Bars Ignore Smoking Ban Rather Than Lose Customers (Ohio)

[OhioChick]

POSTED: 3:57 pm EST November 18, 2007

AKRON, Ohio -- Some Ohio bar and restaurant owners are ignoring the state's public smoking ban for fear of losing customers, risking fines up to $2,500 and nuisance charges before the health board.

The ban, passed by Ohio voters in November 2006, outlaws indoor smoking in most public places, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and, pending court appeals, private clubs such as VFW halls.

Many businesses are trying to bring their workplaces into compliance, said Cheri Christ, the sanitation supervisor for the Akron Health Department. Many others quietly -- or in some cases flagrantly -- ignore the ban in an attempt to hold on to a regular customer base.

Local health departments began enforcing the law on May 3, and have since logged about 17,900 complaints of violations, or 92 a day. After an initial warning, a second violation is $100, growing to $2,500 for fifth and subsequent violations.

Fines can double for bar owners who flagrantly break the rules, said Terry Tuttle, environmental health supervisor for the Summit County Health Department, who is charged with enforcing the law. Business owners may also face nuisance charges before the state health board, which could lead to more fines or possibly forced closure of their business.

To date, Corky's Thomastown Cafe in Akron has drawn 37 complaints and owner Billy McFrye has been fined $100. McFrye said the ban has cost him at least 25 percent of his business.

"People aren't coming out," he said. "I've got numbers from last year to this year, and you can see it. It's unreal. It's gross."

Contrary to some predictions, nonsmokers haven't come out to replace smokers who now choose to do their drinking at home.

"Nonsmokers don't go out anyway," McFrye said. "They're the cheapest people breathing air. I've been in business 23 years, and I know there's nothing cheaper than a nonsmoker. I'm really upset with it. I wish the people who voted for it would get cancer."

http://www.newsnet5.com/health/14632354/detail.html

[DS1]

1. wow, that McFrye guy seems reasonable and grounded

:wtf:
"Nonsmokers don't go out anyway," McFrye said. "They're the cheapest people breathing air. I've been in business 23 years, and I know there's nothing cheaper than a nonsmoker. I'm really upset with it. I wish the people who voted for it would get cancer."

[Mojorabbit]

2. I read a study years ago

that said that smokers ordered more from menus and tipped better.

[DS1]

4. I tip with cigarrettes

:P

[OhioChick]

5. .....

:rofl:

[onehandle]

12. I believe it.

Smoking is a weakness.

So is ordering high fat/salty bar foods and overspending.


I read a study years ago that smokers were less productive in the workplace.

I believe that too.

[SoCalDem]

21. The people who "won" WWII and built the armada of ships and the air-full of planes

and ran the factories at home, and kept the businesses and economy of the US humming along...well MOST of them smoked....and we don't regard them as a diseased, vile bunch of dirty, nasty smokers...We call them "The Greatest Generation"

Times change and things that USED to be OK, can suddenly become NOT OK, but saying that a particular group of people are(were) less productive than any other group is kind of "off base", and I would re-check who did that "study" you also believe.

One fact about tobacco use is this.. It USUALLY does not "catch up" with people until they are much older..and in modern times, people have often been outsourced/mergered out of their lifelong career (if they had been so lucky to even have that)..and those people are OFF the company paid health insurance by then... and most "retirement plans" do not even HAVE health care, so if these people are between 50-65 (medicare age) they are often NOT running to doctors ( no insurance-no money), and smoking related illnesses are notoriously swift and deadly..

I would venture a guess that the money "saved" by society vs the money "spent" on health care for that group is far outweighed by the "savings" of Social security never recieved by them.

The vindictiveness of (some) non-smokers never ceases to astound me :(

[WillyT]

31. Hell SoCalDem, The People Who "Won" WWII BUILT This Fucking Country As It Is Presently Configured !!

They managed to survive saving the fucking world once from fascism, something their offspring seem to severely SUCK at, and they were hard workers and drinkers and smokers for the most part!

As much as I like to say that there are many a current rightwing prig that would have fitted neatly into the 1930's mindset, there are unfortunately many on the left that, much to their bewilderment, would do so as well!

:grr:

[God23]

46. Thank you.

Said so well from the grandson of a WWII vet.

[God23]

48. That low life smoker Roosevelt...

[onehandle]

92. Over 2/3s of the greatest generation were smokers.

The odds are that lots of exceptional workers were smokers along with less productive workers.

That's just a guess. Here's some facts in study after study after study.

Smokers drag down a workplace, study says
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/worklife/08/14/cb.smokers/index.html

Smokers 'more sickly and less productive'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1524684.stm

Smokers are less productive
http://www.newash.org.uk/ash_yefhv0e2.htm

Smokers Less Productive at Work
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2001/smokers-less-productive-at.html

[Mojorabbit]

101. References suspect

"Smokers were thought to be less productive than their colleagues because as well as suffering more ill-health, they also tended to take regular smoking breaks." ( Wow they took more breaks!)


The research in the specialist journal Tobacco Control, a publication of the British Medical Journal, also revealed that current smokers felt their colleagues and supervisors were more likely to rate them as less productive.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I'd like to see the original studies myself. In the second one smokers took a whole 2 more sick days off than non smokers Plus the bottom three links referenced the SAME article in a journal called tobacco control (agenda?)which had a whole 300 subjects.

[BlackVelvet04]

104. I could take 5 times the breaks I do and still be more productive

than the people I work with. I don't spend my time sending out stupid email jokes, hanging out gossiping, etc. etc. when I take a break I have a few puffs and get back to work.

[Toasterlad]

148. THANK You!

When I was a smoker, no one at my office DARED to complain about my three daily smoke breaks, because I went out, had a smoke, and was back at my desk in under five minutes...and NEVER spent most of the day gossiping at a co-workers desk or on the phone with a 20 minute personal call like so many of my "more efficient" co-workers.

Whether a person smokes or not has NO bearing on their work ethic.

[onehandle]

115. Multiple studies wrong. Internet yahoos right.

The Internets are full of yahoos who say Michael Moore and his many cited "studies" are suspect too.

Global Warming, Evolution, Gravity... It's all suspect.


Got it. You win.

[Mojorabbit]

120. No

It is just that all your links referenced the one study which was published in a magazine with an agenda if one goes by it's title. There may be other studies out there.

[onehandle]

122. Two studies, actually. Three of them did cite one.

Most of them added more examples and statistics to cited studies.

Statistics related to the cost to business of employee tobacco use include:

* Cigarette smokers are absent from work 6.5 days per year more than nonsmokers.

* Approximately eight percent of a smoker?s working hours are spent on smoking rituals.

* Smokers make about six more visits to health care facilities per year than nonsmokers. In a study of health care utilization in 20,831 employees of a single, large employer, smokers had more hospital admissions per 1,000 (124 vs. 76 admissions), a longer average length of stay (6.47 vs. 5.03 days), higher average costs for outpatient visits ($122 vs. $75), and a higher average insured payment for health care ($1,145 vs. $762).

* Average lifetime medical care costs for male smokers are 32 percent higher than for men who have never smoked. For female smokers, that cost is 24 percent.

* Estimated medical costs attributable to smoking in the US in 1993 were $50 billion. This includes hospital expenses, physician expenses, nursing homes, prescription drugs and home health care expenses.

Here are more...

