RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Jonathan Cass]

Title: No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio



Hmm -- 
I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat 
justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other 
restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known 
carcinogen."
 
The 
White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling 
cigarettes.
 
Jonathan A. Cass -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of NaomiSent: 
Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24 AMTo: Vincent/Roger; 
UnivCity@list.purple.comSubject: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog 
& Abbraccio
Vincent is right, we are not 100% non-smoking. But 
  Abbraccio and the White Dog, although we are only 1 mile apart, have very 
  different surroundings as far as competition and customer base. As we 
  are located in the heart of the campus and surrounded by 3 other bars that all 
  offer smoking all the time at their bars, we agonized over the decision to go 
  smoke-free for years before we finally came to a compromise decision a year 
  ago. This decision came from many discussions with our bar staff, wait staff 
  that works in the main bar and seasonal patio area, and our customers. We 
  decided to ban all smoking except for in our main bar from 10pm - 2am and on 
  the seasonal patio. (We have never allowed smoking in the restaurant or at our 
  piano bar.) Our late night customers threatened to go elsewhere if smoking was 
  banned entirely and our staff (many of whom are non-smokers) were worried 
  that, without customers, their incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late 
  night crowd is mostly graduate students, hospital staff and neighbors - many 
  of whom smoke. With 3 other bars offering smoking on our block, we felt that 
  we couldn't completely go smoke free without seriously hurting business - and 
  our staffs' income. The partial smoke-free decision did hurt financially us, 
  but we felt that the calculated loss was for the best for our employees' 
  health and for the well being of our customers.Prior to this decision, 
  we extensively looked into ventilation systems that would draft the smoke out 
  of the room more quickly but being in a very old building that has already 
  been retrofitted for kitchen equipment, we didn't have many options. So we use 
  the hood over the grill station to vent it out and have the incoming air 
  positioned to bring in fresh air as quickly as possible. We also, whenever 
  possible, offer additional seating away from the main bar for those that don't 
  want to be near the second-hand smoke. We really wanted to see this 
  bill go through so that all the bars were on an even playing field - we even 
  sent one of our employees to testify an the council hearings for this bill. It 
  was really difficult for us and for our employees to have to choose between 
  physically healthy and financially healthy decisions. Elizabeth is right, we 
  do have a choice. We could go completely smoke free on principal and hurt the 
  financial balance of the restaurant and hurt our employees financial 
  well-being (which they have told us they can not afford), or we could 
  compromise and allow smoking in 1 of our eight dining rooms for 4 hours a day. 
  I think making sure the White Dog is here next year and that our 
  employees can support themselves is worth a small compromise. We support 100+ 
  employees with a living wage (starting at a min. $8/hr - instead of minimum 
  wage - $5.??/hr). We offer healthcare and dental insurance, a retirement plan, 
  an emergency sunshine fund,  free bank checking plan, help with their 
  taxes, an interest-free computer loan program, reimbursement for smoking 
  cessation programs (their choice), a workplace giving fund and, of course 
  discounted and free food (that's sustainable, local and fresh), drinks and 
  admission to our events - including international travel with our sister 
  restaurant program. Our staff is treated better than most restaurants and we 
  always keep their best interests at heart when making decisions. Keeping the 
  business financially viable is in the best interest of all 100 employees, not 
  just the folks working late night who want the big tipping smokers to sit at 
  our bar.Anyone who has been in the restaurant business can understand 
  that there is a lot more to running a restaurant than just the food. It's a 
  delicate balance with a small profit margin. This bill would have helped put 
  everyone on the same playing field and we will support it when it is 
  reintroduced. Naomion 3/17/05 10:41 PM, Vincent/Roger at 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  >> If you have a list of nonsmoking 
restaurants and bars, pass it on. >> Please. I need some places to 
eat.I'm writing in response to the many postings regarding the 
non-smoking ban. As someone who this directly affects, I think I have a 
right to speak about it.  Unlike even The White Dog(!), Abbraccio 
is a totally non-smokin

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Brian Siano]

Jonathan Cass wrote:
Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat 
justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other 
restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
 
The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.
Well, pharmacies _do_ sell cigarettes.
Man, ever since the SATs dropped their "analogies" section, discourse 
has gone to hell.



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Jonathan Cass]

Yes -- the point being that they are both wrong.

Jonathan A. Cass
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Siano
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:52 AM
Cc: 'UnivCity@list.purple.com'
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio


Jonathan Cass wrote:

> Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat
> justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other
> restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
>
> The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.

Well, pharmacies _do_ sell cigarettes.

Man, ever since the SATs dropped their "analogies" section, discourse
has gone to hell.





You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Naomi]

Title: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio



I think you missed the part where I explained that our bar and wait staff helped us make the decision to have limited smoking hours. They felt it was too great a financial risk (for them and for the business) to completely ban smoking based on our clientele and location. And again, we were in FAVOR of the ban. We want all bars and restaurants to not have to make the tough decision of either income or health. If all of them are non-smoking, it’s a non-issue.

Naomi


on 3/18/05 11:39 AM, Jonathan Cass at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
 
The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.
 
Jonathan A. Cass 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Vincent/Roger; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

Vincent is right, we are not 100% non-smoking. But  Abbraccio and the White Dog, although we are only 1 mile apart, have very  different surroundings as far as competition and customer base. 

As we  are located in the heart of the campus and surrounded by 3 other bars that all  offer smoking all the time at their bars, we agonized over the decision to go  smoke-free for years before we finally came to a compromise decision a year  ago. This decision came from many discussions with our bar staff, wait staff  that works in the main bar and seasonal patio area, and our customers. We  decided to ban all smoking except for in our main bar from 10pm - 2am and on  the seasonal patio. (We have never allowed smoking in the restaurant or at our  piano bar.) Our late night customers threatened to go elsewhere if smoking was  banned entirely and our staff (many of whom are non-smokers) were worried  that, without customers, their incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late  night crowd is mostly graduate students, hospital staff and neighbors - many  of whom smoke. With 3 other bars offering smoking on our block, we felt that  we couldn't completely go smoke free without seriously hurting business - and  our staffs' income. The partial smoke-free decision did hurt financially us,  but we felt that the calculated loss was for the best for our employees'  health and for the well being of our customers.

Prior to this decision,  we extensively looked into ventilation systems that would draft the smoke out  of the room more quickly but being in a very old building that has already  been retrofitted for kitchen equipment, we didn't have many options. So we use  the hood over the grill station to vent it out and have the incoming air  positioned to bring in fresh air as quickly as possible. We also, whenever  possible, offer additional seating away from the main bar for those that don't  want to be near the second-hand smoke. 

We really wanted to see this  bill go through so that all the bars were on an even playing field - we even  sent one of our employees to testify an the council hearings for this bill. It  was really difficult for us and for our employees to have to choose between  physically healthy and financially healthy decisions. Elizabeth is right, we  do have a choice. We could go completely smoke free on principal and hurt the  financial balance of the restaurant and hurt our employees financial  well-being (which they have told us they can not afford), or we could  compromise and allow smoking in 1 of our eight dining rooms for 4 hours a day.  

