were in place.
It is interesting to note that there were more smokers (15) who supported smoke-free indoors than smokers (9) who wanted us to retain the indoor smoking policy.
The Responses
The responses ranged from short and simple to passionate. I have categorized the responses for those in support of indoor smoking and those who support smoke-free.
Again, here is the question that was asked:
I am taking an informal poll amongst my finer customers. What are your thoughts on going smoke-free? At the Royale? Feel free to go into detail, but please be civil. For the record, I really like smokers.
Here are some of the 9 respondents who want to keep smoking inside:
This first batch is of the most the vocal.
The smoke nazis, are infringeing (sic) on smoker's rights. After all if they snub out smoking what do they go after next? Please keep on smoking, plus not smoking at the tables at lunch is uncool.
-Name withheld, via email
*
We usually try to avoid going anywhere where smoking is looked upon. Please respect the wishes of the many people who enjoy going to your establishment to have a good time.
-Route66Ry “friend” via Myspace
*
Non smoking bars suck! I don't go to bars that won't let me smoke inside...It's only becomes an issue in the winter, I don't want to freeze while spending my hard earned money on drinks. If that's the case I will opt to stay home smoke inside and save money.
-Sheena “friend” via Myspace
*
My friends and I (most of whom are smokers and expensive drinkers LOL) go to the bar to relax and alow (sic) ourselves to get away from the pressures and BS of everyday life. If this is going to become one more place where someone else's lifestyle/politics is going to pushed on us and we are told that we have to go stand outside to relax, have a nice evening, and spend a lot of money - then we will gladly do it in another establishment that doesn't mind us enjoying a cigarette with our beers ANYWHERE in the establishment.
-Johnny “friend” via Myspace
It is noted that the above responses make some very interesting inculpatory assertions. It is also should be noted that all but one of the above responses were from Myspace.
Some of the handful of other responses for the smoking indoor policy:
I like the current policy...
-DV, well-known and valued regular patron
*
Steve—I know smoking stinks, but our trips to the Royale would be decreased. If we stumble across a non-smoking bar we will have one drink then leave. Smoking bars are just more fun. We have found non-smoking bars are quiet, less lively, more fragmented. But when the weather is nice we will come have a sub-continental and a goat burger on the patio. Right now the Royale is where we hang out if we go out for a drink. I would hate to give it up, but I understand.
-D Na, well-known and valued regular patron
*
If you go to a bar, expect there to be smoke, I've always thought. I've gone home rubbing my eyes once or twice, but generally your establishment is well-ventilated, with the back door cracked or however.
"Dim lights, thick smoke, and loud, loud music
Is the only kind of world, you'll ever understand"...(who did that - New Riders Of The Purple Sage?)
-Tony, well known and valued regular patron
Here are some of the 146 responses for those in support of smoke free:
Of these responses, we categorized them into the following categories: general responses, smokers in support of smoke-free and those who work/have worked in the industry.
General responses:
Although having recently gone smoke free myself, I still harbor a lot of affinity for that habit that's coaxed me along for the last 12 or so years. We as Americans have a romanticized notion of smoke and smoking. I'm still working on what to do with that; I liked it a lot, dad gum it. But even when I was in the throes that enjoyment, I was excited to hear you were trying a non-smoking night from 5-10 some Monday about a month ago.
-James, well-known and valued regular
The next response came from a regular patron who spends most of his month in Chicago in the newly smoke-free state of Illinois.:
Since the ban came into effect here I find going out to be enjoyable again. I ate at a bar on Tuesday and it was sooo much better. I used to avoid eating there because of the smoke. On Friday I saw a band play at Pontiac, which used to be a very smoker friendly crowd. The band asked how many people hated the new ban and about 6 or 7 people yelled. Then they asked how many people liked the ban and the entire room erupted in yells and applause. Then everyone looked around in surprise. I think it is one of those things that no one really expected would make much of a difference but now that it is in effect almost everyone is happy to have it. I know smoking has decreased in bars over the last year due to the pending ban. It gave a lot of people a good reason to stop smoking and they are happy for it. I would love to see a city or state ban down there. I'm seriously thinking of moving back after school and that is actually a deterrent.
-Paul, well known and valued regular patron
*
These are some interesting responses from people who work/have worked in the bar industry:
Hi Steve,
I like smokers too, but I sure hate the smoke. It has, on numerous occasions, ruined many of my meals, completely penetrated my clothes with an unbearable stench, and undoubtedly entered my lungs to do whatever damage it cared to do. A non-smoking atmosphere would be very appealing to me and the odds are that you would see me more often.
As an ex-smoker and also a previous bar/restaurant owner, I understand your awkward position. My suggestion: do not do anything immediately—wait until early Spring—then ban all inside smoking, but allow smoking outside in rear area—provide a smoker's bench, possibly covered for rainy days, along with proper disposal receptacles—in the Fall add a little more protection from the elements (and possibly heat)—how about a bonfire on certain nights?—hot spiced rum promo or hot chocolate. In summary, move the smoke outside without alienating the smoker.
See you soon,
-John, regular and valued patron and former restaurant owner
*
Dear Steven,
Since you asked ;)
I think it's trendy right now—it sounds crazy but I worked at the atomic cowboy and it became something that made us stand apart—there aren't enough bars jumping on the bandwagon in Missouri to make this seem like, well , you are jumping on the bandwagon.
Like Atomic, you enjoy a patio for the smoker to find refuge. Especially once the weather is nice!!
One thing I can say, as a ten year veteran bartender, I never considered the effects of a non-smoking joint until I worked in one. I didn't get as tired after a long shift, the place looked better, food tasted/smelled better and my smoker's cough (I am a non-smoker) subsided. Until I started working at Broadway Oyster bar shortly after that lol.
Anyway—as a patron and someone of the industry—I support it.
Hope this helps,
-Becca, regular and valued patron
*
I would be thrilled if the Royale went smoke-free inside. {There is always the patio for smokers!}
-Jen, regular and valued patron and former owner of popular smoky late night rock and roll bar/venue.
*
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can appreciate your feelings for our smoking brethren, some of my best friends are smokers, BUT, one of the reasons that the Royale would be a good candidate is that you have that lovely outdoor area. The smokers rule most of the establishments in this part of the world. You would be making but a small step toward balancing the numbers. And, smoke-free is the future. I know that you a forward thinking bloke. I would be sooo much more likely to hang there if you did. It has pretty much become a requisite for me. Not that I go out much, but I almost feel like I didn't go out when I go to a place that doesn't allow it, like a pain free hangover.
