HomeSmoking BansAction AlertsLegislationPro-Active MarketingInternational


 

 Click here to download / print this study.  
Continued...
 Next Page>> 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6
Approaching a Smoke Free Future    

Smoking bans and restrictions in bowling centers are not happening just because of legislation. Thirty nine percent of the centers responding to the survey said that the decision was theirs. However, 65% of the league bowlers indicated they thought the smoking rules in the center they frequented most often were established by the center
management and 7% weren’t sure. Throughout the study the value of accurate communication is cited and having customers understand the proprietors’ role and efforts to accommodate all bowlers contributed to more positive outcomes.
More than half of all league bowlers in the study were affected in some way by smoking
bans or restrictions:

CURRENT SMOKING POLICY IN BOWLING CENTER
 
   
Smoking Permited anywhere in center 37.8%
Smoking permitted anywhere except on the lanes 27.7%
Smoking is not permitted in the center 19.8%
Smoking is permitted only in the bar/restaurant 5.3%
"Other" smoking restriction 4.4%
Smoking is permitted only in a designated smoking room 3.3%
Not sure 1.7%
 
What should a center do when smoking legislation is proposed in their state or community?

Responses on how to deal with the potential ban depends on the experience of the center. Those centers who have not dealt with local or state legislation have different opinions - “fight the ban,” “keep the government out of business” and “business will decline or die” – compared to comments made by those who have run non-smoking centers for at least
two years – “plan and implement early – before you have to,” “be part of the process” and “work for the reasonable accommodation for your business.”

It is important to stay alert for pending legislation. Once community members begin pushing for smoking bans or restrictions, the issue progresses quickly through the legislative process.
  • Almost 70% of proprietors say less than one year elapsed between the time they
    first became aware of the smoking legislation and when it was enacted.
  • Of these, 26% had less than three months warning.
  • Eight percent of respondents say they were not aware of the legislation prior to
    enactment.
Early information and involvement were stressed. Most proprietors first heard about local proposals through the media via TV and newspapers. Involvement in local organizations and government groups were noted as ways to become informed early.

Fighting a legislative initiative is both expensive and difficult. Respondents suggested forming or joining coalitions within the community or state. Some were frustrated with the lack of information and also the influence of outside “anti-smoking” groups. Those that were successful in having a local initiative defeated admitted that it was a matter of time before it would return on the ballot.

Statewide versus local or county bans are also a topic of interest. It was suggested that although defeating a statewide ban may be a temporary victory, the outcome is often an increase in local proposals. While there seems to be an inherent inequity when a city or county line separates the non-smoking from smoking center, the difference may be more
one of choice than economics. Slightly more than a quarter of centers with a smoking ban or restriction said they have competing centers that are not affected by the smoking legislation. There were also examples of centers that remained non-smoking after a repeal or exemption of the smoking ban. One reason cited was threats by the nonsmokers to leave if the center again allowed smoking.

Rather than fight for a complete defeat the majority acknowledged that working for “reasonable accommodations” for centers was a better effort. The content of smoking legislation varies widely. Likewise, there were many suggestions for accommodating smokers. Designated smoking rooms and the bar areas were most frequently mentioned. Proprietors felt having samples of “good” legislation would be a useful tool and talking with others who have gone through the experience would be another resource.

Planning ahead to make accommodations and promoting the centers’ proactive role in meeting bowler needs was a common theme among the study respondents. Budgeting for the changes and implementing them ahead of the deadline put centers in a positive and progressive light with bowlers. Suggestions for meeting smokers’ needs ranged from
building a smoking room/additional area to providing booties for outdoor smoking breaks.