I think making sure the White Dog is here next year and that our  employees can support themselves is worth a small compromise. We support 100+  employees with a living wage (starting at a min. $8/hr - instead of minimum  wage - $5.??/hr). We offer healthcare and dental insurance, a retirement plan,  an emergency sunshine fund,  free bank checking plan, help with their  taxes, an interest-free computer loan program, reimbursement for smoking  cessation programs (their choice), a workplace giving fund and, of course  discounted and free food (that's sustainable, local and fresh), drinks and  admission to our events - including international travel with our sister  restaurant program. Our staff is treated better than most restaurants and we  always keep their best interests at heart when making decisions. Keeping the  business financially viable is in the best interest of all 100 employees, not  just the folks working late night who want the big tipping smokers to sit at  our bar.

Anyone who has been in the restaurant business can understand  that there is a lot more to running a restaurant than just the food. It's a  delicate balance with a small profit margin. This bill would have helped put 

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Mark Krull]

"Man, ever since the SATs dropped their "analogies" section, discourse 
has gone to hell."

Bummer man..



-Original Message-
From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 18, 2005 11:51 AM
To: 
Cc: "'UnivCity@list.purple.com'" 
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

Jonathan Cass wrote:

> Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat 
> justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other 
> restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
>  
> The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.

Well, pharmacies _do_ sell cigarettes.

Man, ever since the SATs dropped their "analogies" section, discourse 
has gone to hell.





You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.


Need someone to watch your pet while you are away?
Call UC Pet Tenders:
Walking, feeding during lunch, vacations, or late evenings.
215 990 6254
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Experienced!!!   References provided



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Gail Defendorf]

I have a problem with the logic that the White Dog has to permit smoking 
because the other establishments nearby allow smoking.  And I have a 
problem with the assumption (not proven) that if the White Dog went 
completely non-smoking, that they'd lose customers. 

As a life-long non-smoker, I can tell Naomi that I *don't* frequent 
establishments that allow smoking.  If I know a place is non-smoking, it 
gets my business.  Heck, I really enjoy going to Delaware (the state, 
not the street) and going into a bar/restaurant and plonking down my 
cash because I *know* that I'm not going to smell like death afterwards.

And the crap about treating your workers better, even though they have 
to work around second-hand smoke is simply that: crap.  If the White Dog 
was the Progressive Restaurant it thinks it is, it should have banned 
smoking years ago. 

gail
Jonathan Cass wrote:
Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat 
justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other 
restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
 
The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.
 
Jonathan A. Cass
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Vincent/Roger; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

Vincent is right, we are not 100% non-smoking. But Abbraccio and
the White Dog, although we are only 1 mile apart, have very
different surroundings as far as competition and customer base.
As we are located in the heart of the campus and surrounded by 3
other bars that all offer smoking all the time at their bars, we
agonized over the decision to go smoke-free for years before we
finally came to a compromise decision a year ago. This decision
came from many discussions with our bar staff, wait staff that
works in the main bar and seasonal patio area, and our customers.
We decided to ban all smoking except for in our main bar from 10pm
- 2am and on the seasonal patio. (We have never allowed smoking in
the restaurant or at our piano bar.) Our late night customers
threatened to go elsewhere if smoking was banned entirely and our
staff (many of whom are non-smokers) were worried that, without
customers, their incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late
night crowd is mostly graduate students, hospital staff and
neighbors - many of whom smoke. With 3 other bars offering smoking
on our block, we felt that we couldn't completely go smoke free
without seriously hurting business - and our staffs' income. The
partial smoke-free decision did hurt financially us, but we felt
that the calculated loss was for the best for our employees'
health and for the well being of our customers.
Prior to this decision, we extensively looked into ventilation
systems that would draft the smoke out of the room more quickly
but being in a very old building that has already been retrofitted
for kitchen equipment, we didn't have many options. So we use the
hood over the grill station to vent it out and have the incoming
air positioned to bring in fresh air as quickly as possible. We
also, whenever possible, offer additional seating away from the
main bar for those that don't want to be near the second-hand smoke.
We really wanted to see this bill go through so that all the bars
were on an even playing field - we even sent one of our employees
to testify an the council hearings for this bill. It was really
difficult for us and for our employees to have to choose between
physically healthy and financially healthy decisions. Elizabeth is
right, we do have a choice. We could go completely smoke free on
principal and hurt the financial balance of the restaurant and
hurt our employees financial well-being (which they have told us
they can not afford), or we could compromise and allow smoking in
1 of our eight dining rooms for 4 hours a day.
I think making sure the White Dog is here next year and that our
employees can support themselves is worth a small compromise. We
support 100+ employees with a living wage (starting at a min.
$8/hr - instead of minimum wage - $5.??/hr). We offer healthcare
and dental insurance, a retirement plan, an emergency sunshine
fund,  free bank checking plan, help with their taxes, an
interest-free computer loan program, reimbursement for smoking
cessation programs (their choice), a workplace giving fund and, of
course discounted and free food (that's sustainable, local and
fresh), drinks and admission to our events - including
international travel with our sister restaurant program. Our staff
is treated better than most restaurants and we always keep their
best interests at heart when making decisions. Ke

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Brian Siano]

Jonathan Cass wrote:
Yes -- the point being that they are both wrong.
 

Wrong in what sense?
Are you saying that pharmacies should not sell harmful substances? 
Fine-- but that'd include a lot of drug treatments, including naproxen 
sodium, which can play hell with your liver. Are you saying they 
shouldn't sell addictive substances-- which'd include cough medicines? 
And given that nicotine is addictive, shouldn't an addict be able to 
obtain the substance through a regulated, controlled source, much as 
methadone clinics operate? Is it the issue of secondhand smoke-- or 
would you extend this ban to chewing tobacco or nicotine patches?

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding things entirely, and your issue is not 
so much pharmacies and cigarettes as it is the _White Dog_ specifically 
allowing smoking? Is there something specific about the White Dog 
(where, in fact, I will be having lunch shortly) that makes its smoking 
policy especially egregious? Would this mean that other restaurants 
without this special quality are OK in allowing smoking?

What about cigars? Marijuana? Especially aromatic s'mores?
Jonathan Cass wrote:
 

Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat
justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other
restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.
   

Well, pharmacies _do_ sell cigarettes.
Man, ever since the SATs dropped their "analogies" section, discourse
has gone to hell.
 



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Dubin, Elisabeth]

Title: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio



The logic the White Dog used to form their smoking policy seems 
reasonable to me.
 
I 
wonder if any restaurants have considered smoking night vs. non-smoking 
nights.  Like, for example, Friday could be non-smoking and Saturday could 
be smoking at night.  This is something I just made up, and I think it's 
brilliant.  (Of course someone will argue that the staff still have to be 
there and inhale smoke, but you could have those who object tend bar on 
non-smoking night.)
 