As Mike Jordan would say: Just do it.
-Darren, known semi-regular and valued patron, longtime musician/rock star and former rock club talent buyer/manager
*
Yo Steve!
I'm all for it.
I feel as if I can speak freely and unbiased on this matter considering I was a smoker for over a decade.
I work as a bartender, and can honestly say that while it (the smoke), doesn't bother me too much while I'm slinging drinks, I definitely feel it, smell it, and curse it the next morning.
It's a bummer that I gave up smoking four and half years ago in the hopes of living a healthier, happier, smoke-free lifestyle only to have smoke blown in my face on a nightly basis, not only at work, but at other establishments as a customer.
As far as bar owners worrying about the hit business may or may not take, I personally feel that as long as an adequate smoking area is provided, it won't be a problem. I'm sure that all the reasonable smokers out there, would be cool with stepping outside for a few. Heaters on the patio in the winter months should provide a safe and hopefully warm haven for smokers to suck down a quick smoke and not have to expose the rest of us to the dangers.
Hopefully, Missouri will take a page out of our neighboring state's book and get with the program banning smoking in bars and restaurants altogether. But until then, I intentionally seek out bars in Saint Louis that already have when possible.
-Joshua C., regular valued patron and occasional DJ
*
And here are some more opinions from valued regulars:
I like smokers myself, but I don't like the smoke.
I will say this: sometimes—only sometimes—we don't come down because we're not in the mood for the smoke (it's one hurdle—one thing that goes into the equation when you ask yourself: do I fix myself a drink here, or do I go see what's kicking down the street—if I stay here, I don't have to wash my clothes and/or take a shower at the end of the night).
I don't know, Steve. Tough, tough call.
That being said, you do have a very nice outdoor area. I think the key is, if you do go no-smoke, you want to strive to provide SUPERIOR smoking accommodations (you can trademark that one, Steve, that's a freebie). I think that would be noticed and appreciated by smokers. Let's face it. They're a core constituency of bar-goers. I would talk to lots and lots of them before you make the call. Heck, give smokers something extra outside. What I'm saying is, devise a WIN-WIN here. How is it going at Off Broadway?
That being said, I think there are lots of drinkers who would prefer to take their drinks without the smoke.
Love to hear your thoughts on it someday.
It's only a matter of time before we legally go smoke-free anyway.
-Tim, well known valued regular patron and Royale advisor
*
Good Luck Bro!
I'm all for smoke-free establishments, but it can be tough on the bottom line at first.
I think you've got a pretty sophisticated clientele, which nowadays equates more to a more non-smoking and healthy living type. So you would fare much better than say, (name of business withheld). Heard anything about any STL city laws regarding smoke free public spaces coming up?
Anyway, again good luck deciding this one.
-Kevin, longtime Southsider patron of everything
*
First, I'm honored to be anyone's finer anything.
Second, even as a former smoker, smoke generally doesn't bother me (I don't even notice it most of the time), so I may not be a good barometer on this. Having typed that, I can think of a place or two around town that my little group doesn't patronize partially because of the smoke (e.g., The Mack) or places I go even though I notice that they tend to get a little smoky at the end of the evening (e.g., the Tin Can), but smoke has never been an issue for me at the Royale. I can't stress that enough—I've never thought that the Royale was terribly smoky.
If you're on the fence, I suggest employee health should be a final factor. Obviously, many (if not most) bartenders and servers are smokers and don't care about breathing second-hand smoke, but an employer has a duty to provide a safe working environment for his/her employees.
It may sound patronizing to help someone who doesn't want it, but I think back to a work incident in which I was involved years ago: I was assigned to clean something, so I made a mixture of bleach, ammonia, and other cleaning chemicals I found that I was going to use in an unventilated room. At 19, I couldn't have cared less if that posed a huge threat to my health or that it would definitely cause respiratory/pulmonary problems if I did it consistently over a long time—I was indestructible and wanted to get the job done efficiently. Fortunately, the manager (a fine Rockhurst Man for Others) wouldn't let me do it. I was ticked at the time, but in the long run I'm glad he was looking out for my health.
-P-bu, known and valued regular patron
*
Cigarettes are yucky. They make your clothes stinky and your respiratory system ouchy.
-Marcia, known and valued regular patron
*
You have to put your civil rights above those of others when it can have a serious and potentially deadly effect on your life.
-Jen, known and valued regular patron
*
Interesting take on the support for the smoke-free. Many of the smokers support smoke free:
I'm fine either way, if Austin can do it so can we....I personally
like my smokes with my brews, but I can go outside just the same....
-Brian, known regular patron and former operator of popular Austin Texas rock club and currently employed in the supply side of the industry
*
My experience in smoke-free bars in other cities has been very positive. I smoke sporadically/socially, and haven't minded stepping to the curb for a break, even in the cold. Also, since you tend towards fires outside in the chilly months, the cold shouldn't really be a factor anyway.
In a small room like the Royale, clear air is at a premium. It's the wave of the future!
-JWT, known regular valued patron and occasional DJ
*
As a smoker who most of the time smokes while spinning (hence can't get away from the turntables for very long to smoke), I don't really have a problem with you going smoke-free. I think you'll have a few complainers but eventually it will all settle down. You do have a beer garden they can go to.
-Mark, well known valued regular patron and DJ
*
You might not believe me after that one night I stayed up ‘til 6 smoking my brains out, but I really don't smoke, and I don't like it in restaurants! To tell you the truth, that is one reason I don't frequent the Royale more often, because it's VERY smoky. So that's my vote! Don't get me wrong—I still come in for meetings and other things, but I'd be more likely to come in for dinner, etc., if it were non-smoking.
Thanks for asking,
-Meghan, known and valued regular patron
*
I would totally favor a non-smoking Royale. I'd patronize it often. Do it.
-Aaron (smoker), well known regular who hosts many events at the Royale
*
Hi Steve,
Even as a smoker, I have no problem with frequenting a smokeless restaurant/bar. It's a nasty habit to which others need not be subjected.
Both Boston and Philadelphia now have smoke-free laws for bars and restaurants. In both of those places, I don't think it's really hurt business one bit.
Also, I think it's nice for your employees not to be exposed to all of that second-hand smoke shift after shift.
I doubt that it would have an effect on business, especially if you permit smoking on the patio in back.
Just my $.02.
