To smoke, or not to smoke?

That is the question. The problem is that the ability to decide the answer for yourself could be limited.

The idea of a smoking ordinance has been thrown into the ring by city council member Yates and it has inspired me to write what may be one of the longest This is Smyrna, Tn post's yet.

Near the bottom of the city agenda for the Thursday night work shop was this short line.




Let's get one thing out of the way to start with. I don't smoke. One of the bad habits that I have no desire to pick up.

Now let's get to the meat of the issue.

The customer is always right...or at least mostly. Why? Because the customer is the one that will willingly put their money in your till, and at the end of the day that translates to profit. The history of the market place is full of tales of businesses that did not deliver what the customer wanted. New Coke comes to mind.

Smoking in a restaurant and what the customer wants should be the only thing that matters in the discussion of a smoking ordinance. If the customer wants it, then you should balance that with your ability to make money and keep customers.

A fine example would be Waffle House on Nissan Blvd. People can correctly assume Waffle House will be smoke filled, and they are mostly correct.

Except on Sunday Mornings.

Sunday mornings people are on their way to, or from church. Dressed in their Sunday finery. The last thing they would want to do is to go to church smelling of cigar and cigarette smoke. Thus on Sunday morning Waffle House goes totally smoke free. They know that their customer base changes, and they change with it. Less smoke equals more customers.

The market place demands it. They answer..Willingly.

They do this freely because they want more business. No regulation was needed.

Now Mr. Yates did not imply a desire for a full smoking ban. An idea that other cities have enforced on their businesses. He implied a regulation for smoke free sections.

The problem with any regulation is the second it becomes law, there occurs insurmountable problems for truly small establishments. For example there is a small pastry shop just off of the town center. It has about 4 tables. What if it was a smoking establishment? Will a costly partition and air system need to be built for just two of the four tables? This would normally be followed by an amendment to the regulation that a restaurant must be of so many seats.

Not all restaurants are small though and all suffer low profit margins

The common myth is that 90-95 percent of restaurants fail in the first three years. Thankfully that is a myth. The real numbers are much lower.

The highest failure rate was noted during the first year when about 26 percent of the restaurants failed. About 19 percent failed in the second year and 14 percent in the third year. Cumulative failure rate for the three-year period (1996-99) was 59 percent.

Among franchised chains, the failure rate was 57 percent over the three years and among independent restaurants, the rate was 4 percent higher - 61 percent.

With a three year failure rate of over 50%, I find it bothersome that a government will have these businesses spend profit on an ordinance such as this.

In life I work on the on/off view of choice. If I don't like the TV show, I turn it off. I have no desire to turn your TV off. I want you to do that freely. If I don't like the atmosphere of a restaurant, I don't go, but I would not try to make the restaurant change for me. They should do that themselves, freely, to get my business.

There are a few restaurants in town that I don't eat at. It's not because of the smoking issue, it's because their food is horrible. One has food overpriced and badly made, and the other produces food that reminds me of a certain brand of canned food that I abhor. Each in their own way, have not delivered to me the service that would make me want to return.

That is the problem with all restaurants. They have to supply a product in an environment, that would make me want to return. Two have failed. If your pass/fail grade for a restaurant is a well ventilated smoking section then those without have failed. Their loss of customers is also a loss of profit.

A smoking section should not be decided by an ordinance, but by profit. The market place is evolutionary. Restaurants not willing to evolve with the times, die. No ordinance is needed to perform this function.

As I mentioned previously in this post Mr Yates had only received 4 emails. As a strong believer that the people's will should be heard, I ask that you email him your views. I'm not asking for emails against the ordinance. I would like you to email him no matter what your view is. As you should be an informed voter, he should be an informed politician.