 
 ELISABETH 
DUBINHillier 
ARCHITECTUREOne 
South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F 215 636-9989 
| hillier.com 
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
NaomiSent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:15 PMTo: Jonathan 
Cass; 'Vincent/Roger'; UnivCity@list.purple.comSubject: Re: [UC] No 
Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio
I think you missed the part where I explained that our 
bar and wait staff helped us make the decision to have limited smoking hours. 
They felt it was too great a financial risk (for them and for the business) to 
completely ban smoking based on our clientele and location. And again, we were 
in FAVOR of the ban. We want all bars and restaurants to not have to make the 
tough decision of either income or health. If all of them are non-smoking, it’s 
a non-issue.Naomion 3/18/05 11:39 AM, Jonathan Cass at 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big 
  fat justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other 
  restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known 
  carcinogen."The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling 
  cigarettes.Jonathan A. Cass -Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On 
  Behalf Of NaomiSent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24 
  AMTo: Vincent/Roger; UnivCity@list.purple.comSubject: 
  [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio
  Vincent is right, we are not 100% 
non-smoking. But  Abbraccio and the White Dog, although we are only 1 
mile apart, have very  different surroundings as far as competition and 
customer base. As we  are located in the heart of the campus 
and surrounded by 3 other bars that all  offer smoking all the time at 
their bars, we agonized over the decision to go  smoke-free for years 
before we finally came to a compromise decision a year  ago. This 
decision came from many discussions with our bar staff, wait staff 
 that works in the main bar and seasonal patio area, and our customers. 
We  decided to ban all smoking except for in our main bar from 10pm - 
2am and on  the seasonal patio. (We have never allowed smoking in the 
restaurant or at our  piano bar.) Our late night customers threatened 
to go elsewhere if smoking was  banned entirely and our staff (many of 
whom are non-smokers) were worried  that, without customers, their 
incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late  night crowd is mostly 
graduate students, hospital staff and neighbors - many  of whom smoke. 
With 3 other bars offering smoking on our block, we felt that  we 
couldn't completely go smoke free without seriously hurting business - and 
 our staffs' income. The partial smoke-free decision did hurt 
financially us,  but we felt that the calculated loss was for the best 
for our employees'  health and for the well being of our 
customers.Prior to this decision,  we extensively looked into 
ventilation systems that would draft the smoke out  of the room more 
quickly but being in a very old building that has already  been 
retrofitted for kitchen equipment, we didn't have many options. So we use 
 the hood over the grill station to vent it out and have the incoming 
air  positioned to bring in fresh air as quickly as possible. We also, 
whenever  possible, offer additional seating away from the main bar for 
those that don't  want to be near the second-hand smoke. We 
really wanted to see this  bill go through so that all the bars were on 
an even playing field - we even  sent one of our employees to testify 
an the council hearings for this bill. It  was really difficult for us 
and for our employees to have to choose between  physically healthy and 
financially healthy decisions. Elizabeth is right, we  do have a 
choice. We could go completely smoke free on principal and hurt the 
 financial balance of the restaurant and hurt our employees financial 
 well-being (which they have told us they can not afford), or we could 
 compromise and allow smoking in 1 of our eight dining rooms for 4 
hours a day.  I think making sure the White Dog is here next 
year and that our  employees can support themselves is worth a small 
compromise. We suppor

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Brian Siano]

Gail Defendorf wrote:
And the crap about treating your workers better, even though they have 
to work around second-hand smoke is simply that: crap.  If the White 
Dog was the Progressive Restaurant it thinks it is, it should have 
banned smoking years ago. 
Considering that the decision was made among the employees, I'd say that 
the White Dog is already operating by far more progressive principles 
than a smoking ban would indicate.

I don't know Naomi at all, and I'm not exactly a White Dog booster 
(their burgers are good, though), but consider the following. She had to 
make a decision about a business policy that would have a substantial 
impact on the success or failure of her businss. And she _polled her 
employees_ to settle the issue. How often do we see this? I sure as hell 
didn't see it when I worked at the Thriftway. I don't see it here at 
Penn. This was a real and substantive issue, and Naomi has apparently 
followed good progressive principles in a way that most Liberals are 
famous for _failing_.

This is one of the most infuriating aspects of modern liberalism-- the 
ignoring of real and substantial progressive principles about actual 
political issues, in favor of arbitrary cultural signifiers. The 
Democrats can spend twenty years pretty much ignoring its labor base, 
and voting for further reductions in labor rights and worker 
protections...but liberals continue to support them. A company can run a 
virtual sweatshop, slash its benefits, and bust unions. But as long as 
they make little gestures towards Nice Things-- smoking bans, "green" 
advertising, maybe celebrations of diversity on MLK day, they're OK.

Personally, I hate smoking, but this moral posing on Gail's part is just 
as revolting.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Mark Krull]

Its a decison between Health vs. the almighty $$. I think
this is why the White Dog employees voted the way they did.
Also most are young and healthy.
Just my 5 cents
-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 18, 2005 12:37 PM
To: 
Cc: "'UnivCity@list.purple.com'" 
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

Gail Defendorf wrote:

> And the crap about treating your workers better, even though they have 
> to work around second-hand smoke is simply that: crap.  If the White 
> Dog was the Progressive Restaurant it thinks it is, it should have 
> banned smoking years ago. 

Considering that the decision was made among the employees, I'd say that 
the White Dog is already operating by far more progressive principles 
than a smoking ban would indicate.

I don't know Naomi at all, and I'm not exactly a White Dog booster 
(their burgers are good, though), but consider the following. She had to 
make a decision about a business policy that would have a substantial 
impact on the success or failure of her businss. And she _polled her 
employees_ to settle the issue. How often do we see this? I sure as hell 
didn't see it when I worked at the Thriftway. I don't see it here at 
Penn. This was a real and substantive issue, and Naomi has apparently 
followed good progressive principles in a way that most Liberals are 
famous for _failing_.

This is one of the most infuriating aspects of modern liberalism-- the 
ignoring of real and substantial progressive principles about actual 
political issues, in favor of arbitrary cultural signifiers. The 
Democrats can spend twenty years pretty much ignoring its labor base, 
and voting for further reductions in labor rights and worker 
protections...but liberals continue to support them. A company can run a 
virtual sweatshop, slash its benefits, and bust unions. But as long as 
they make little gestures towards Nice Things-- smoking bans, "green" 
advertising, maybe celebrations of diversity on MLK day, they're OK.


Personally, I hate smoking, but this moral posing on Gail's part is just 
as revolting.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.


Need someone to watch your pet while you are away?
Call UC Pet Tenders:
Walking, feeding during lunch, vacations, or late evenings.
215 990 6254
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Experienced!!!   References provided



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Mark Krull]

I hope New Jersey passes their law..
It would be nice to enjoy a cold beer without
smelling like an ash try
-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Gail Defendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 18, 2005 12:20 PM
To: "'UnivCity@list.purple.com'" 
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

I have a problem with the logic that the White Dog has to permit smoking 
because the other establishments nearby allow smoking.  And I have a 
problem with the assumption (not proven) that if the White Dog went 
completely non-smoking, that they'd lose customers. 