Smokers take more sick leave and are more likely to perform poorly at the office (U.S. Navy Study).
http://50plus.com/display.cfm?libraryID=119&cabinetID=391&documentID=17597

Smokers’ Lower Productivity Costs Employers, New Study Finds (Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine)
http://acoem.org/news.aspx?id=2320&archive=1

The costs of health damage and productivity losses attributable to cigarette smoking in Germany (Department of Health Economics, University of Ulm Germany)
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/31

[Mojorabbit]

129. Your first link

also references the same study as your previous post and states this
However, it is still not clear if cigarette smoking is directly linked to lower performance, researchers say.

"Cigarette smoking might simply be a 'marker' for other underlying factors, such as non-conformity and high risk taking that contribute to poorer performance in the military," Dr. Terry Conway of San Diego State University's school of public health and his colleagues said.

Your second link is a group that are corporate physicians and in a fight with the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health which charged them with"The article characterizes ACOEM as exerting a negative and controlling influence over the American political and economic systems that have affected occupational health" and “Some private practice and academic occupational physicians may hold office in ACOEM, but not until they prove that they are reliable enablers of the corporate medicine agenda.” I don't know enough about them to know if it is true or not.

Your third link is a study which was published in the same magazine Tobbaco Control which does have an agenda.

You may be right but I like to know who is funding the studies and if they have an agenda.

[riverdeep]

96. The thing is, at that time, smoking was not widely considered harmful.

Back then, you couldn't delineate any qualities about someone because the practice was spread throughout the whole population. Today, it's a more self-selecting group that smokes, because the cultural meaning has changed.

[Mojorabbit]

102. That depends on your age I think

I started smoking when it was totally acceptable. The campaign against smoking did not start till decades later.

[Mojorabbit]

45. What a bunch

of baloney.

[onehandle]

93. See post #92.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2309554&mesg_id=2311480

[Clark2008]

79. I read they're more productive because they take breaks

and relax before moving onto another project. It clears their brains and they work smarter.

[Toots]

84. Yep that's right smokers are smarter

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Clark2008]

134. They're smarter than those who look their noses down at others.

But, since reading comprehension isn't your bag, take a look again at what I said.

I said it clears their brains and they WORK smarter, Einstein.

Speaking of smart... :eyes:

[onehandle]

94. See post #92.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2309554&mesg_id=2311480

[personman]

123. Weakness? How about poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunities?

It is interesting that people facing the most economic oppression are still good tippers. I'm speculating of course, but perhaps it represents a small, subconscious rejection of capitalist individualism, and the embrace of solidarity and empathy and caring about your fellow man? Perhaps that's why they'll never be good capitalists, and have to settle instead for being human? Just a thought...

"I read a study years ago that smokers were less productive in the workplace."

Maybe unhappy wage-slaves doing subconsciously what the I.W.W. and radical labor have traditionally advocated: direct action, sabotage, in the form of a "slow-down" or playing hookie, and good for them.

"The findings in this report indicate that 1) the socioeconomic status of U.S. adults is inversely related to their likelihood of smoking and 2) during 1983--2002, the gap in smoking prevalence by socioeconomic status did not narrow and might have widened."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5320a2.htm

Edit:
I suspect a lot of this demonization of smokers is motivated by elite contempt for the poor or "less-desirable" classes of people. I seem to recall an old clip of Chomsky discussing marijuana. It was a long time ago, so don't quote me on this, but I think he was basically saying that marijuana was originally criminalized to go after immigrants and poor folks, and that generally, once something is associated with the poorer classes of people, it is demonized or banned... If I remember correctly, he touched on the topic of cigarettes and accurately predicted they would next... I'll dig around.

-personman

[freebrew]

141. It used to be OK to drink and drive, too.

Do you think that anyone could stand against the DWI laws today?

No, and for some of the very reasons smoking is no longer tolerated.

Also, maybe customers are staying away because he ignores the ban???

I don't care if someone smokes or not, but when I go out, I really don't want to have to fumigate everything afterwards.

[leeroysphitz]

147. Wow. Do you ever stop and listen to yourself? nt

[Atman]

86. He'll still lose customers, albeit much more slowly.

:hi:

.

[KamaAina]

133. Hillary doesn't smoke, right?

smokers ordered more from menus and tipped better.

:popcorn:

:hide:

[Kingshakabobo]

6. I almost felt sorry for him until I read that last sentence.

I hope they fine the shit out of the asshole and I hope is non-smoking clientele get the point that they are not welcome.

Have fun at your going out of business sale, asshole.:rofl:

[Oeditpus Rex]

49. He said nothing worse than what I've read right here

from people who hate smokers, not just smoke.

[Raine]

8. If they're cheap it's probably

cause they can't find their wallet in all that smoke. :puke: Nice guy ... :sarcasm:

[HughMoran]

56. I stopped going to the bar because of the smokers

It was so disgusting - I would smell of smoke the next day and my jacket would smell for days.

The smokers would have their butts smoke drifting into my face while I was trying to eat. I never-ever let my smoke disturb other people when I smoked - some selfish people ruin it for everyone.

[JHB]

99. That seemed to me to be the more likely explanation...

Nonsmokers went to other places than where the smokers congregated, so they've developed a different set of habits. Just because there's a smoking ban now doesn't mean they're going to suddenly jump to a new set of hang-outs.

[LynneSin]

132. This dip is no different than the dips we had here in Delaware and that happened in Cal.

There were bars I never went to because the one time I might have gone, the smoke was so bad inside I was hacking for days later. So I wouldn't go to them.

Now since the ban, there are a few that I have started going back on occasion. Mind you, I don't drink as much as I use to.

But the one thing I can say - those bars & restaurants that survived the smoking ban in Delaware survived because they adapted. Many of the better bars provided an outdoor patio, with heat and many with a bar setup with tables) that are opened all year round. So if you want to go to a bar in DE and smoke your head off, you sit in the outdoor patio and have fun.

Now, as for the asshole and what he said about us non-smokers - he can go rot in hell. I can assure you that as a non-smoker, I have always been an excellent tipper (I only tip 15% if the service sucked - usually between 20-25% on up). I hope HE gets cancer and dies. And I have never said that about another smoker either - but for him, I'll make an exception

[Mojorabbit]

103. I stopped

when they banned smoking. It was too much aggravation going outside and as a woman standing outside did not feel safe.

[BlackVelvet04]

106. Yeah, the smell of alcohol on you was so much more

pleasant. LOL

[HughMoran]

130. Considering it was a bar

I think that goes without saying :rofl:

...nice try BTW...

[K8-EEE]

66. Do that many people really smoke anymore?

I don't know that many smokers....they're definitely in the minority here (Los Angeles.) Geez is this 1950?

Hey smokers, you might want to quit poisoning yourself! If for no other reason, big tobacky funds the GOP!

[Clark2008]

80. Many people who don't smoke regularly smoke when they drink.

[Mojorabbit]

105. I believe

a fifth of the population does.

[Clark2008]

78. He sounds as reasonable as many non-smoking "nazi's" I've

heard.

People don't go to bars for their health. I understand restaurant bans, but bars? :eyes:

[Dorian Gray]

175. Wow........

He is an idiot, isn't he?

[enid602]

3. Akron

Sounds like Akron's really ahead of the curve.