-Matt, semi-regular and valued patron
Case Examples and Possible Scenarios
The Royale has not made an official decision. We are still eliciting feedback from employees and checking out other studies. There are a few local examples that would encourage both policy decisions.
There are already popular places that have gone smoke-free, and also primarily serve alcohol,such as the Atomic Cowboy, 33, The Church Key and Erato. They have done well with these policies, but each has a different clientele than the Royale.
There is the other example—Balabans—that went smoke-free back in January of ’07, and they lost a significant amount of their bar revenue. About seven months later, after a big hit to the bar business, they went back to the old policy of smoking indoors. The ownership even put out ads in the paper telling people of the indoor smoking policy. Still, Balabans—a West End institution for 30 years—went out of business last month. Much can be discussed about the demise of this business.
These are the possible scenarios of different policies:
#1 Keep the current smoking policy: that is, smoking at the indoor bar only until 10 p.m. and anywhere indoors after.
#2 Expand the indoor smoking to anywhere indoors, anytime.
#3 Go smoke-free everywhere.
#4 Go smoke-free indoors only, all the time, with smoking allowed only outside in the courtyard.
#5 Go smoke-free indoors only during warm weather.
#6 Go smoke-free until 10 p.m. indoors.
There are also combinations of the above scenarios that have been discussed, such as going smoke-free until 10 p.m., and then after this trial period, deciding based on the business patterns whether or not to go smoke-free altogether.
The Question
I am taking an informal poll amongst my finer customers. What are your thoughts on going smoke-free? At the Royale? Feel free to go into detail, but please be civil. For the record, I really like smokers.
The current policy allows smoking anytime indoors at the bar and outside anytime and anywhere. After dining hours, smoking is allowed at the tables. This is an update of the policy last year, which allowed smoking anywhere at any time. The indoor room is small, with a capacity of 49.
At the Royale, we like to solicit input from the customer to help improve the experience. We conducted the sampling without prior announcement to the email lists.
Hypothesis
We expected this poll to come back even between the different policies, with many responses being non-committal.
The Sampling
The Royale listserv is made up of customers who have voluntarily signed up for the electronic newsletter over the past two and a half years. Most signed up using the comment cards, while others signed up via the web. The total list serve is of 550 people. 155 people voluntarily responded to the poll.
The Royale Myspace page poll was put out as a bulletin. (The Royale has about 1100 friends on Myspace.)
The Venue
The Royale Food and Spirits is a full-service restaurant that has been open for nearly three years, and has operated as a restaurant for over two and a half years. It is located in highly dense, robust and diverse area of South Saint Louis. The Royale is relatively reflective of the area, with the vast majority of the clientele hailing from the surrounding neighborhoods. There is a mixture of young professional, blue collar, service industry, new residents and old. The age range changes throughout the day with the majority of the older clientele and families drawn in for food and drink during lunch and dinner hours. The demographic skews younger as the hour gets later, with the median in the 30s, but many in their 20s and 40s.
The Royale is mainly a bar, with approximately 70% of the revenues coming from alcohol. It was originally a corner tavern, and has been a fixture in the neighborhood since Prohibition. The core neighborhood tavern tradition has been not only retained, but it is stronger than ever. The place is open every night until 1:30 a.m. and midnight on Sundays. There is a crowd in the house the entire day, which continues well into the later hours.
We considered going smoke-free when the Royale was created in 2005, but we decided against this out of fear of the potential negative economic impact. At peak bar time hours, (after 10 p.m.), the vast majority of the clientele is smoking cigarettes.
It is also to be noted that the owner of the Royale lives above the restaurant in the true public house tradition. He does not smoke.
The Results
In the first three minutes after the email poll was sent out, there were five responses. Within the first 45 minutes there were 35 responses. Most of the responses came back within 36 hours. There are still responses coming in, about two or so daily. As of the printing of this report, there were 155 responses. There have been many verbal opinions expressed as well, but we are not going to include them in this survey due to the fact we are unable to accurately tally these opinions. However, the verbal opinions did not seem to vary from the email poll.
The responses fall into these categories:
Keep the current policy of smoking indoors: 9 total votes 6% of the respondents
These respondents indicated that they were in support of smoking indoors and/or they would come less if we went smoke-free. Of these, one respondent wanted us to go back to allowing smoking at the tables, indoors, anytime. All of these people indicated that they are smokers.
Smoke free: 146 total votes 94% of the respondents
Of these respondents, 15 of them volunteered the information that they are smokers. Seven of the responses that were included in the smoke-free tally did not give a clear answer, but indicated that they would not come any less if a smoke-free policy were in place.
It is interesting to note that there were more smokers (15) who supported smoke-free indoors than smokers (9) who wanted us to retain the indoor smoking policy.
The Responses
The responses ranged from short and simple to passionate. I have categorized the responses for those in support of indoor smoking and those who support smoke-free.
Again, here is the question that was asked:
I am taking an informal poll amongst my finer customers. What are your thoughts on going smoke-free? At the Royale? Feel free to go into detail, but please be civil. For the record, I really like smokers.
Here are some of the 9 respondents who want to keep smoking inside:
This first batch is of the most the vocal.
The smoke nazis, are infringeing (sic) on smoker's rights. After all if they snub out smoking what do they go after next? Please keep on smoking, plus not smoking at the tables at lunch is uncool.
-Name withheld, via email
*
We usually try to avoid going anywhere where smoking is looked upon. Please respect the wishes of the many people who enjoy going to your establishment to have a good time.
-Route66Ry “friend” via Myspace
*
Non smoking bars suck! I don't go to bars that won't let me smoke inside...It's only becomes an issue in the winter, I don't want to freeze while spending my hard earned money on drinks. If that's the case I will opt to stay home smoke inside and save money.
-Sheena “friend” via Myspace
*
My friends and I (most of whom are smokers and expensive drinkers LOL) go to the bar to relax and alow (sic) ourselves to get away from the pressures and BS of everyday life. If this is going to become one more place where someone else's lifestyle/politics is going to pushed on us and we are told that we have to go stand outside to relax, have a nice evening, and spend a lot of money - then we will gladly do it in another establishment that doesn't mind us enjoying a cigarette with our beers ANYWHERE in the establishment.
-Johnny “friend” via Myspace
It is noted that the above responses make some very interesting inculpatory assertions. It is also should be noted that all but one of the above responses were from Myspace.
Some of the handful of other responses for the smoking indoor policy:
I like the current policy...