As a life-long non-smoker, I can tell Naomi that I *don't* frequent 
establishments that allow smoking.  If I know a place is non-smoking, it 
gets my business.  Heck, I really enjoy going to Delaware (the state, 
not the street) and going into a bar/restaurant and plonking down my 
cash because I *know* that I'm not going to smell like death afterwards.

And the crap about treating your workers better, even though they have 
to work around second-hand smoke is simply that: crap.  If the White Dog 
was the Progressive Restaurant it thinks it is, it should have banned 
smoking years ago. 

gail

Jonathan Cass wrote:

> Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat 
> justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other 
> restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
>  
> The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.
>  
> Jonathan A. Cass
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Naomi
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24 AM
> To: Vincent/Roger; UnivCity@list.purple.com
> Subject: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio
>
> Vincent is right, we are not 100% non-smoking. But Abbraccio and
> the White Dog, although we are only 1 mile apart, have very
> different surroundings as far as competition and customer base.
>
> As we are located in the heart of the campus and surrounded by 3
> other bars that all offer smoking all the time at their bars, we
> agonized over the decision to go smoke-free for years before we
> finally came to a compromise decision a year ago. This decision
> came from many discussions with our bar staff, wait staff that
> works in the main bar and seasonal patio area, and our customers.
> We decided to ban all smoking except for in our main bar from 10pm
> - 2am and on the seasonal patio. (We have never allowed smoking in
> the restaurant or at our piano bar.) Our late night customers
> threatened to go elsewhere if smoking was banned entirely and our
> staff (many of whom are non-smokers) were worried that, without
> customers, their incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late
> night crowd is mostly graduate students, hospital staff and
> neighbors - many of whom smoke. With 3 other bars offering smoking
> on our block, we felt that we couldn't completely go smoke free
> without seriously hurting business - and our staffs' income. The
> partial smoke-free decision did hurt financially us, but we felt
> that the calculated loss was for the best for our employees'
> health and for the well being of our customers.
>
> Prior to this decision, we extensively looked into ventilation
> systems that would draft the smoke out of the room more quickly
> but being in a very old building that has already been retrofitted
> for kitchen equipment, we didn't have many options. So we use the
> hood over the grill station to vent it out and have the incoming
> air positioned to bring in fresh air as quickly as possible. We
> also, whenever possible, offer additional seating away from the
> main bar for those that don't want to be near the second-hand smoke.
>
> We really wanted to see this bill go through so that all the bars
> were on an even playing field - we even sent one of our employees
> to testify an the council hearings for this bill. It was really
> difficult for us and for our employees to have to choose between
> physically healthy and financially healthy decisions. Elizabeth is
> right, we do have a choice. We could go completely smoke free on
> principal and hurt the financial balance of the restaurant and
> hurt our employees financial well-being (which they have told us
> they can not afford), or we could compromise and allow smoking in
> 1 of our eight dining rooms for 4 hours a day.
>
> I think making sure the White Dog is here next year and that our
> employees can support themselves is worth a small compromise. We
> support 100+ 

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Daniel Flaumenhaft]

On Mar 18, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Dubin, Elisabeth wrote:
I wonder if any restaurants have considered smoking night vs. 
non-smoking nights.  Like, for example, Friday could be non-smoking 
and Saturday could be smoking at night.  This is something I just made 
up, and I think it's brilliant.  (Of course someone will argue that 
the staff still have to be there and inhale smoke, but you could have 
those who object tend bar on non-smoking night.)
Fiume did that for a while -- I think it was Wednesdays. Don't know why 
they stopped, but if I remember, I'll ask next time I'm there.

Daniel

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[S. Sharrieff Ali]

Title: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio








I didn’t want to reply but I think
this example is relevant.

 

I not sure how many of you are familiar
with LaColombe

coffee house on 19th and Walnut Street, but it was THE

2nd Smokiest place on the
planet..in my opinion. I would 

stop there to pick up coffee (when I was drinking coffee) 

and 90% ..no exaggeration..of
the people there were smoking

something. The café draws a Center-City Euro crowd, and as 

most of us know, Europe IS the smokiest place on the planet!

You could cut the smoke with a knife in
that café any day of the

week.

 

The owner Todd Carmichael personally
stopped smoking and 

for a multitude of reasons banned smoking at LaColombe. Well,

everyone thought it would be the end of the café and yes, some

customers were pissed. But guess what, if you stop in there today,

the tables are still full of customers and it has not hurt their
business

at all. Many of the same people are there and they have gained a new

non-smoking client base. Todd gained a tremendous amount of respect

by making LaColombe smoke-free. 

 

The moral to the story is…….

 

S.

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:15
PM
To: Jonathan Cass;
'Vincent/Roger'; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill,
White Dog & Abbraccio

 

I think you missed the part where I explained that our bar
and wait staff helped us make the decision to have limited smoking hours. They
felt it was too great a financial risk (for them and for the business) to
completely ban smoking based on our clientele and location. And again, we were
in FAVOR of the ban. We want all bars and restaurants to not have to make the
tough decision of either income or health. If all of them are non-smoking,
it’s a non-issue.

Naomi


on 3/18/05 11:39 AM, Jonathan Cass at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hmm -- I don't mean to be
harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat justification to me:
 "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other restaurants so it is
okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."

The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a
pharmacy selling cigarettes.

Jonathan A. Cass 
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24
AM
To: Vincent/Roger;
UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: [UC] No Smoking Bill,
White Dog & Abbraccio

Vincent is right, we are not 100%
non-smoking. But  Abbraccio and the White Dog, although we are only 1 mile
apart, have very  different surroundings as far as competition and
customer base. 

As we  are located in the heart of the campus and surrounded by 3 other
bars that all  offer smoking all the time at their bars, we agonized over
the decision to go  smoke-free for years before we finally came to a
compromise decision a year  ago. This decision came from many discussions
with our bar staff, wait staff  that works in the main bar and seasonal
patio area, and our customers. We  decided to ban all smoking except for
in our main bar from 10pm - 2am and on  the seasonal patio. (We have never
allowed smoking in the restaurant or at our  piano bar.) Our late night
customers threatened to go elsewhere if smoking was  banned entirely and
our staff (many of whom are non-smokers) were worried  that, without
customers, their incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late  night
crowd is mostly graduate students, hospital staff and neighbors - many  of
whom smoke. With 3 other bars offering smoking on our block, we felt that
 we couldn't completely go smoke free without seriously hurting business -
and  our staffs' income. The partial smoke-free decision did hurt
financially us,  but we felt that the calculated loss was for the best for
our employees'  health and for the well being of our customers.

Prior to this decision,  we extensively looked into ventilation systems
that would draft the smoke out  of the room more quickly but being in a
very old building that has already  been retrofitted for kitchen
equipment, we didn't have many options. So we use  the hood over the grill
station to vent it out and have the incoming air  positioned to bring in
fresh air as quickly as possible. We also, whenever  possible, offer
additional seating away from the main bar for those that don't  want to be
near the second-hand smoke. 