[bbinacan]

7. If I owned a bar in OH

I'd do the same thing. Good job OH bar owners!:smoke:

[Greyhound]

9. Oh no that's impossible, ask any advocacy foundation for these smoking bans.

All those people that were laid off after the ban and the diminished tips are just figments of your imagination.:eyes:

This Johnny-come-lately restaurateur has no clue what he's talking about.

[TahitiNut]

10. "Nonsmokers don't go out anyway," McFrye said. "They're the cheapest people breathing air. "

I resemble THAT!! :grr: :grr:


:smoke:

[blues90]

11. I never got the rational behind banning smoking in certain places

It's one thing in the workplace but in bars or other places where people have a choice not to enter at all , then stay the hell out , it's that simple . Even outdoors , people want no smoking yet they are willing to breath bus and car exhaust without a whimper .

I am sick of the revenge of the non- smoker . There are many things that effect my health that people who are non smokers do . I remember people at work pissing about my smoking out doors but yet it was fine when they walked in the office with bags of smelly grease fast food and tipped the scales at 300 pounds . they cost me my health losing my lunch not only with the smell but watching the food roll around in their open mouths like a clothes dryer with bits flying about as they spoke and also padded the costs of healthcare with their weight alone .

I am not promoting smoking , wish I never started however if people want things fair then give something up too .

[beyurslf]

15. Bars, airplanes, restaurants, and malls are all places you can "choose" to enter.

And, in each one, people WORK! They are workplaces for the people who serve you while you are "choosing" to be there.

[percussivemadness]

17. people who choose to work in bars, do so knowing they are working in a private establishment

that may have smokers..

Sorry, your argument is bunk. A bar is owned by an individual, who pays good money for his license to sell liquor. Non - smokers who insist that where they want to spend their money should be smoke free is ok, however what about the smoker who wishes to spend his money in an environment is non-smoker free? No, that`s not even considered a valid option by the puritan non-smoker community who wish to enforce their holier than thou bigotry on everyone. The mantra is, I can`t smoke, neither can you.

Then like the cowards they are, they try and play the "what about the workers" card. What a load of sanctimonious BS. The only non-smoker who I take seriously, is the one who doesn`t drive a car because he is concerned about the damage done to innocent passers by by his exhaust fumes, every other non-smoker who insists that private establishments be smoke free, but continues to pollute the atmosphere by driving a car or suv, and not harm only non-drivers like me, but enforce their lifestyle choices onto me in public places, are nothing more that grotesque hypocrites.

peace

[Der Blaue Engel]

19. Yes, people "choose" to work in bars

They could just go out and get PhDs, the selfish wankers, but they insist on working in bars.

:eyes:

[beyurslf]

24. People "choose" to work in lots of places. It doesn't mean they should be

subjected to smoke. Since when is causing cancer a right? Tobacco use, obesity, and second hand smoke are the 3 top preventable killers. Why are two them related? Cry me a river, really. If I had my way, smoking would be illegal or taxed at 20 bucks a pack.

[OhioChick]

27. While We're at it.....

Let's also tax Twinkies and Doritos at 20 bucks per box/bag.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

44. Fuck, make it 40.

[dropkickpa]

119. Bullshit.

I used to work in retail management. After 3 armed robberies, I CHOSE to quit rather than risk my health that way, even though I was a single mom who was also in school full-time. EVERYONE has a choice, whether or not they choose to exercise that is their own problem.

[Der Blaue Engel]

121. I'm sorry, what are you calling bullshit?

I'm not sure I understand.

[dropkickpa]

126. You make it sound as if

they have no choice in where they work. That's bullshit. NO ONE is forcing people to work in a bar. I placed my family in a potentially very dire financial situation by CHOOSING to quit a dangerous workplace, but I placed my continued survival above my paycheck. Everyone else is free to do the same. Last I heard, bars do not employ slaves or indentured servants, therefore, the employees are free to quit anytime they choose.

I have never met one bar employee who said to themselves "Hmmm, I HATE smoke and don't want to endanger myself by exposure to it. I know, I'll go work in a bar, that's the PERFECT environment for me!!". I work aroung BSL 2 & 3 agents everyday, things that could make me AND my family very ill if not dead if I get exposed. I knew that going into my field. Should I decide that I don't want to place myself in that type of danger, I'm smart enough to know that I'll need to move to another field, simple as that. I'm not going to force all cancer researchers in my state stop working with biohazardous agents.

I know a LOT of phD students who DO actually work in bars, and they all like their jobs.

[Der Blaue Engel]

128. I'm saying some people don't have all of the choices that other people take for granted

Some may work in a bar because they didn't have the opportunity for higher education. Or maybe that's all they're cut out to do, or as you say, they just like it, who knows. Why should they have to quit their jobs to not be endangered?

I don't understand this mentality, that certain workers should just suck it up and quit complaining about risks to their health because they could just go work somewhere else.

That argument has been used for sexual harrassment, too.

[alarimer]

26. Municipalities regulate other aspects of restaurants and bars

Like food safety and cleanliness. Why do they have no authority over air quality?

[kster]

57. Agreed, do not become an iron worker if you

are afraid of heights, do not become a bartender or waitress/waiter if your afraid of smoke.

The list goes on and on you would not become a firefighter if you are afraid of smoke, what would they say, that building is full of smoke I will not go in there, So why in the f-ck would you be a bartender or watress\waiter if you know you will have to work where there will smoke.

[Raejeanowl]

64. That's the great fallacy

It's really the non-smoking bars wanting to restrict the competition.

[LanternWaste]

125. You base this statement on mere conjecture.

You base this statement on mere conjecture... or is there a peer reviewed study that's been done validating that this is indeed, a bar on bar fight?

[Raejeanowl]

158. I Base It On Common Sense

Who loses business if smokers go to smoking bars where they are free to smoke if they choose? Haberdashers?

Sorry that I've personally put a hair up your butt (no pun intended) over something, but your devil's advocacy over my smoking-related posts grows more and more preposterous.

Speaking of things up butts, regarding another comeback of yours, if you're not aware of nonsmoker attitudes toward the "character" of smokers, you are deliberately blinding yourself. That you have personally never heard someone make the literal statement is totally irrelevant; we don't often hear people dare verbalize racism or whatever, but that doesn't prove its non-existence, or invalidate our gut-awareness of its existence.

By the way, I'm a former smoker. Good luck in your efforts to cut down and quit.

[blues90]

18. I am refering to bars with owners who do the work and workers who

Choose to work in the damn bar , not some country club .

It seems pretty simple to me , you put up a damn sign to hire only smokers and the same sign smoking bar only enter at your own damn risk and shut up .

Why should laws be made to rule out choices people are perfectly able to make on their own .

The one thing that will always stop a person from quitting anything is when they are forced to by pressure and some insane one sided law .

It almost come down to a choice where a smoker has to choose between smoking or take the risk of becoming a non smoking preacher asshole .

I smoke , I want to quit , it is not easy and anyone who forces me is not making it one bit easier and the non smoking preacher is risking a punch in the nose that seems to get in everyones business .

How about this , people who drive like assholes and there are many , are putting the safe drivers at risk , the risk of death or at least damage of some sort along with everyone in the safe drivers car .

New rule , one accident caused by the asshole driver , quit driving , no more , the end and also while walking to work or the store the safe driver can preach endlessly . People don't have to drive either anymore than people have to go into a smokers bar . No excuse about living far from work you need a car . you chose to live out there .