-DV, well-known and valued regular patron
*
Steve—I know smoking stinks, but our trips to the Royale would be decreased. If we stumble across a non-smoking bar we will have one drink then leave. Smoking bars are just more fun. We have found non-smoking bars are quiet, less lively, more fragmented. But when the weather is nice we will come have a sub-continental and a goat burger on the patio. Right now the Royale is where we hang out if we go out for a drink. I would hate to give it up, but I understand.
-D Na, well-known and valued regular patron
*
If you go to a bar, expect there to be smoke, I've always thought. I've gone home rubbing my eyes once or twice, but generally your establishment is well-ventilated, with the back door cracked or however.
"Dim lights, thick smoke, and loud, loud music
Is the only kind of world, you'll ever understand"...(who did that - New Riders Of The Purple Sage?)
-Tony, well known and valued regular patron
Here are some of the 146 responses for those in support of smoke free:
Of these responses, we categorized them into the following categories: general responses, smokers in support of smoke-free and those who work/have worked in the industry.
General responses:
Although having recently gone smoke free myself, I still harbor a lot of affinity for that habit that's coaxed me along for the last 12 or so years. We as Americans have a romanticized notion of smoke and smoking. I'm still working on what to do with that; I liked it a lot, dad gum it. But even when I was in the throes that enjoyment, I was excited to hear you were trying a non-smoking night from 5-10 some Monday about a month ago.
-James, well-known and valued regular
The next response came from a regular patron who spends most of his month in Chicago in the newly smoke-free state of Illinois.:
Since the ban came into effect here I find going out to be enjoyable again. I ate at a bar on Tuesday and it was sooo much better. I used to avoid eating there because of the smoke. On Friday I saw a band play at Pontiac, which used to be a very smoker friendly crowd. The band asked how many people hated the new ban and about 6 or 7 people yelled. Then they asked how many people liked the ban and the entire room erupted in yells and applause. Then everyone looked around in surprise. I think it is one of those things that no one really expected would make much of a difference but now that it is in effect almost everyone is happy to have it. I know smoking has decreased in bars over the last year due to the pending ban. It gave a lot of people a good reason to stop smoking and they are happy for it. I would love to see a city or state ban down there. I'm seriously thinking of moving back after school and that is actually a deterrent.
-Paul, well known and valued regular patron
*
These are some interesting responses from people who work/have worked in the bar industry:
Hi Steve,
I like smokers too, but I sure hate the smoke. It has, on numerous occasions, ruined many of my meals, completely penetrated my clothes with an unbearable stench, and undoubtedly entered my lungs to do whatever damage it cared to do. A non-smoking atmosphere would be very appealing to me and the odds are that you would see me more often.
As an ex-smoker and also a previous bar/restaurant owner, I understand your awkward position. My suggestion: do not do anything immediately—wait until early Spring—then ban all inside smoking, but allow smoking outside in rear area—provide a smoker's bench, possibly covered for rainy days, along with proper disposal receptacles—in the Fall add a little more protection from the elements (and possibly heat)—how about a bonfire on certain nights?—hot spiced rum promo or hot chocolate. In summary, move the smoke outside without alienating the smoker.
See you soon,
-John, regular and valued patron and former restaurant owner
*
Dear Steven,
Since you asked ;)
I think it's trendy right now—it sounds crazy but I worked at the atomic cowboy and it became something that made us stand apart—there aren't enough bars jumping on the bandwagon in Missouri to make this seem like, well , you are jumping on the bandwagon.
Like Atomic, you enjoy a patio for the smoker to find refuge. Especially once the weather is nice!!
One thing I can say, as a ten year veteran bartender, I never considered the effects of a non-smoking joint until I worked in one. I didn't get as tired after a long shift, the place looked better, food tasted/smelled better and my smoker's cough (I am a non-smoker) subsided. Until I started working at Broadway Oyster bar shortly after that lol.
Anyway—as a patron and someone of the industry—I support it.
Hope this helps,
-Becca, regular and valued patron
*
I would be thrilled if the Royale went smoke-free inside. {There is always the patio for smokers!}
-Jen, regular and valued patron and former owner of popular smoky late night rock and roll bar/venue.
*
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can appreciate your feelings for our smoking brethren, some of my best friends are smokers, BUT, one of the reasons that the Royale would be a good candidate is that you have that lovely outdoor area. The smokers rule most of the establishments in this part of the world. You would be making but a small step toward balancing the numbers. And, smoke-free is the future. I know that you a forward thinking bloke. I would be sooo much more likely to hang there if you did. It has pretty much become a requisite for me. Not that I go out much, but I almost feel like I didn't go out when I go to a place that doesn't allow it, like a pain free hangover.
As Mike Jordan would say: Just do it.
-Darren, known semi-regular and valued patron, longtime musician/rock star and former rock club talent buyer/manager
*
Yo Steve!
I'm all for it.
I feel as if I can speak freely and unbiased on this matter considering I was a smoker for over a decade.
I work as a bartender, and can honestly say that while it (the smoke), doesn't bother me too much while I'm slinging drinks, I definitely feel it, smell it, and curse it the next morning.
It's a bummer that I gave up smoking four and half years ago in the hopes of living a healthier, happier, smoke-free lifestyle only to have smoke blown in my face on a nightly basis, not only at work, but at other establishments as a customer.
As far as bar owners worrying about the hit business may or may not take, I personally feel that as long as an adequate smoking area is provided, it won't be a problem. I'm sure that all the reasonable smokers out there, would be cool with stepping outside for a few. Heaters on the patio in the winter months should provide a safe and hopefully warm haven for smokers to suck down a quick smoke and not have to expose the rest of us to the dangers.
Hopefully, Missouri will take a page out of our neighboring state's book and get with the program banning smoking in bars and restaurants altogether. But until then, I intentionally seek out bars in Saint Louis that already have when possible.
-Joshua C., regular valued patron and occasional DJ
*
And here are some more opinions from valued regulars:
I like smokers myself, but I don't like the smoke.
I will say this: sometimes—only sometimes—we don't come down because we're not in the mood for the smoke (it's one hurdle—one thing that goes into the equation when you ask yourself: do I fix myself a drink here, or do I go see what's kicking down the street—if I stay here, I don't have to wash my clothes and/or take a shower at the end of the night).
I don't know, Steve. Tough, tough call.
That being said, you do have a very nice outdoor area. I think the key is, if you do go no-smoke, you want to strive to provide SUPERIOR smoking accommodations (you can trademark that one, Steve, that's a freebie). I think that would be noticed and appreciated by smokers. Let's face it. They're a core constituency of bar-goers. I would talk to lots and lots of them before you make the call. Heck, give smokers something extra outside. What I'm saying is, devise a WIN-WIN here. How is it going at Off Broadway?