We really wanted to see this  bill go through so that all the bars were on
an even playing field - we even  sent one of our employees to testify an
the council hearings for this bill. It  was really difficult for us and
for our employees to have to choose between  physically healthy and
financially healthy decisions. Elizabeth is right, we  do have a choice.
We could go completely smoke free on principal and hurt the  financial
balance of the restaurant and hurt our employees financial  w

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Mark Krull]

Title: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio


...don't underestimate your customers??-Original Message- From: "S. Sharrieff Ali" Sent: Mar 18, 2005 1:07 PM To: 'Naomi' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Jonathan Cass' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Vincent/Roger' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'UnivCity@list.purple.com'" Subject: RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio 
 
  
 

 
  Clean
  Clean
  DocumentEmail
  
  MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
 







 

 
  
 

I didn’t want to reply but I think this example is relevant.
 
I not sure how many of you are familiar with LaColombe
coffee house on 19th and Walnut Street, but it was THE
2nd Smokiest place on the planet..in my opinion. I would 
stop there to pick up coffee (when I was drinking coffee) 
and 90% ..no exaggeration..of the people there were smoking
something. The café draws a Center-City Euro crowd, and as 
most of us know, Europe IS the smokiest place on the planet!
You could cut the smoke with a knife in that café any day of the
week.
 
The owner Todd Carmichael personally stopped smoking and 
for a multitude of reasons banned smoking at LaColombe. Well,
everyone thought it would be the end of the café and yes, some
customers were pissed. But guess what, if you stop in there today,
the tables are still full of customers and it has not hurt their business
at all. Many of the same people are there and they have gained a new
non-smoking client base. Todd gained a tremendous amount of respect
by making LaColombe smoke-free. 
 
The moral to the story is…….
 
S.
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NaomiSent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:15 PMTo: Jonathan Cass; 'Vincent/Roger'; UnivCity@list.purple.comSubject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio
 
I think you missed the part where I explained that our bar and wait staff helped us make the decision to have limited smoking hours. They felt it was too great a financial risk (for them and for the business) to completely ban smoking based on our clientele and location. And again, we were in FAVOR of the ban. We want all bars and restaurants to not have to make the tough decision of either income or health. If all of them are non-smoking, it’s a non-issue.Naomion 3/18/05 11:39 AM, Jonathan Cass at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.Jonathan A. Cass -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of NaomiSent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24 AMTo: Vincent/Roger; UnivCity@list.purple.comSubject: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio
Vincent is right, we are not 100% non-smoking. But  Abbraccio and the White Dog, although we are only 1 mile apart, have very  different surroundings as far as competition and customer base. As we  are located in the heart of the campus and surrounded by 3 other bars that all  offer smoking all the time at their bars, we agonized over the decision to go  smoke-free for years before we finally came to a compromise decision a year  ago. This decision came from many discussions with our bar staff, wait staff  that works in the main bar and seasonal patio area, and our customers. We  decided to ban all smoking except for in our main bar from 10pm - 2am and on  the seasonal patio. (We have never allowed smoking in the restaurant or at our  piano bar.) Our late night customers threatened to go elsewhere if smoking was  banned entirely and our staff (many of whom are non-smokers) were worried  that, without customers, their incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late  night crowd is mostly graduate students, hospital staff and neighbors - many  of whom smoke. With 3 other bars offering smoking on our block, we felt that  we couldn't completely go smoke free without seriously hurting business - and  our staffs' income. The partial smoke-free decision did hurt financially us,  but we felt that the calculated loss was for the best for our employees'  health and for the well being of our customers.Prior to this decision,  we extensively looked into ventilation systems that would draft the smoke out  of the room more quickly but being in a very old building that has already  been retrofitted for kitchen equipment, we didn't have many options. So we use  the hood over the grill station to vent it out and have the incoming air  positioned to bring in fresh air as quickly as possible. We also, whenever  possible, offer additional seating away from the main bar for those that don't  want to be near the second-hand smoke. We really wanted to see this  bill go through so 

Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Naomi]

Title: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio



Some people will argue that, because we serve meat that we are contributing to obesity and heart disease rates and, therefore do not care about the health of our customers. A vegetarian lifestyle, like a non-smoking lifestyle, is in deed more healthy for the body and for the planet. But there are many people out there who choose to eat meat. Just like there are many folks out there who choose to smoke. Our compromise with the meat was that we would only sell humanely raised meat. Our compromise with smoking is that we have a small area of our restaurant designated smoking for a short period of time. 

Is this our final decision? Absolutely not. We reserve the right to try other options as circumstances change. (Elisabeth, interesting idea of a non-smoking night or two. I’ll bring it up next week.)  If enough new and current customers come in late at night and say they want a smoke-free environment, we would gladly change our policy. (And by all means, the next time you are in the Cafe during the 11 hours that we do not allow smoking, and want to leave a note that you would come during our late night hours were it not for the smoking, please do. All management, the owner and many others here read the comment cards. And policies do change based on the feedback we receive from them.) But for now, this is what the customers and employees have said they want.

Trust me, I would be thrilled if we go 100% non-smoking. It’s really difficult, confusing and space-consuming to advertise when we have smoking and when we are non-smoking. As I do the advertising and promotions, I’d much rather be able to say it all in 2 words instead of a dozen. But I can’t ignore the desires of our customers and staff. Our mission is to serve the customers, staff, community and the earth - listed in no particular order. (To read more, visit http://www.whitedog.com/mission.html ) All decisions made at the Cafe takes all of those areas into account.

And just for the record, I am not the owner of the Cafe. (But thanks for the thought!) Officially my title is Communications Director but, as anyone in small business knows, you wear whatever hat needs to be worn at the moment. 

Naomi



on 3/18/05 12:20 PM, Gail Defendorf at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I have a problem with the logic that the White Dog has to permit smoking 
because the other establishments nearby allow smoking.  And I have a 
problem with the assumption (not proven) that if the White Dog went 
completely non-smoking, that they'd lose customers. 

As a life-long non-smoker, I can tell Naomi that I *don't* frequent 
establishments that allow smoking.  If I know a place is non-smoking, it 
gets my business.  Heck, I really enjoy going to Delaware (the state, 
not the street) and going into a bar/restaurant and plonking down my 
cash because I *know* that I'm not going to smell like death afterwards.