[Raejeanowl]

60. Why Not Smoking and Non-Smoking Bars?

blues90, the part I don't buy is the b.s. that workers in these places have no choice about where they work.

And yes, some non-smokers will practically suck a tailpipe before standing within 500 feet of a smoker, because they think emissions laws have cleaned this larger problem up. Smoke they can't see doesn't exist. They also think that the lung cancer statistics magically exclude auto emissions (barbecues, fireplaces, searing meat, etc.) from the lives of persons exposed to second-hand smoke.

It's just easier to harass a person or persons with the habit/addiction.

[LanternWaste]

124. If there's any good thing about the ban (and I think there are plenty)

If there's any good thing about the ban (and I think there are plenty), it's that these bans and tax hikes are slowly weaning me of my nicotine habit. When I could light up and annoy the hell out of people around me as my God given right, I did. But now, as it's being explained to me that it's not my God-given right to blow smoke in people's faces, I find myself smoking less. And as the tax increase, so the corollary is true-- my smoking decreases.

Ten years ago-- two packs a day. Presently-- 1/2 pack a day.

[NMDemDist2]

13. same here in NM BUT the owners/managers are off the hook here

only the smoking patron gets the ticket

[L0oniX]

14. Yea. Bar owners need more alcoholics too so drink up and party till you drop...

because it will help the economy and the bar owners bottom line.
:sarcasm:

[Fuzz]

37. It's called freedom

[wuushew]

47. Addiction is contrary to free will

Rats in Skinner boxes frequently choose to electrically stimulate their pleasure center at the expense of food or sleep.

It is arrogant to think that man is so elevated in nature from the rat.

[Raejeanowl]

63. It's Arrogant To Think...

That if you don't suffer an addiction, you're automatically superior to those who do...free will determines how you view this.

[LanternWaste]

127. I haven't seen anyone make the claim they're superior because

Except I haven't seen anyone make the claim they're superior because they don't have an addiction.

I'm addicted to nicotine. It does no one any good, least of all-- me. The more places it's restricted, the less I smoke. The less I smoke, the better for me and those around me. It's easy math.

[orleans]

72. (skinner has rats in boxes? wow--du is so totally wacky!)

just kidding

[orleans]

71. someone sounds like they would cheer the return of prohibition n/t

[L0oniX]

151. I suppose you'd feel the same way if someone you knew got killed by a drunk driver

[orleans]

156. actually, i don't feel the same way. my cousin was killed by a drunk driver

just before her high school graduation.

i don't drink.

i don't pray either.

but i'm not trying to stop all these christians from going off to church.

[frylock]

16. you can't even find a bar or restaurant in cali anymore post-ban..

they all shut down. that mcfrye is a real fuckstain, too. i hope he loses his fucking shirt over this ban.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I know. It's a total wasteland here. It's like The Road Warrior- complete urban devastation

since the all-powerful smoker vote has been angered. :eyes:

[The Straight Story]

23. There is one here in Bakersfield I go to that allows smoking

of course business did not drop off, because people did not quit smoking in bars really.

When the ban first passed here in CA I went to a bar in Tehachapi, most people were still smoking - they just did not have ashtrays (used beer bottles).

Ban advocates will point to how well bans work, but in reality the ban is mostly in name only (and I found the same thing in Columbus, Ohio as well - the ban did not even stop the bouncer from smoking, and when cops came in on a different issue one night, they did not even wince at people smoking there).

It is feel good legislation from nanny staters :)

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Bakersfield and Tehachapi notwithstanding, lesser cities in CA like Los Angeles and San Francisco

you're not going to find too much smoking in bars.

[High Plains]

113. Yeah, now you have to go to smokeasies.

Cool. Just like Prohibition days.

[Kingshakabobo]

33. That's a crock of shit.

[The Straight Story]

38. Really, come here and I will take you to the bar I go to (nt)

[AlCzervik]

34. bullshit, we have 3 bars here and there is no freaking way you can smoke inside

they have patios set up for that and one of the bars is a local dive.

[The Straight Story]

39. You here in Bakersfield? Here is one bar you can smoke at:

sandrini's.

[AlCzervik]

40. no in elk grove, we all live under the same state rules.

and if you attempted to have a smoke inside the local dive they'd kick your ass out in a second---as they should.

[The Straight Story]

41. So you are not in favor of choice by adults???

That is where my issue is. What is wrong with having a choice between smoking and non-smoking places?

I am not one who favors telling people how they can live their lives. That some think adults are too stupid to make their own choices smacks of control over personal choice to me. Maybe to some control of personal freedom is a good thing, but to me it is not.

[AlCzervik]

42. you can still smoke outside and if they want to open bars for smokers that are staffed

by people who smoke than fine by me.

[SoCalDem]

43. The laws are usually carefully crafted to PROHIBIT that very thing.

the non-smoking bars want ALL the business..THEY don't want to share.

[NashVegas]

50. In Tennessee, The Restaurant Association Wanted the Ban

Because some places claimed to want to go smoke-free, but they were afraid they would lose customers to places that allowed smoking.

You read that right.

The law that passed gave restaurants & bars the option to be 21 & over if they wanted to allow indoor smoking. Several places chose that option.

[SoCalDem]

51. Yep.. That's why they wrote the law that way here in CA..

They DID issue an exception for the "Cigar Clubs"...the ones where the rich guys go to ogle the "girl assistants" and to puff their stogies in private...

but the lowly folks who still use a LEGAL substance could not have a choice.. so a large number of those people now enteratin in each others homes, and don't have to pay high "bar-prices"..

Out here we do have "Patio dining" at lots of places, so we can get around it if we choose, but patio-dining in the snow-belt would not be so pleasant in January

[Kingshakabobo]

53. That's interesting. The smokers i know don't like to smoke in their OWN home because it stinks. n/t

[AlCzervik]

54. i don't smoke in my house or car, i am the only smoker in my family and i don't

want stink their living area and my car is small so if i smoked in it i imagine it would stink to high heaven. i do smoke in my backyard.

[LanternWaste]

131. I'm part of that group. I smoke only on the balcony.

I'm part of that group. I smoke only on the balcony when at home. Being a smoker, I didn't think I'd notice the stench of a smoker's place, but I have. I think it was because I was smelling the "all-natural" tobacco the cheapskates buy and roll themselves. Man, that's some stinky weed, right there!

Regardless, I promised I'd never have someone think to themselves how stinky my apt. is... so the only things I light up are scented candles and the fireplace. :)

[Kingshakabobo]

138. That's my point. I bet most of the people on these threads......

......wouldn't THINK of stinking up their own homes but they don't have any problem stinking up other peoples clothes and forcing other people to breath their crap.

[Clark2008]

139. Correct.... and the only places surviving past bedtime are the

over 21 places.

Hubby and I go out on "date night" once every 4 to 6 weeks. We've noticed that the restaurants are dead after about 9 or 10 p.m., while the bars are packed.

I hear now that many restaurants are closing their doors to under 21 patronage after 9 p.m. so they can allow smokers.

Their businesses are hurting.

[LynneSin]

140. Delaware was the same exact thing - it was the restaurant industry that fought it

Like I said - most places in DE adapted so smokers could enjoy going out and enjoying a smoke without the laws being violated.