That being said, I think there are lots of drinkers who would prefer to take their drinks without the smoke.
Love to hear your thoughts on it someday.
It's only a matter of time before we legally go smoke-free anyway.
-Tim, well known valued regular patron and Royale advisor
*
Good Luck Bro!
I'm all for smoke-free establishments, but it can be tough on the bottom line at first.
I think you've got a pretty sophisticated clientele, which nowadays equates more to a more non-smoking and healthy living type. So you would fare much better than say, (name of business withheld). Heard anything about any STL city laws regarding smoke free public spaces coming up?
Anyway, again good luck deciding this one.
-Kevin, longtime Southsider patron of everything
*
First, I'm honored to be anyone's finer anything.
Second, even as a former smoker, smoke generally doesn't bother me (I don't even notice it most of the time), so I may not be a good barometer on this. Having typed that, I can think of a place or two around town that my little group doesn't patronize partially because of the smoke (e.g., The Mack) or places I go even though I notice that they tend to get a little smoky at the end of the evening (e.g., the Tin Can), but smoke has never been an issue for me at the Royale. I can't stress that enough—I've never thought that the Royale was terribly smoky.
If you're on the fence, I suggest employee health should be a final factor. Obviously, many (if not most) bartenders and servers are smokers and don't care about breathing second-hand smoke, but an employer has a duty to provide a safe working environment for his/her employees.
It may sound patronizing to help someone who doesn't want it, but I think back to a work incident in which I was involved years ago: I was assigned to clean something, so I made a mixture of bleach, ammonia, and other cleaning chemicals I found that I was going to use in an unventilated room. At 19, I couldn't have cared less if that posed a huge threat to my health or that it would definitely cause respiratory/pulmonary problems if I did it consistently over a long time—I was indestructible and wanted to get the job done efficiently. Fortunately, the manager (a fine Rockhurst Man for Others) wouldn't let me do it. I was ticked at the time, but in the long run I'm glad he was looking out for my health.
-P-bu, known and valued regular patron
*
Cigarettes are yucky. They make your clothes stinky and your respiratory system ouchy.
-Marcia, known and valued regular patron
*
You have to put your civil rights above those of others when it can have a serious and potentially deadly effect on your life.
-Jen, known and valued regular patron
*
Interesting take on the support for the smoke-free. Many of the smokers support smoke free:
I'm fine either way, if Austin can do it so can we....I personally
like my smokes with my brews, but I can go outside just the same....
-Brian, known regular patron and former operator of popular Austin Texas rock club and currently employed in the supply side of the industry
*
My experience in smoke-free bars in other cities has been very positive. I smoke sporadically/socially, and haven't minded stepping to the curb for a break, even in the cold. Also, since you tend towards fires outside in the chilly months, the cold shouldn't really be a factor anyway.
In a small room like the Royale, clear air is at a premium. It's the wave of the future!
-JWT, known regular valued patron and occasional DJ
*
As a smoker who most of the time smokes while spinning (hence can't get away from the turntables for very long to smoke), I don't really have a problem with you going smoke-free. I think you'll have a few complainers but eventually it will all settle down. You do have a beer garden they can go to.
-Mark, well known valued regular patron and DJ
*
You might not believe me after that one night I stayed up ‘til 6 smoking my brains out, but I really don't smoke, and I don't like it in restaurants! To tell you the truth, that is one reason I don't frequent the Royale more often, because it's VERY smoky. So that's my vote! Don't get me wrong—I still come in for meetings and other things, but I'd be more likely to come in for dinner, etc., if it were non-smoking.
Thanks for asking,
-Meghan, known and valued regular patron
*
I would totally favor a non-smoking Royale. I'd patronize it often. Do it.
-Aaron (smoker), well known regular who hosts many events at the Royale
*
Hi Steve,
Even as a smoker, I have no problem with frequenting a smokeless restaurant/bar. It's a nasty habit to which others need not be subjected.
Both Boston and Philadelphia now have smoke-free laws for bars and restaurants. In both of those places, I don't think it's really hurt business one bit.
Also, I think it's nice for your employees not to be exposed to all of that second-hand smoke shift after shift.
I doubt that it would have an effect on business, especially if you permit smoking on the patio in back.
Just my $.02.
-Matt, semi-regular and valued patron
Case Examples and Possible Scenarios
The Royale has not made an official decision. We are still eliciting feedback from employees and checking out other studies. There are a few local examples that would encourage both policy decisions.
There are already popular places that have gone smoke-free, and also primarily serve alcohol,such as the Atomic Cowboy, 33, The Church Key and Erato. They have done well with these policies, but each has a different clientele than the Royale.
There is the other example—Balabans—that went smoke-free back in January of ’07, and they lost a significant amount of their bar revenue. About seven months later, after a big hit to the bar business, they went back to the old policy of smoking indoors. The ownership even put out ads in the paper telling people of the indoor smoking policy. Still, Balabans—a West End institution for 30 years—went out of business last month. Much can be discussed about the demise of this business.
These are the possible scenarios of different policies:
#1 Keep the current smoking policy: that is, smoking at the indoor bar only until 10 p.m. and anywhere indoors after.
#2 Expand the indoor smoking to anywhere indoors, anytime.
#3 Go smoke-free everywhere.
#4 Go smoke-free indoors only, all the time, with smoking allowed only outside in the courtyard.
#5 Go smoke-free indoors only during warm weather.
#6 Go smoke-free until 10 p.m. indoors.
There are also combinations of the above scenarios that have been discussed, such as going smoke-free until 10 p.m., and then after this trial period, deciding based on the business patterns whether or not to go smoke-free altogether.
Labels: alcohol, ban, bars, breathing, cancer, cigarettes, oxygen, restaurant, smoke-free, smoking
posted by Steven Fitzpatrick Smith at 2:55 PM
37 Comments:
Interesting reactions.
However, to keep it simple, I'd suggest either allowing smoking or don't. Having complicated rules about when smoking is OK determined by weather and time of day can get confusing and may annoy customers more. It might be better to have a rule they disagree with than to not know what to expect when they walk in. Then again... some people like suprizes. I do. :)
"Smokers' rights"... that's a laugh! What about my right not to breath in your toxic poisons?