And the crap about treating your workers better, even though they have 
to work around second-hand smoke is simply that: crap.  If the White Dog 
was the Progressive Restaurant it thinks it is, it should have banned 
smoking years ago. 

gail

Jonathan Cass wrote:

> Hmm -- I don't mean to be harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat 
> justification to me:  "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other 
> restaurants so it is okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."
>  
> The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a pharmacy selling cigarettes.
>  
> Jonathan A. Cass
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Naomi
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24 AM
> To: Vincent/Roger; UnivCity@list.purple.com
> Subject: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio
>
> Vincent is right, we are not 100% non-smoking. But Abbraccio and
> the White Dog, although we are only 1 mile apart, have very
> different surroundings as far as competition and customer base.
>
> As we are located in the heart of the campus and surrounded by 3
> other bars that all offer smoking all the time at their bars, we
> agonized over the decision to go smoke-free for years before we
> finally came to a compromise decision a year ago. This decision
> came from many discussions with our bar staff, wait staff that
> works in the main bar and seasonal patio area, and our customers.
> We decided to ban all smoking except for in our main bar from 10pm
> - 2am and on the seasonal patio. (We have never allowed smoking in
> the restaurant or at our piano bar.) Our late night customers
> threatened to go elsewhere if smoking was banned entirely and our
> staff (many of whom are non-smokers) were worried that, without
> customers, their incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late
> night crowd is mostly graduat

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[S. Sharrieff Ali]

Title: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio








Yeah..pretty much.

 

S.

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Krull
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:37
PM
To: S. Sharrieff Ali; 'Naomi';
'Jonathan Cass'; 'Vincent/Roger'; 'UnivCity@list.purple.com'
Subject: RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill,
White Dog & Abbraccio

 



...don't underestimate your customers??


-Original Message- 
From: "S. Sharrieff Ali" 
Sent: Mar 18, 2005 1:07 PM 
To: 'Naomi' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Jonathan Cass' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
'Vincent/Roger' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'UnivCity@list.purple.com'" 
Subject: RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog &
Abbraccio 





 
  
 

 
  Clean
  Clean
  DocumentEmail
  
  MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
 

 

 
  
 


I didn’t want to
reply but I think this example is relevant.

 

I not sure how many of
you are familiar with LaColombe

coffee house on 19th
and Walnut Street, but it
was THE

2nd Smokiest
place on the planet..in my opinion. I would 

stop there to pick up
coffee (when I was drinking coffee) 

and 90% ..no
exaggeration..of the people there were smoking

something. The café draws
a Center-City Euro crowd, and as 

most of us know, Europe
IS the smokiest place on the planet!

You could cut the smoke
with a knife in that café any day of the

week.

 

The owner Todd Carmichael
personally stopped smoking and 

for a multitude of
reasons banned smoking at LaColombe. Well,

everyone thought it would
be the end of the café and yes, some

customers were pissed.
But guess what, if you stop in there today,

the tables are still full
of customers and it has not hurt their business

at all. Many of the same
people are there and they have gained a new

non-smoking client base.
Todd gained a tremendous amount of respect

by making LaColombe
smoke-free. 

 

The moral to the story
is…….

 

S.

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:15
PM
To: Jonathan Cass;
'Vincent/Roger'; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill,
White Dog & Abbraccio

 

I think you missed the part where I explained that
our bar and wait staff helped us make the decision to have limited smoking
hours. They felt it was too great a financial risk (for them and for the
business) to completely ban smoking based on our clientele and location. And
again, we were in FAVOR of the ban. We want all bars and restaurants to not
have to make the tough decision of either income or health. If all of them are
non-smoking, it’s a non-issue.

Naomi


on 3/18/05 11:39 AM, Jonathan Cass at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hmm -- I don't mean to be
harsh Naomi, but that sounds like a big fat justification to me:
 "Hey, we treat our staff better than most other restaurants so it is
okay that we subject them to a known carcinogen."

The White Dog permitting smoking is akin to a
pharmacy selling cigarettes.

Jonathan A. Cass 
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:24
AM
To: Vincent/Roger;
UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: [UC] No Smoking Bill,
White Dog & Abbraccio

Vincent is right, we are not 100%
non-smoking. But  Abbraccio and the White Dog, although we are only 1 mile
apart, have very  different surroundings as far as competition and
customer base. 

As we  are located in the heart of the campus and surrounded by 3 other
bars that all  offer smoking all the time at their bars, we agonized over
the decision to go  smoke-free for years before we finally came to a
compromise decision a year  ago. This decision came from many discussions
with our bar staff, wait staff  that works in the main bar and seasonal
patio area, and our customers. We  decided to ban all smoking except for
in our main bar from 10pm - 2am and on  the seasonal patio. (We have never
allowed smoking in the restaurant or at our  piano bar.) Our late night
customers threatened to go elsewhere if smoking was  banned entirely and
our staff (many of whom are non-smokers) were worried  that, without
customers, their incomes would be drastically reduced. Our late  night
crowd is mostly graduate students, hospital staff and neighbors - many  of
whom smoke. With 3 other bars offering smoking on our block, we felt that
 we couldn't completely go smoke free without seriously hurting business -
and  our staffs' income. The partial smoke-free decision did hurt financially
us,  but we felt that the calculated loss was for the best for our
employees'  health and for the well being of our customers.

Prior to this decision,  we extensively looked into ventilation systems
that would draft the smoke out  of the room more quickly but being in a
very old building th

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Jonathan Cass]

Title: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio



Naomi-
 
Part 
of the analysis that appears to have gone into the WD's decision to permit 
smoking at the bar after 10:00 p.m. was the assumption that business would 
suffer -- you would lose all those "big tipping smokers" -- if smoking was 
prohibited. This is the same argument that has been made by many within 
your industry in lobbying for the defeat of the smoking-ban bill. My 
impressions, based solely on listing to WHYY (NPR and their local morning news) 
and reading the Inky is that there is no real empirical evidence 
that demonstrates that bars and restaurant have suffered 
financially in those cities where a ban has been enacted.  I think this 
industry argument is based in large part on anecdotal statements of smokers who 
claim that they are going to stop drinking in bars if the ban is put into 
effect.  We both know that this is absolute bullshit.  Smokers will 
continue to drink and will continue to drink in bars -- they'll just smoke 
outside.  The advantage of the ban is that cause an increase in 
the non-smoking clientele (who, because of the smoke, had previously given 
up, or decreased, their drinking/eating out b/c of the smoke). (As I 
recall, the restaurant and tavern industry made the same argument about the 10 
cent drink tax and they were wrong about that as well). 
Jonathan A. Cass -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of NaomiSent: 
Friday, March 18, 2005 2:03 PMTo: Gail Defendorf; 
UnivCity@list.purple.com; Dubin, Elisabeth; Brian SianoSubject: Re: 
[UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio
Some people will argue that, because we serve meat 
  that we are contributing to obesity and heart disease rates and, therefore do 
  not care about the health of our customers. A vegetarian lifestyle, like a 
  non-smoking lifestyle, is in deed more healthy for the body and for the 
  planet. But there are many people out there who choose to eat meat. Just like 
  there are many folks out there who choose to smoke. Our compromise with the 
  meat was that we would only sell humanely raised meat. Our compromise with 
  smoking is that we have a small area of our restaurant designated smoking for 
  a short period of time. Is this our final decision? Absolutely not. We 
  reserve the right to try other options as circumstances change. (Elisabeth, 
  interesting idea of a non-smoking night or two. I'll bring it up next week.) 
   If enough new and current customers come in late at night and say they 
  want a smoke-free environment, we would gladly change our policy. (And by all 
  means, the next time you are in the Cafe during the 11 hours that we do not 
  allow smoking, and want to leave a note that you would come during our late 
  night hours were it not for the smoking, please do. All management, the owner 
  and many others here read the comment cards. And policies do change based on 
  the feedback we receive from them.) But for now, this is what the customers 
  and employees have said they want.Trust me, I would be thrilled if we 
  go 100% non-smoking. It's really difficult, confusing and space-consuming to 
  advertise when we have smoking and when we are non-smoking. As I do the 
  advertising and promotions, I'd much rather be able to say it all in 2 words 
  instead of a dozen. But I can't ignore the desires of our customers and staff. 
  Our mission is to serve the customers, staff, community and the earth - listed 
  in no particular order. (To read more, visit http://www.whitedog.com/mission.html 
  ) All decisions made at the Cafe takes all of those areas into 
  account.And just for the record, I am not the owner of the Cafe. (But 
  thanks for the thought!) Officially my title is Communications Director but, 
  as anyone in small business knows, you wear whatever hat needs to be worn at 
  the moment. Naomion 3/18/05 12:20 PM, Gail Defendorf 
  at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I have a problem with the logic that the White Dog 
has to permit smoking because the other establishments nearby allow 
smoking.  And I have a problem with the assumption (not proven) 
that if the White Dog went completely non-smoking, that they'd lose 
customers. As a life-long non-smoker, I can tell Naomi that I 
*don't* frequent establishments that allow smoking.  If I know a 
place is non-smoking, it gets my business.  Heck, I really enjoy 
going to Delaware (the state, not the street) and going into a 
bar/restaurant and plonking down my cash because I *know* that I'm not 
going to smell like death afterwards.And the crap about treating 
your workers better, even though they have to work around second-hand 
smoke is simply that: crap.  If the White Dog was the Progressive 
Restaurant it thinks it is, it should have banned smoking years ago. 
gailJonathan Cass wrote:> Hmm 

