Dave Segal's Cover Story

[Gomezticator]

We've had the smoking ban discussion at length, so there's no sense in reprising it at length outside of its original quarters. However, I have a thought on Dave Segal's cover story (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=25645) :

One issue with the article's decree of the ban's success is that most of the observations took place right after the ban had been implemented, when many of the possible consequences, like business losses and venue closures, are long-term, gradual events.

Keep in mind the initial excitement factor of the non-smoking populace. Many went out and are starting to go out as an act of celebration. Dave Segal coming to his conclusion that the ban was a rousing success on its first weekend is rather premature. It's like looking at the $8 million that the King Kong remake brought in its first two days of release, and instantly deeming it a collossal failure. How do we know people won't come out to see it later in the weekend, or during or after the Xmas holiday? To call King Kong a box office bomb because it didn't make $100 million right away is jumping the gun.

Likewise, seeing crowds at nightclubs, while the ban still has its new-car smell, and calling it a massive success is jumping the gun. I don't doubt the validity of Dave Segal's firsthand observations. In fact, I went to Al's in Wallingford last night and the crowd I saw was about equal to pre-ban clientele... but that's just one venue and the ban is only 8 days old. Dave did conduct a larger survey, but again, the ban's in its infancy. As the novelty wears off over the weeks and months, and many non-smokers slink back to their original habits and hangouts, this business boom will slide into a more accurate pattern, and that's when we'll see what the real effect of this ban is.

This article would have carried more weight had it been researched in, say, March and written/published in April, after the excitement dies down and we see who the venues' REAL clientele is.

[segal]

One issue with the article's decree of the ban's success is that most of the observations took place right after the ban had been implemented, when many of the possible consequences, like business losses and venue closures, are long-term, gradual events.

Keep in mind the initial excitement factor of the non-smoking populace. Many went out and are starting to go out as an act of celebration. Dave Segal coming to his conclusion that the ban was a rousing success on its first weekend is rather premature. It's like looking at the $8 million that the King Kong remake brought in its first two days of release, and instantly deeming it a collossal failure. How do we know people won't come out to see it later in the weekend, or during or after the Xmas holiday? To call King Kong a box office bomb because it didn't make $100 million right away is jumping the gun.

Likewise, seeing crowds at nightclubs, while the ban still has its new-car smell, and calling it a massive success is jumping the gun. I don't doubt the validity of Dave Segal's firsthand observations. In fact, I went to Al's in Wallingford last night and the crowd I saw was about equal to pre-ban clientele... but that's just one venue and the ban is only 8 days old. Dave did conduct a larger survey, but again, the ban's in its infancy. As the novelty wears off over the weeks and months, and many non-smokers slink back to their original habits and hangouts, this business boom will slide into a more accurate pattern, and that's when we'll see what the real effect of this ban is.

This article would have carried more weight had it been researched in, say, March and written/published in April, after the excitement dies down and we see who the venues' REAL clientele is.
Note this passage from the story: "Obviously it's too soon to gauge how the smoking ban's going to play out economically, and the 25-foot rule has few fans (and fewer enforcers, it seems), but among the people—both smokers and nonsmokers—with whom I've discussed the matter, the initiative's impact has been overwhelmingly positive."

This is not exactly a victory dance.

My editor asked me to write the piece at this time, and I did. Was it the best time to run such a story? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps another story on the subject will run at a later date.

In the meantime, I've asked some people in SF and NYC to give me their observations about smoking bans' effect on their cities' nightlifes. I'll post their comments on Slog in the near future.

[CapTainHighTop]

Just curious, any relation to Steven Segal?

[segal]

Just curious, any relation to Steven Segal?
No. Amazingly, you're the first person to ask.

[Gomezticator]

My editor asked me to write the piece at this time, and I did. Was it the best time to run such a story? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps another story on the subject will run at a later date.

In the meantime, I've asked some people in SF and NYC to give me their observations about smoking bans' effect on their cities' nightlifes. I'll post their comments on Slog in the near future.

Good call on speaking with people in the Metropoli who've lived with bans for a while, as those are perspectives many would like to hear.

And so it was your editor who asked you to jump the gun. Fair enough. It's a subject worth examining for sure in a few months.

[segal]

I'm not knocking my editor's decision to run the 901 story at this time. I think it's valid and worthwhile to take a snapshot of the situation during its early stages. It'll be interesting to compare it to what transpires later.