And a few of the places that did go out of business was more than just the smoking ban. I know one restaurant claimed they were a victim - but their service and food was so piss-poor and way overpriced that hardly anyone went there when you could smoke inside.

[LynneSin]

137. I don't care what your choice is as long as it doesn't infringe on my choice

and these bans have absolutely NOTHING to do with my choice (to not smoke) but the thousands of people who are employed in the Hospitality industry who have to deal with this issue day after day even if it is NOT their choice.

I waited tables for years before concept of actually banning indoor public smoking. I was between jobs and waiting tables was the only way to make ends meet without having to move back home with my parents. And I had no choice but to inhale the thousands upon thousands of cigerettes smoked during those years of waiting tables, which after a year or so took a toll on my lungs. I hacked just as bad as they did. My mother swore I was smoking even though I have never touched the stuff.

Sure, your first comment would probably be like "well if it was that bad why get a job in a restaurant?" Well, you try making ends meet at a shitty minimum wage job while trying to go back to school to take classes and get your life back on track all while being the sole supporter of your rent, car, and oodles of bills. At a restaurant I could work my talebone off and make a decent salary to boot thanks to the tipping system. And btw - when it comes to tipping smokers vs. no-smokers there was very very little difference in the size of the tip.

So these laws have nothing to do with us patrons who want to dine in healthy non-smoking environments but employees rights to work in a condition that is not harmful to their health.

You made a choice - clearly you're addicted and don't want to quit. You made a choice that affects others when you do it. Stop trying to blame it on the "nanny system". These laws are the right thing to do

[Mojorabbit]

144. You made a choice

to work in a smoking establishment. I am sure it was not the only single job out there. It is all about choices.

[LynneSin]

145. I made a choice because at the time there were no other choices

* There were no choices in picking a restaurant that was non-smoking because back in the mid-90s only California was radical enough to ban smoking indoors

* And I choose the restaurant industry because if you took the time to actually READ my post, you'd realize that the restaurant industry is the one industry where someone with very little skills (I had skills - just not skills that were needed in the job market) could actually earn a decent salary. I was able to wait tables while paying for all my own expenses AND take classes at the local community colleges to learn new skills.

So thank you for assuming that people like myself should be forced to work minimum wage jobs instead of an opportunity to work a job where I could actually make a few dollars legally and without stripping my clothes off.

Not my problem you were dumb enough to get addicted to smoking. So now you lose your choice. I had to laugh when I saw the prices of smokes at a rest stop on the NJ turnpike - $9. Even my friend was smart enough to finally quit the habit when she realized she would never ever be able to enjoy smoking the way she use to when she was younger and smoking was affordable. And six months later she wishes she had quit years ago.

[Mojorabbit]

149. As I said you made a choice

and I am glad you are so happy to see smokes so high in price. I am sure those minimum wage people people who are being taxed on them to pay for social programs thank you for your kindness.

[LynneSin]

161. Perhaps those minimum wage people should quit smoking

Sorry - it's a disgusting habit and no one, regardless of social status, should be using those things.

And what you clearly are too boneheaded to realize is YOUR choice affects others, mine has not.

[Mojorabbit]

162. What a mean spirtited

smug set of posts. You don't know anything about me.

[LynneSin]

163. Well clearly you know nothing about me

When you sit there and say that I should basically work for minimum wage just so I don't have to put up with someone's smoke.

Waiting tables saved my life - but practically ruined my lungs. It's nice to know that people today have a choice to work a job without sacrificing their health. But nooooo - this is all about your right to pollute the air around people who have opted to not do that.

And seriously - don't go down that path. You're talking to a gal who watched her father die of lung cancer after years of smoking. 41 is a young age to die. Why people still take up this disgusting habit is beyond me and personally I hope they severely limit where people can smoke and continue taxing. And when they're done with that they should start looking at foods that have transfat, extremely high fat content and high fructose corn syrup and tax those too (which has been my vice)

[Mojorabbit]

180. As I said

smug and meanspirited. Obviously we will not agree. This is the same mentality that has lead to loss of privacy re drug testing and searches of schools. I grew up in a different world than today. I abhor nannys. I am an adult and can make my own choices. I don't want govt making them for me nor holier than thou prohibitionists who instead of accomidating people want total bans on things they don't approve of.
Next thing you know we will have refrigerator police. No use in continuing this conversation.

[LynneSin]

181. You're the one that keeps replying

Who said I enjoyed nanny states?

I just don't want to smell your damn smoke. Shame you couldn't actually read the warnings that have been distributed everywhere about what these things can do to you. Now you whine about the fact that basically smokers will be confined to their own homes. This isn't some civil rights thing - this is a person who made a choice after ample warning to take up a habit that the majority of the population finds repulsive. What, so you could be cool looking? Because you had the cash to toss away? There is no reason why anyone needs to take up this habit, but they still do and then they bitch when they're limited to where they can actually do this habit.

Not my problem. I read the warnings and figured it wasn't worth it. Now I don't have that monkey on my back and now I can enjoy going out again without that filth smell all over me.

And no one is banning cigerettes - just keeping them in places where they won't affect those who have chosen not to take up that habit.

BTW - glad you enjoy supporting a company that 90% of it's political contributions go to help elect more republicans.

You gonna reply? Have a field day!

You call me mean-spirited and smug? Someone owes me the life of one father. At least back when he took up the habit was when TV was still advertising how healthy the habit was. By the time he realized he needs to quit was too late.

[Dorian Gray]

176. I have no problem with cigarettes being taxed so highly

I'm an ex-smoker. I think many of the anti-smoking laws are bullshit and draconian, but the taxes? I don't care about that so much. If it helps people quit, good. It helped ME quit.

[K8-EEE]

68. Not getting the drama-I was at a PACKED non-smoking bar last night

Although I'm sure the OH places don't have the benefit of EL CONGUERO! MR. PONCHO SANCHEZ!!! on the congas to bring in the crowds. HE'S AWESOME!

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I guess that's the difference between Ohio and California, because our smoking laws are VERY popular

And bars and restaurants have all done very well since the ban was enacted.

And smokers go outside. Waaaaah.

[The Straight Story]

29. The whole battle is about choice for adults

To choose where to work, where to drink, where to eat.

I am pro-choice for people in this regards, I don't see that as bad really. I guess some like choice less than others, but then I have always been pro-freedom :)

[WillyT]

32. The Thing That Bugs The Shit Out Of Me Is...

that there are people that would NEVER lower themselves to go to certain bars, but would still insist that the bars they would NEVER spend a dime in, be smoke free.

And...

they use the excuse of the employee's health.

When I was a bartender and they changed the law, almost every person who worked there smoked, and the employees were just as pissed as the customers about the new law.

It's the Mommy State, and many of us, while loving our mothers truly, moved out so we could live our lives as we saw fit.

Or unfit.

:wtf:

[Warren DeMontague]

75. It's nice outside.

I really don't see what the problem is.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. I'm pro-freedom, too. When cigarette smokers start getting hauled off to

jail like pot smoking cancer grannies do, I'll concede that there's "oppression". I will be right there arguing that as consenting adults, you have absolutely the right to do with your bodies what you wish.

But that's YOUR body. Not mine, not my family.

When you're talking about indoor, enclosed, public places, cities and states are well within their rights limiting people's smoking. I'd wager that, despite your "pro-freedom" stance, you acknowledge that it is legitimate to limit smoking in some places. Gas stations? Hospital ICUs? How about preschools?