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[weslab]

No cigarette with my late night Martini at The White Dog - fugetabootit - I'll 
see ya at LTs. I'm with Krigman on this one. Restaurant/bar-owners should be 
allowed to develop their own policies based on their particular clientele. 
There are plenty of smoke free establishments which is great but to force a 
place like McGlinchy's (for example) to ban smoking is downright unamerican. 
I'm pro-choice.


-- Original message from "Jonathan Cass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
-- 


Naomi-
 
Part of the analysis that appears to have gone into the WD's decision to permit 
smoking at the bar after 10:00 p.m. was the assumption that business would 
suffer -- you would lose all those "big tipping smokers" -- if smoking was 
prohibited. This is the same argument that has been made by many within your 
industry in lobbying for the defeat of the smoking-ban bill. My impressions, 
based solely on listing to WHYY (NPR and their local morning news) and reading 
the Inky is that there is no real empirical evidence that demonstrates that 
bars and restaurant have suffered financially in those cities where a ban has 
been enacted.  I think this industry argument is based in large part on 
anecdotal statements of smokers who claim that they are going to stop drinking 
in bars if the ban is put into effect.  We both know that this is absolute 
bullshit.  Smokers will continue to drink and will continue to drink in bars -- 
they'll just smoke outside.  The advantage of the ban is that caus!
 e an increase in the non-smoking clientele (who, because of the smoke, had 
previously given up, or decreased, their drinking/eating out b/c of the smoke). 
(As I recall, the restaurant and tavern industry made the same argument about 
the 10 cent drink tax and they were wrong about that as well). 
Jonathan A. Cass 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:03 PM
To: Gail Defendorf; UnivCity@list.purple.com; Dubin, Elisabeth; Brian Siano
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio


Some people will argue that, because we serve meat that we are contributing to 
obesity and heart disease rates and, therefore do not care about the health of 
our customers. A vegetarian lifestyle, like a non-smoking lifestyle, is in deed 
more healthy for the body and for the planet. But there are many people out 
there who choose to eat meat. Just like there are many folks out there who 
choose to smoke. Our compromise with the meat was that we would only sell 
humanely raised meat. Our compromise with smoking is that we have a small area 
of our restaurant designated smoking for a short period of time. 

Is this our final decision? Absolutely not. We reserve the right to try other 
options as circumstances change. (Elisabeth, interesting idea of a non-smoking 
night or two. I'll bring it up next week.)  If enough new and current customers 
come in late at night and say they want a smoke-free environment, we would 
gladly change our policy. (And by all means, the next time you are in the Cafe 
during the 11 hours that we do not allow smoking, and want to leave a note that 
you would come during our late night hours were it not for the smoking, please 
do. All management, the owner and many others here read the comment cards. And 
policies do change based on the feedback we receive from them.) But for now, 
this is what the customers and employees have said they want.

Trust me, I would be thrilled if we go 100% non-smoking. It's really difficult, 
confusing and space-consuming to advertise when we have smoking and when we are 
non-smoking. As I do the advertising and promotions, I'd much rather be able to 
say it all in 2 words instead of a dozen. But I can't ignore the desires of our 
customers and staff. Our mission is to serve the customers, staff, community 
and the earth - listed in no particular order. (To read more, visit 
http://www.whitedog.com/mission.html ) All decisions made at the Cafe takes all 
of those areas into account.

And just for the record, I am not the owner of the Cafe. (But thanks for the 
thought!) Officially my title is Communications Director but, as anyone in 
small business knows, you wear whatever hat needs to be worn at the moment. 

Naomi



on 3/18/05 12:20 PM, Gail Defendorf at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I have a problem with the logic that the White Dog has to permit smoking 
because the other establishments nearby allow smoking.  And I have a 
problem with the assumption (not proven) that if the White Dog went 
completely non-smoking, that they'd lose customers. 

As a life-long non-smoker, I can tell Naomi that I *don't* frequent 
establishments that allow smoking.  If I know a place is non-smoking, it 
gets my business.  Heck, I really enjoy going to Delaware (the state, 
not the street) and going into a bar/res

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Jonathan Cass]

I am all for personal vices, so long as it doesn't interfere with my
peaceful enjoyment, threaten my health, or directly impact my pocketbook.

Pennsylvania (and Rendell who signed the bill), in a remarkable bit of
stupidity, now permits a motorcyclist to ride their bike with no helmet.  A
certain segment of the idiot cycling community long argued that it was a
matter of choice and they should be permitted to be stupid and not wear a
helmet if they so chose.  I agree, so long as they, and only they, are
responsible for paying for the medical and rehab care associated with brain
injuries that are caused when your head hits the pavement at 35 miles per
hour.  If cyclists are willing to purchase a separate policy of first party
medical insurance to cover themselves in the event of a cycling accident,
and to waive any right to have Medicaid pick up the tab for their care, then
hats away. But that is not how the system works.   We all have to pay for
the medical and rehab care associated with the catastrophic injuries caused
by accidents involving riders who don't wear helmets.  The only saving
grace, is, I guess, that they have better chance of killing themselves when
they don't wear a helmet which can substantially reduce medical-related
costs.