People bitched when you couldn't smoke in movie theaters anymore, either. Or at the ballpark. Or at work. It's about time bars like The Royale take the initiative to put an end to this, too. Smoking is not only extremely irritating to those of us that don't smoke (not to mention many who do!), but it's proven deadly as well. Do smokers really *like* the idea that their habit can inflict pain, discomfort and, possibly, even death on those around them? I just don't understand this. They're only thinking about themselves, obviously. I got so tired of having to take a shower after I got home from going to smoky bars (to wash the cigarette stench off of my body) that I just stopped going to them altogether. If you want to smoke, fine. Go outside. Just like you have to do anywhere else.
#4 all the way!
No pie charts?
Where there is smoke, there is fire...
JW
Another example of a popular place that is smoke-free is Schlafly Bottleworks in Maplewood. (I did vote in the original poll, and I voted against smoking.)
I'm a smoker, and annoyed by not being able to smoke in a variety of situations, but not particularly at the venue, unless they're really annoying about it, and most aren't.
Anyway, if I had to vote for a policy change, I'd say something weather related. If it's nice out, smoking only outside. If it's cold/raining, smoking only at the bar. Or worst case, only outside, as long as there's an awning somewhere. I don't mind smoking in the cold, it's a nice discouragement for a bad habit.
Thank you for publishing these findings. I was one of the 94% in support of smoke-free, and I am pleasantly surprised to see just how many agree.
Although I myself am not a smoker, I like smokers. Viricapnity is real, folks, and I'll admit that when I'm soused I occasionally get the urge to take a drag from a friend's cigarette. That being said, I would strongly advocate a move toward a non-smoking environment.
Generally speaking, I don't consider The Royale to be a smoky bar. There are certainly worse places in town. After DJing for 4+ hours, though, I feel as if I'm drowning in the smoke--it's in my hair, on my coat, on my bags, it's making my lungs ache and, frankly, it's disgusting.
As frequently as I find myself at The Royale already, I can assure you that I would find myself there even more often were it smoke-free. I cannot tell you how many nights I stay in simply because I don't want to deal with the smoke.
If New York, Chicago, Austin and so many others (http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/100ordlist.pdf) can do it, St. Louis can surely pull it off. Talk to bar owners in those cities--even if there is an initial dip in business, my guess is that people will ultimately just deal with the circumstances. Mankind adapts. Think of it as evolution in action.
Furthermore, the vast majority smokers I know will agree that smoking during dinner is unpleasant, irritating and even rude. If nothing else, please consider making the establishment entirely smoke-free during kitchen hours. I know The Royale doesn't necessarily aim for the family crowd, but I can assure you that if I had kids, no matter how tasty John Burnett's special was going to be, I would not bring them to The Royale if I knew there was a chance of exposing them to smoke. Plus, I'm willing to wager that your servers would rather be turning over tables (or seats at the bar) full of hungry customers than dealing with customers who are just going sit and smoke and drive away customers who don't want to be subjected to smoke during their dining experience. Paddy Malone's, a gastro-pub my oh-so-conservative home town of Jefferson City, recently made the switch to smoke-free after adding an outdoor patio, and have actually cited an increase in business.
As many others have observed, you do have a delightful patio working to your advantage. I have several smoker friends who step outside to smoke currently when patronizing The Royale because the surroundings are so inviting (and because they are courteous folks). I don't frequent Off Broadway often, but when I have been there, it seemed that their outdoor smoking area was going over swimmingly. The fact that portions of the area are sheltered from the elements is a definite bonus.
Finally, I guess I'd just like to let you know that I think it's great that you're soliciting feedback on this topic, and I hope other St. Louis restaurants and bars will follow suit. Whatever the ultimate decision, it's always nice to know that your opinions are being heard and considered.
(Good thing I waiting to write this until Diana went back to Chicago, eh?)
Ditto the interesting read.
Curious if all of the patron smokers were busy out and about for a smoke and a brew or two to spend their time responding to the survey.
Can't please everyone unfortunately, but I'd hazard a guess your smokers would cut their visits and number of brews short. And, yes- the former consistent patrons of Balaban's were a crew of smokers who found other venues. Sad to see it go.
Banning smoking in a bar is like banning sex in a bordello. One goes to a saloon to smoke and drink. There are other places to go if you simply want to chat with friends(coffee shops, prayer groups, internet chat groups). You know what I hate worse than cigarette smoke? Drunk, loud people. They are a menace to society. I could go through all the reasons the anti-saloon league used to get the 18th amendment passed, and the anti-smokers would probably have to agree with the logic behind it. Why don't you ban alcohol too, Steve?
Thanks for publishing your findings! I'm interested to see what your final decision will be.
In regards to the demise of Balabans, I feel fairly confident that the change in their smoking policy was not the sole contributor. I heard from various regulars the reasons they stopped going and none of them mentioned the smoking, but instead mentioned things like the firing of the previous bar staff, changes in the menu, environment, etc.
This is an interesting idea making the place non smoking. If you would have asked me two years ago I would have said no way its a bad idea. However, since my move I gotta say the non smoking thing is pretty nice and I think most of you know what a heavy smoker I am (side note: my attempt to quit before my birthday lasted about 12 hours- pathetic I know) the upside: it makes a huge difference as a bartender and server to not breath in smoke all night long. I know on a busy night I probably got to smoke 3-4 ciggerettes during my shift but the next day I felt like I had smoked a pack and a half. I didn't really notice this difference until I moved to NYC and couldn't smoke when I went out. Occassionally, random Greek bars in queens will let you smoke inside. I was thrilled to find until I discovered how much worse I felt the next day. Now I actually appreciate having to go outside because I smoke less and dont feel as bad. I do think you will loose some of your early afternoon happy hour regulars (if the guys I'm thinking of still come in) I think the current staff probably has the best read on how it will effect them and the business but that's my two cents. On that note I miss all of you guys and vote to transplant the royale to queens. Or atleast all the employees (sorry Steve the staff rocks and I need some cool stl kids up here)
Big hugs!
-Abbie
Sent from my phone (please excuse typos)
Camus, you are an idiot.
How about I take a huge steaming dump on your table next time you are at a bar.
That being said, no-smoking would kill your business, Steve, so I say the current set-up is all you can get away with and not have people blame you for infringing upon their "rights". Don't worry, legislation will take over, and soon we won't have to worry about toxic, stinky, eye-burning smoke anymore.