Well, really, people could choose to patronize non-smoking gas stations, hospitals, or preschools, right?

The bottom line is, yes, adults should have the choice and freedom when it comes to their own bodies, but in public indoor places THEIR smoke becomes EVERYONE ELSE'S problem. So you have to BALANCE the freedom and rights of the smoker with the freedom and rights of everyone else.

And asking people to step outside to smoke, in my opinion, is not some kind of grand imposition on their rights. No one is saying you can't smoke, you just can't do it INSIDE. Like I said- smokers aren't being sentenced to 5, 10 years in prison under ridiculous mandatory minimum laws, like users of other drugs are. They are being asked to step outside.

And it works. I had a lot of smoker friends who complained and stomped around and made great speeches about how grumble grumble grumble they would never stand for it when the law was coming down the pike, and they groused for about a week, and then after that they were back at the bar, going out to the patio or the sidewalk to smoke.

There is a difference between making something against the law and restricting where people can do it. I know, the grand civil liberties help-we're-being-taken-to-Auschwitz-every-time-we-can't-smoke-over-our-pancakes-at-the-IHOP smokers brigade doesn't want to get that. But look, I think consenting adult porn, and masturbation for that matter, should be legal, too- but that doesn't mean I think people should be able to walk into a Restaurant and pull out a Hustler and start doin' their business. I also think that it's legal to go to the bathroom- but that doesn't mean that you can walk into a restaurant and take a dump on the table.

Of course, I suppose using the smokers rights logic, people could choose to go to restaurants that were take-a-dump-on-the-table free.

You know what? You're never going to convince me. I remember growing up decades ago in the Midwest, when the "personal choice" that was supposed to lead to businesses "self-selecting" whether to be smoking or not meant that EVERY establishment was choked with smoke. I watched my dad die of lung cancer. I think the laws here in California (and believe me, they may not be enforced where you are but they sure are everywhere else) are great. And most people here- who are not "anti-freedom", not by a longshot- agree with me.

[spoony]

81. Including our choice to not be assaulted when walking into a building

that the law told us would not be full of poisonous fumes.

[maseman]

30. I have been to the Thomastown

Cafe and it is a dump. I live in Akron and can tell you the owner's core client is an older smoker. But the place is a dump. Plenty of nicer local joints to hang out in Akron.

I used to smoke and quit several years ago. I think if a bar wants to have smoking that is fine. But it should be a smoking licesne at a premium rate like having a liquor license. Some bars wouldn't pay it and I would go there. I hated second-hand smoke even as a smoker.

[JVS]

67. The whole country is not California.

In California people might be happy to go outside, but California generally has nicer weather than most of the places in the country.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. I would agree with you there.

That's about the most reasonable argument against it, I think, in somewhere like the midwest.

[RFKJrNews]

110. Precisely

Doesn't it put the smoker's health at greater risk by forcing them to stand outside in the rain, snow, freezing weather?

My, my, how kind and loving we are to our fellow men and women.

Somehow I don't think nonsmokers would like it very much if we were made to eat our dinners out in the cold.

This problem is so easily solved, and it certainly doesn't require local, state, or federal laws being passed. Simply let the establishment's owner decide how they will run their own business. We will have smoking clubs and non-smoking clubs.

Don't want cancer? Go to a non-smoking bar, silly! End of argument. Everybody goes home happy! :)

[Warren DeMontague]

157. Or, if you need to smoke in a bar or restaurant, you can stay out of california.

See, that's what we call a non-indoor smoking STATE. And we've made our decision, it's not going anywhere, and people who can't hang with it are FREE to go to other states to do their smoking indoors.

And we're quite happy about it.

For the record, I lived in the midwest for many many years before smoking bans entered the public consciousness, and there was NO SUCH THING as a "non-smoking" bar or restaurant. The idea that the marketplace will magically solve the issue to the extent that some places will be non-smoking and others wont, in my experience that isn't going to happen. "Legal" smoking inside means that ALL establishments become smoking.. which isn't a problem, if you're a smoker who doesn't see what the big deal is.

But if you acknowledge that indoor smoke is a problem for the people who don't want to breathe it, there's a reason these things have been legislated. I don't know what the answer is for places like the midwest, (maybe smoking and nonsmoking areas with separate ventilation systems) but I also don't think that "making letting owners decide" the bottom line is a recipe for anything other than a nice smoking wonderland for the smokers, and a big "fuck you, suck it up" to the rest of us.

That's certainly how it USED to be.

[Clark2008]

177. And bring back in colds, flu and pneumonia to your non-smokers.

:P

[AlCzervik]

28. on the rare occasion i go out for a beer i go outside to smoke, of course the

weather here is never very cold so it's not a problem. I don't smoke in my house or car but i do smoke outside in my backyard. I don't miss being able smoke inside a restaurant or bar, i guess i've just adjusted to it. Do i feel like a pariah when i light up---you bet.

[Fuzz]

35. I was sitting at a bar last night, sipping a martini while waiting for a table

and I found it so strange that I couldn't smoke while sitting at a damn bar. There was a bowl of unshelled peanuts in front of me, a cold gin martini, a tv turned on sports and fried food being eaten, but not an ashtray to be seen. I understand that some people are offended, but damn. Can't there be somewhere smokers can go and just enjoy themselves?

Each business should have the choice, and employees who work at those places also have the choice to work there are not. I'm offended by a lot of things, I choose to avoid them, I don't try to outlaw it.

[AlCzervik]

36. London, you can still smoke at the pubs or at least you could when i was there 2 years ago

and man was that ever weird, so weird that i still went outside to smoke.

[TheMightyFavog]

77. Not anymore

England instituted a smoking ban this last July. I know. I was there. Many pubs have now opened up rooftop gardens where you can go smoke.

[K8-EEE]

69. The problem is if YOU smoke, so does the person next to you

It's one thing if you want to breathe extra toxins and smell like an ashtray, but you are imposing that on other people in a public space.

[NashVegas]

52. I Believe It

Before my state passed a recent ban, anytime there was a story on anti-smoking legislation in the paper, comments from antis outnumbered comments from smokers something like 5-1, and they were pretty vicious.

After the ban passed, the numbers became more even and the smokers gave no quarter. Anti-smokers, increasingly, are on the receiving end of the smack-down. It's long past due.

[kster]

62. There will be an increase of smoker and "people who don't give a shit if you smoke" clubs

mark my word, thats the only way to get rid of these anti smoking people.

You have 70% majority INSIDE of a bar that smoke, another 15% that don't smoke but don't really give a shit that the majority of people in the bar smoke, its the 10-15% that are trying to get laws to prevent 85% majority from doing their thing, thats 10-15% of the people in the bar that are going to be happy.

We need to put that 10-15% ON THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN.

Private Clubs!!!

[SoCalDem]

85. Won;t happen.. In CA, the ONLY "clubs" allowed to have smokers were

the private "cigar Clubs".. ie. rich folks like Schwarzenegger & his cronies..

[NuttyFluffers]

153. true, but CA is a special case; we often ignore stupid, oppresive laws...

i mean, think about how casual cannabis and other drug usage/production is pretty much throughout the state. we're pretty good about questioning and ignoring heavy-handed 'authority.' we're also laid back as hell and won't get into a confrontation about this until many years from now, i believe.