You can smoke outside WD just like you do at your own house.  Anyway, I know
for a fact that you haven't had a drink at the White Dog since LT was really
LT.  You are showing your age, my friend.

Jonathan A. Cass
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:28 PM
To: Jonathan Cass
Cc: 'Naomi'; 'Gail Defendorf'; 'UnivCity@list.purple.com'; 'Dubin,
Elisabeth'; 'Brian Siano'
Subject: RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio


No cigarette with my late night Martini at The White Dog - fugetabootit -
I'll see ya at LTs. I'm with Krigman on this one. Restaurant/bar-owners
should be allowed to develop their own policies based on their particular
clientele. There are plenty of smoke free establishments which is great but
to force a place like McGlinchy's (for example) to ban smoking is downright
unamerican. I'm pro-choice.


-- Original message from "Jonathan Cass"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: --


Naomi-

Part of the analysis that appears to have gone into the WD's decision to
permit smoking at the bar after 10:00 p.m. was the assumption that business
would suffer -- you would lose all those "big tipping smokers" -- if smoking
was prohibited. This is the same argument that has been made by many within
your industry in lobbying for the defeat of the smoking-ban bill. My
impressions, based solely on listing to WHYY (NPR and their local morning
news) and reading the Inky is that there is no real empirical evidence that
demonstrates that bars and restaurant have suffered financially in those
cities where a ban has been enacted.  I think this industry argument is
based in large part on anecdotal statements of smokers who claim that they
are going to stop drinking in bars if the ban is put into effect.  We both
know that this is absolute bullshit.  Smokers will continue to drink and
will continue to drink in bars -- they'll just smoke outside.  The advantage
of the ban is that cause an increase in the non-smoking clientele (who,
because of the smoke, had previously given up, or decreased, their
drinking/eating out b/c of the smoke). (As I recall, the restaurant and
tavern industry made the same argument about the 10 cent drink tax and they
were wrong about that as well).
Jonathan A. Cass
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:03 PM
To: Gail Defendorf; UnivCity@list.purple.com; Dubin, Elisabeth; Brian Siano
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio


Some people will argue that, because we serve meat that we are contributing
to obesity and heart disease rates and, therefore do not care about the
health of our customers. A vegetarian lifestyle, like a non-smoking
lifestyle, is in deed more healthy for the body and for the planet. But
there are many people out there who choose to eat meat. Just like there are
many folks out there who choose to smoke. Our compromise with the meat was
that we would only sell humanely raised meat. Our compromise with smoking is
that we have a small area of our restaurant designated smoking for a short
period of time.

Is this our final decision? Absolutely not. We reserve the right to try
other options as circumstances change. (Elisabeth, interesting idea of a
non-smoking night or two. I'll bring it up next week.)  If enough new and
current customers come in late at night and say they want a smoke-free
environment, we would gladly change our policy. (And by all means, the next
time you are in the Cafe during the 11 hours that we

RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

[Mark Krull]

Are they? Can anyone name one in UC? How bout Center City.
Like I said I would like to have a beer or 2 without smelling like
smoke when I choose
Salutations,
Mark

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mar 18, 2005 4:27 PM
To: Jonathan Cass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 'Naomi' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Gail Defendorf' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
"'UnivCity@list.purple.com'" , 
"'Dubin, Elisabeth'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
        'Brian Siano' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio

No cigarette with my late night Martini at The White Dog - fugetabootit - I'll 
see ya at LTs. I'm with Krigman on this one. Restaurant/bar-owners should be 
allowed to develop their own policies based on their particular clientele. 
There are plenty of smoke free establishments which is great but to force a 
place like McGlinchy's (for example) to ban smoking is downright unamerican. 
I'm pro-choice.


-- Original message from "Jonathan Cass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
-- 


Naomi-
 
Part of the analysis that appears to have gone into the WD's decision to permit 
smoking at the bar after 10:00 p.m. was the assumption that business would 
suffer -- you would lose all those "big tipping smokers" -- if smoking was 
prohibited. This is the same argument that has been made by many within your 
industry in lobbying for the defeat of the smoking-ban bill. My impressions, 
based solely on listing to WHYY (NPR and their local morning news) and reading 
the Inky is that there is no real empirical evidence that demonstrates that 
bars and restaurant have suffered financially in those cities where a ban has 
been enacted.  I think this industry argument is based in large part on 
anecdotal statements of smokers who claim that they are going to stop drinking 
in bars if the ban is put into effect.  We both know that this is absolute 
bullshit.  Smokers will continue to drink and will continue to drink in bars -- 
they'll just smoke outside.  The advantage of the ban is that caus!
 e an increase in the non-smoking clientele (who, because of the smoke, had 
previously given up, or decreased, their drinking/eating out b/c of the smoke). 
(As I recall, the restaurant and tavern industry made the same argument about 
the 10 cent drink tax and they were wrong about that as well). 
Jonathan A. Cass 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Naomi
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:03 PM
To: Gail Defendorf; UnivCity@list.purple.com; Dubin, Elisabeth; Brian Siano
Subject: Re: [UC] No Smoking Bill, White Dog & Abbraccio


Some people will argue that, because we serve meat that we are contributing to 
obesity and heart disease rates and, therefore do not care about the health of 
our customers. A vegetarian lifestyle, like a non-smoking lifestyle, is in deed 
more healthy for the body and for the planet. But there are many people out 
there who choose to eat meat. Just like there are many folks out there who 
choose to smoke. Our compromise with the meat was that we would only sell 
humanely raised meat. Our compromise with smoking is that we have a small area 
of our restaurant designated smoking for a short period of time. 

Is this our final decision? Absolutely not. We reserve the right to try other 
options as circumstances change. (Elisabeth, interesting idea of a non-smoking 
night or two. I'll bring it up next week.)  If enough new and current customers 
come in late at night and say they want a smoke-free environment, we would 
gladly change our policy. (And by all means, the next time you are in the Cafe 
during the 11 hours that we do not allow smoking, and want to leave a note that 
you would come during our late night hours were it not for the smoking, please 
do. All management, the owner and many others here read the comment cards. And 
policies do change based on the feedback we receive from them.) But for now, 
this is what the customers and employees have said they want.

Trust me, I would be thrilled if we go 100% non-smoking. It's really difficult, 
confusing and space-consuming to advertise when we have smoking and when we are 
non-smoking. As I do the advertising and promotions, I'd much rather be able to 
say it all in 2 words instead of a dozen. But I can't ignore the desires of our 
customers and staff. Our mission is to serve the customers, staff, community 
and the earth - listed in no particular order. (To read more, visit 
http://www.whitedog.com/mission.html ) All decisions made at the Cafe takes all 
of those areas into account.

And just for the record, I am not the owner of the Cafe. (But thanks for the 
thought!) Officially my title is Communications Director but, as anyone in 
small business knows, you wear whatever h