I am a smoker, but i love Atomic Cowboy and I love Bottleworks, and the reason is because i can spend three or four hours at either place and when i leave my clothes don't stink and my eyes aren't stinging. There's something about a lot of different brands of cigarettes being smoked in an enclosed place that is just disgusting. That's why i stopped going to Pat's when i lived in Dogtown. I had to shower when i got home just to get to sleep at night. Anyway, to me this really has nothing to do with smokers' rights or health considerations—though those are concerns, of course—it has to do with the quality of a social environment. A drinking environment. A place to eat, listen to music, and talk. It's easier without all the smoke. Steve, I'm glad you're taking time to consider this matter. Good luck satisfying everybody, man!
Having been and continuing to be an avid support of The Royale and The Steve, I'm really excited about the possibility of The Royale. Being ex heavy smoker, I'm stoked. But at the same time I'm a bigger fan of The Steve maintaining his livlihood (he can't live in my basement if The Royale closes down.) So if it's takes smoking to keep the Royale open so be it. But that would suck.
And my two cents, bitching about not being able to harm youself in a way that adversely affects others around you (and yes that would include excessive loud drinking amongst other things) smacks of being a gigantic container filled with vinegar and water.
I am excited to see this much interaction among friends and neighbors about such a 'hot' topic. That said I would be happy to see the Royale shift to a smoking outdoors only policy and feel it would remain a lively and sought after watering hole.
I think people are a lot more versatile and accepting of change than they want to let on. Hell, I'd even join my buds outdoors if so inclined, whilst they smoke, knowing my lungs and eyes won't come to the usual indoor burning point.
Rah to change! And cheers to knowing this ultimately means both sides win.
100% smoke free indoors still has my vote. I don't force my bad habits into your body so please don't stick your's in mine. Stepping outside is not much to ask considering the nice courtyard available. I've seen the smokers in NYC and Chicago braving the winter to get their fix. If St. Louis smokers can't handle the mild winter breeze then they don't have much of a habit to begin with and they should probably just stay inside and drink with the rest of us.
I say if Paris (France) can do it so can you - ban smoking, that is.
You've got a patio & in cold weather there's almost always the fire pit going right?
I am not a smoker, never have been. I don't necessarily mind a little smoke in bars - but on the weekend the Royale it is way too smoky for me anymore. It's amazing how nice it is to leave a place & not feel smoky/wake up without feeling that way.
Good Luck! If you're really on the fence - maybe just make certain nights smoke free ...
I've just enjoyed a great night watching the election results at the Royale and had a damned good time. In fact, I enjoy the Royale at least one night each week.
I'm off to the showers now to try to get the smoke off my skin and hair before I sleep.
I look forward to a time when I don't need to clean the smoke off of me to feel clean before I go to sleep.
I wish I had a way to clean the smoke out of my lungs... don't know how to do that yet...
I'd welcome the change and would certainly visit the Royale more often.
I second Abbie on this. If San Francisco, New York
and Paris (!!!) can do it I think the Royale can.
Ultimately, I think the reason no one has rioted in a
city with a smoking ban is a. a ban only goes so far
(a lot of dives in Oakland and SF still allow smoking
in a back room or later in the evening) and b. it's
nicer for everybody in the long run. Smokers only
smoke the cigarettes they choose to, employees don't have to fear for their health and everybody does less laundry (it's hard for me to believe I ever wore anything twice after being in a St. Louis bar). Of course since St. Louis is not yet smoke free, you have to consider that customers can go elsewhere if smoking is that important to them, but I think if you take moderate steps toward being smoke free indoors most people will thank you for it.
Oh, and I challenge Abbie's motion to move the Royale staff to Queens and vote to bring them to Oakland instead. If that leaves anyone feeling torn then perhaps Abbie and I should engage in a rap battle for your company... Miss you guys,
Sarah
My wife and I stopped going to the Royale primarily because of the amount of secondhand smoke that seems to be everywhere indoors. It's a relatively small room, so there's little that can be done physically to segregate smokers from non-smokers. I'm also a big believer in individual rights, so I'm not in favor of either "the government" or individual patrons "telling" the owners what to do or not do - they need to make a decision based on what's in their best economic interests. Personally, I/we voted with our feet, and have taken our business elesewhere, although we liked most everything else about the establishment. IF we were to be persuaded to come back, going smoke-free indoors would probably be the minimum, and going smoke-free on the patio would be a bonus . . .
My wife & I love the royale, but go less frequently than we would if it were smoke free. I'm in vermont right now. Went to a bar last night. It was PACKED with customers & there wasn't any ash tray in sight.
Did you happen to hit the Bottleworks for their Cabib Fever event? Over 500 attended this smoke free establishment.
Please pulle the trigger & go smoke free!! Thanks for the consideration....Chris
I'm all for a smokeless establishment. If they can pull it off in places like NYC and Austin, I think it will work here. Smokers can go outside - really, it's not that big of a deal elsewhere, and as you know, we are blessed with lovely weather year-round here in STL.
The difference between being around drinkers vs. smokers is that when I drink, I am not impacting everyone else's liver ... secondhand smoke is a very real public health threat & should be weighed out pretty carefully (and I don't think drinking and smoking necessarily must go together.) Culture changes, and it seems like people are choosing more and more to go smoke-free ... if you've seen "Mad Men," that becomes very clear. People are smoking in elevators, in doctor's offices, etc. - there was a day when people couldn't imagine not lighting up on the way to the fifth floor, but I think we are all glad that this is a thing of the past.
There are about 5 or 6 music venues & bars around town that I have avoided due to smoke, and have purposely gone to places like Atomic Cowboy or Bottleworks because I knew I could sit at the bar without choking ...
I was a smoker for ten years and never assumed it was my right to impose my smoke on others - sheesh. Smoking outside is perfectly reasonable. Put some comfortable seating, a nice heater during the winter and some shelter from the wind and rain and folks should be just fine. Smoking bans are not there to torture smokers - they are in place for public health. I love the Royale, but rarely go because I don't like having to shower and hang my jacket outside for a week every time I walk in a smoky bar. Steve - be strong - we'll support you with our business>
I like smokers too--OUTSIDE. I'd love it if the Royale went smoke-free, and you have the patio to make it work. Most smokers I know don't even smoke inside their own homes now--why should they smoke inside yours?
On more than one occasion, we've suggested the Royale for dinner, but the folks we were with didn't want to eat in a smoky environment.