[mitchtv]

55. They are worring for nothing

Business generally picks up when the ban is enacted. They cried in SF years ago and the world didn't end..

[NashVegas]

88. People in SF Are Not Like People in the Midwest and South

In California, in general, people are more prone to have government regulate behavior because something is "good for you" than other parts of the country.

However, as the anti-smoking movement has grown it's become less about what's good for you, and more about punishing those asshole smokers. It's just not the best way to go about it.

[mitchtv]

136. That's not why business picks up

People start to go places that were heretofor obnoxious ,unhealthy enviroments, not because the Gov regulated anything. Maybe Unions have something to do with it, because they support the workers who MUST work in these places, often to their own detriment. In any event my point is correct ,and it will turn out ok because peoples' lungs are the same everywhere. I'm anxious to hear how NY is working out . They are differnt too!

[Clark2008]

143. Business isn't picking up because of the ban in Tennessee..

Restaurants are switching to "over 21" faster than you can say "can I have a light" because they're losing money.

[NuttyFluffers]

152. that's because there's a lot of underground smoking in SF.

;)

just 'cause non-smokers don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

:evilgrin:

[Beelzebud]

58. Good for him. He should have the right to sell and use a legal product in his bar.

[Raejeanowl]

59. I Think It's Bizarre and Hypocritical

That you can't smoke a cigarette at a bar, but you can have a couple of drinks (or more) and get in your car and drive without hassle...unless you're caught.

Almost makes me wish I still smoked. Guess I'll just have to drink to that.

[MrSlayer]

61. A lot of the local bars in Philly do the same.

It should be up to the owner of the bar as to whether or not he'll allow smoking. In the local bars they mostly ignore the ban. Some leave a jar out for people to put money toward the inevitable fines. The whole thing is ridiculous.

[Snarkturian Clone]

89. mcglinchey's

259 s. 15th street. One of the only bars where you can smoke in Center City- get away with it because they don't serve food. I dont' even smoke but I go there because I like to see people living in freedom around me.

[Phillycat]

107. I haven't seen that in Philly.

The local law here is that if less than 15% of their profit comes from food, you can smoke. So McGlinchey's, 12 Steps Down, all the dive bars, you're able to smoke because it's not against the law. Other than a private club like the Palmer (shithole that it is)I haven't seen anyone smoking in bars that sell more than 15% of profit in food. Where have you seen that?

[Snarkturian Clone]

109. I think that Oscar's (15th & Sansom) tried it

when the ban first went into effect. I think they got busted.

[MrSlayer]

154. A lot of the local taprooms in South Philly do it.

Up and down 2nd street and in my neighborhood which is in the Broad and Oregon area.

[K8-EEE]

65. I love the smoking ban (here in LA) - it got me out hearing music again!

I got to the point where I could not stand to breathe the air in your average jazz club! Smoking just should not be a public habit. It's too pervasive. If someone is smoking next to you, you taste it, you smell it, your clothes smell like it the next day.

It's hard for smokers to realize exactly how much their habit smells, I mean literally! My friend's husband was laughing that she had vowed to quit for Lent and seemed shocked that he could tell that both her car and her person smelled to high heaven. It affects their sense of smell; one reason things taste so good after you quit, and the resulting weight gain.

[Raine]

70. Me too

I remember back before the ban, I couldn't go into a bar, a club or bowling alley cause the smoke was so horrid. It's so nice to be able to go into those places now without breathing in smoke a stinking to high heaven when you come out. It's hard to believe that long ago in the dark ages they even allowed smoking in restaurants and stores. x(

[kster]

73. The Majority, 85% of a bars customers

will have no where to go to drink beer and smoke cigarettes together, OR WILL WE? Have fun in OUR bars.

We will be meeting in an undisclosed location, smokers SHHHHH!!!

[K8-EEE]

150. The smell will give your undisclosed location away!

Actually I prefer the smoker smell without all the unsuccessful attempts to cover it up. It's when they have the stale smoke smell and then the cologne/gum combo over it, it makes it worse. Perfume mixed with tobacco smoke plus the smell of food is particularly deadly!! While I'm at it, a note to people who use cheap perfumey candles at the dinner table: DON'T! Smoke or no smoke, that's awful.

[Clark2008]

142. No - it makes you gain weight because you eat more to

overcome the hand-to-mouth cravings.

I quit when pregnant with both my children and never noticed I could taste anything any better. I taste things fine now.

[trumad]

82. Yummy

[StarryNite]

116. Yeah, smokers are smarter..

:eyes:

It really must be terrible to have that addiction.

[BBradley]

165. I'm surprised your neck hasn't broken from the angle you look down at people.

[MadHound]

83. That's what's happening here locally

We had a couple of pool halls, heavy smoker clientelle, go under after the smoking ban passed. The rest of the bars got the message quick, and now they tolerate smoking on the sly. No ashtrays, but hey, that's what beer bottles are for.

The proposition is coming back up again for another review and vote because ars and clubs are suffering some serious business losses. Hopefully it is overturned, otherwise the nannystaters will be driving even more establishments out of business.

[CT_Progressive]

87. Pfft. Fine them. Fine them all. Business is not affected, its been proven over and over.

In other states.

[MadHound]

111. Really?

Actually from what I've seen and heard, it is impacting bars and clubs in a very negative way. Fewer people are coming in, and those that do aren't staying as long. Locally I've seen two pool halls go under since the local smoking ban went into effect because most of their business came from smokers.

If you've got any links to back up your claim, I'd appreciate it.

[CT_Progressive]

114. Here is my proof.

1) Go to a bar in a state that has banned smoking inside (like my state, CT)
2) Stand outside the bar, near any of the exits.
3) Count the number of people standing outside, having a smoke, before returning inside again to drink.
4) Go inside, talk to the bar owner. Ask them how business is.

[LanternWaste]

135. lots of recent, highly publicized smoking bans have gone into effect recently

North Central Texas... lots of recent, highly publicized smoking bans have gone into effect recently, the most recent one being in Fort Worth (I luv yew, Fut Wurth!) and none of the bars I go to have gone bankrupt-- just more people coming in and having fun! :shrug:

[snooper2]

166. Bullshit....

They passed a smoking ban in Plano Texas about a year ago...where my office is. Now when we have happy hours or going away parties we go just a little south of Plano to Dallas where you can smoke. Only the places that have an outside table area 20 feet from any doorway in Plano have some smoking. But those are few in numbers...

[CT_Progressive]

170. Pftt.

Plano is a n00b.

CT has had the ban for many years, and people smoke outside in every single bar I go to, in every town and city in CT. The ban affected no bars whatsoever. New bars open all the time and are successful despite the smoking ban.

This thread is complete bullshit cigarette propaganda.

[snooper2]

172. A city is a n00b, whatever that means...

Here, read......Texas the state doesn't have the ban by the way, indvidual municipalities...difference from your wonderful CT...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/plano/stories/DN-nosmoking_01met.ART.West.Edition1.43e3ea8.html

Smoking bans in effect today

Restaurant owners say regulations hurt Southlake, Plano


12:00 AM CDT on Friday, June 1, 2007
By MARICE RICHTER / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

The after-work regulars at Snookie's Bar & Grill in Southlake like to compare themselves to the affable beer-drinking buddies in the popular '80s sitcom Cheers.

There is a whole group of us who come here every day after work," said Ken Morris of Southlake.

But the good times have ended for them at this local establishment with the city's new anti-smoking regulations that go into effect today, prohibiting smoking in all public buildings as well as congested areas of parks and other places.

snip....

Southlake's new restrictions, among the most stringent in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, will send this group of friends to neighboring Grapevine, Westlake, Keller or the Hurst-Euless-Bedford area, where restaurants still accommodate those who want a smoke with a cocktail or after a meal.

"Grapevine is only one exit down the freeway, so it isn't so bad for us," said Snookie's patron Scott Parizo. "But we feel that it is unfair that as citizens of Southlake, we have to go to another town to spend our money.

"We would rather stay here," he said.

Snookie's, one of a handful of Southlake restaurants that allowed smoking, has experienced a dramatic drop in business since the ordinance was adopted in April, owner Gene Street Jr. said.

"We catered to a niche crowd that no one else was taking care of," Mr. Street said. "We hope we can shift our demographics and attract new patrons. But it's going to be tough because competition in the restaurant business is cutthroat."

Snookie's is part of a small Dallas-based chain that also battled tougher anti-smoking regulations in Dallas.

"Our Frisco location started out nonsmoking and has done well," Mr. Street said. "The problem is when you start out one way and have to change directions midstream."

Some Plano restaurateurs said they also expect to lose customers to nearby competitors in Richardson and Allen because of their city's new regulations.

[CT_Progressive]

174. A "n00b", or newbie, is someone or something too new to understand something.

Plano is a "n00b" because the law is new and they haven't adapted yet. Also, because its not a state-wide ban, the people have a choice to travel to a different bar not-too-far away where they can smoke. This was a "n00b" mistake (rookie mistake) by the legislature of Plano. That is exactly why here in CT it was a statewide ban - so that some towns can't "hold out" and screw other towns.

[snooper2]

178. so you have to fuck everyone at once...

for "your" perfect World, nice...

[CT_Progressive]

182. Heh, its not "fuck everyone at once. "

Its "ban smoking in all surrounding areas at once, so no place gets fucked."

Then, you'll see what we saw here in CT.

-0- effect on bars.
None.
Ziltch.
Nada.
Zip.

[Snarkturian Clone]

90. Good for them.

At least SOMEONE gets what a free country is supposed to be.

[SIMPLYB1980]

91. GOOD FOR THEM!

:smoke:

[in_cog_ni_to]

95. "Nonsmokers don't go out anyway," McFrye said. "They're the cheapest people breathing air. I've been

in business 23 years, and I know there's nothing cheaper than a nonsmoker.":rofl::rofl::rofl:

Go, Mr. McFrye!:rofl::rofl: Hell, I'm sure the smokers would donate to a fund to help him pay his fines.

I hope Illinois has bar owners like him. I'd donate to the cause of paying state fines. As of Jan. 1, 2008, Illinois will be a non-smoking state. It royally SUCKS.

[riverdeep]

97. I agree about certain places being off limits like hospitals.

Although the hospital I pass by has staff standing on the side walk which is like, a quarter mile from the hospital entrance so these are dedicated people. But a bar? Eh, as long as they have a mix of smoking and non-smoking bars I don't see a problem. And it's true, as has been repeated here, that a lot of people only smoke when they drink for some reason.

I'm completely out of the loop here, since I don't smoke or drink. Drinking just made me feel sleepy and stupid, so I stopped. Smoking just burned my throat, so I never took it up. It's kind of a shame there aren't places for people like me that like having fun, but don't need those particular substances to do it, or any substance to have fun. On the other hand, places like Holland, with pot being served in establishments, is more up my alley.

[Droopy]

98. You must eat the marijuana

Because that stuff burns a hell of a lot worse than tobacco and when smoked effectively often causes uncontrollable coughing.

[riverdeep]

117. Heh, no.

I haven't smoked in a while, but when I was, I didn't need more than a couple of tokes, or one or two bong hits. I never smoked more than a couple times a month, either. Not everyday. If you're smoking the good stuff, instead of ditchweed or something, it's pretty smooth, and doesn't take very much. Unless you smoke everyday, then your tolerance goes through the roof and you never get high anymore, anyway. You just get...cloudy.

[mdmc]

100. shut them down now!

Actually, the same thing happened here in NYS.
Bar owners either went out of business or they followed the law.
Very few bars allow smoking now.

[underpants]

108. One of the main reasons this is done is for insurance rates in the localities

Having these type of laws reduces not only the municipalities health and life insurance rates but the rates of any businesses and individuals in the areas covered by such laws.

Personally as an ex-smoker I am not bothered by it but I would like to see establishments have to post outside if they allow smoking and to what extent. This was put forth here in Va. and as you might expect howls of righteousness drove it into the ground.

[DFW]

112. Addictive drugs and DFW don't mix

And that includes alcohol and nicotine, so I don't hang in bars in the first
place. I'll be sitting this battle out on the sidelines.

[MindPilot]

118. Unintended consequeses...

Just my observation but one result of the smoking ban here is that now the smokers are congregated on the sidewalk out front of the establishment. A non-smoker who would have previously been able to avoid the smoke by not entering that particular place of business is now forced to be exposed to smoke simply by walking down the street.

[LynneSin]

146. Actually there are states that are preventing that too

I think DC enacted it where you had to be a distances away from the front door.

But yeah, I find it annoying - especially at non-restaurant places like the grocery store or other retail places where the kids who work there are congregated at the front door. I think even Delaware is telling them that these places need to find other locations that are not right there in the public.

[cgrindley]

155. Why would anyone go to a non-smoking bar?

That's just dumb. You have to have a smoke with your drink.

[Codeine]

167. Only if you're an addict, hon. nt

[cgrindley]

168. To which substance? (nt)

[timtom]

159. Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!

If military personnel would just follow suit concerning issues of human rights...

[depakid]

160. What is it with some people that they can't just step outside?

Doesn't seem like a lot to ask....

[cgrindley]

169. I haven't gone to any non-smoking bar

it really seems pointless. I used to go out quite a bit, but if I can't smoke, the thrill is just lost.

[wuushew]

171. What thrill praytell?

two oral fixations for the price of one? :shrug:

[cgrindley]

173. The thrill of smoking and drinking

can't do one without the other. I've had maybe four drinks since quitting smoking a few years back (sure I've fallen off the smoking wagon for a week here and a week there, but I've been mostly good).

[Odin2005]

164. My mom's a manager/head bartender old a small, rural bar. I dare you to tell her that the bans...

...don't hurt business. There has been a significant decrease in the number of customers, enough so that she is in cost-cutting panic mode, since Minnesota's smoking ban went into effect. She's expecting business to be even worse come winter because people don't want to be standing outside having a smoke when it's -5 degrees out. I used to be for such smoking ban, not anymore after what my mother is going through to keep her bar afloat. The nanny-statists can go to hell.

[Kingshakabobo]

184. I bet if your mom acted like a douche-bag, like the guy in the OP, she too would be ...

...going out of business. What kind of business owner alienates and insults a good portion of his clientele?

Someone up thread pointed out the place was a dump anyway.

[ShaneGR]

179. So he's an owner of a private bar......

Why can't he designate his own rles? Why cant one place market to smokers and another can market to non smokers?

[Odin2005]

183. because "choice" is not in the volcabulary of the neo-prohibitionist nanny-statists.