I lived and worked as a waitress in California when the smoking ban went into effect there. It passed nearly unanimously--it was considered a workers' rights issue. They ran TV spots with a woman in a diner uniform, saying "I'm a mother of three and I would never smoke, but I have lung cancer after 10 years of working in this place" and the camera panned back to reveal a room with 4 feet of smoke in the air. Despite all the handwringing, the net result on bars was zero! Of course, they had the benefit of a universal ban. I understand that you're in tougher situation.
If France and Spain and Ireland can all go smoke-free, why can't MO? (Oh, that's right, the tobacco lobby, I forgot.)
I think the culture's changing ... drinking & smoking don't always have to go together. Also, when I drink, I'm not degrading the health of your liver! Smoking is not just a habit or vice, it's also a public health issue. So is drinking, but the effects don't lap over like they do with cigarettes ...
I have to say there is more than one venue around town I've avoided due to lotsa smoke & poor ventilation, though I've made a point to patronize businesses like Atomic Cowboy because the air would be clean & breathable.
If the Royale wants to have people come for its food, it will have to do something about the smoke. Most smokers acknowledge that eaters want to be in a smoke free environment.
I see smoking after ten as a rational thing.
More smokers chose non-smoking than smoking. Pretty clear there.
Having a tortured policy of sometimes smoking is ok and sometimes it is not is not a good idea. Of course there are going to be people that are upset, but you will never make everyone happy. I think having smokers go outside is a pretty reasonable comprimise as opposed to just an outright smoking ban.
You could increase the usable space at your fine establishment by creating a four season outdoor smoking area (like the Cowboy), which may increase your revenues.
Keep the faith Stevie, you doin' good.
dOb
I never really understood why smoking was the norm. It is about history and now history is changing as smoking has been proven to cause health problems, places are going non-smoking. It is pretty simple to me. 94% said they would enjoy the Royale as a non-smoking establishment. As others have mentioned, England and Ireland are non-smoking so why can't that be the norm in STL? I have never once heard someone complain that an establishment is smoke free.
I smoke and I wouldn't be there any less if you went smoke free. In fact I may frequent the place more with friends and family who are now Atomic regulars because of they are smoke free. They know and love the Royale but they hate smoke period...
Interesting read.
I would not call myself a regular at the Royale, but I have a couple of friends that dj and make it a point to patronize the venue as often as possible. That being said, I would not go to the Royale if it went completely non-smoking, for many of the reasons already put forth. And for the record, I go to way fewer Cardinals' games since they made the change.
However, if the staff pushed for the change, it makes sense, as they are the ones being exposed to the smoke all the time.
I am a firm proponent of The Royale going smoke-free. The notion of it being OK to smoke at the bar, while the tables are smoke-free is kind of a joke. The smoke doesn't stay with the smokers. I would like to be able to go out to a great place like The Royale, have a beer, enjoy some time with friends and not have to hose myself down and air dry my clothes when I return home. There are so few smoke-free bars in town, that I'm sure The Royale would actually gain business. I've got nothing personal against smokers. You're making a choice, and that's fine. I do have a problem with your choice doing me physical harm. That's when the line of personal choice is crossed, in my mind.
A few years, I was in San Francisco for work. I was late going out for dinner, and my only option was to sit at the bar. I thought to myself, "Well, it's just this once. I'll get back to the hotel, hang out my clothes, and tomorrow night I'll make better dinner plans." It took a couple of minutes of sitting in the bar area to remember that CA has no smoking in public places. What a treat! I was able to enjoy my meal without the intrusion of smoke in my lungs and on my person.
-> jason
i don't go to the royale often, and mostly that is because of the smoke. many of my friends are there quite often, and i pass up invitations to join them based purely on the smoke.
i do have asthma and i can't stay there long when i do go. I don't eat there, and i rarely have more than one drink.
also, this is just be sounding bitchy, but i hate it when the outside of a place is all smokers and all smoky. i go outside for fresh air-- not for secondhand smoke. as a non-smoker, i should have a right to enjoy the outside, too.
if the royale does, however, go smoke free, i will make an effort to go there more often just to support the decision and to encourage other businesses to do the same.
I'll admit that I'm not a regular off the bat, though I have been in a number of times since I moved back to St. Louis a year ago. A few points:
1. I used to be a smoker and I lived in New York through the smoking ban. Lemme tell you, it was no big deal.
2. If you spruce up your outside with a little heated smoking area, you'll be golden.
3. My wife is pregnant, and will not step one foot inside of anywhere with smoking.
4. Atomic Cowboy (though a totally different concept/crowd) doesn't have smoking, and they've managed to keep their heads above water.
Thanks for opening the discussion up to the general public!
Frank
Steve-
I think it's great that you're asking patrons for their opinions on this.
I think it's safe to say that the argument explicating a ban on smoking as a violation of rights and an imposition on peoples' lives is a misnomer. A propagator of such rhetoric ought to heed the advice of a reformed brat, who in middle school might had yelled obscenities in class, justified as an allowed behavior as per his/her first amendment rights. Clearly there is a negative externality created in both situations - a health risk and a public nuisance, respectively. For evidence of this argument as a fallacy, look no further than the copious examples of patrons who, on this forum, have relayed their distaste for others' smoke and even avoidance of your establishment on occasion because of smoke's ill effects (smell, health, hair in the morning, etc).
Likewise, your candid conversation on the topic clearly highlights the questionable economic impact of a smoking ban on an establishment. While the effects of a voluntary, single site ban differ from a county-wide ban (in this case, citywide) which differ from a statewide ban, there is much support on this page that a ban make actually increase the Royale's prosperity. Your bottom line will tell the true story as pregnant mothers and sweaterwearers start to swell your registers with their hard earned cash, relieved of concern over rendering 7-month-old 'Johnny' retarded or for fear of an exorbitant dry cleaning bill, as the case may be. A ban on smoking may well prove to be a boon for your business!
Anywho, as a kid who's adopted St. Louis as his hometown for the past seven years, I'd appreciate more smoking bans in the City. Once skeptical of such a ban myself, numerous experiences in Colorado, Chicago, Florida, and elsewhere have convinced me of a ban's merits.
asc
I live in Seattle and there's a smoking ban here too. I am more likely to go out for a drink since I don't have to worry about the smoke.
Last time I was in STL I was going to come down to check out the Royale, until I heard that Atomic Cowboy was non smoking. I went there instead.
Restaurants with smoking sections don't make much sense. If I was a chef I would insist that my food was served in a smoke free environment so people could smell and taste it. Unless I was a crappy chef that is.
Make the patio nice for smokers and you'll be ok. People adapt.
Post a Comment
<< Home