Bars say it's 'good business' to ignore smoking bans

[The Straight Story]

Bars say it's 'good business' to ignore smoking bans

CHICAGO — Smoking in bars has been banned here since Jan. 1, 2008, but Crow Bar, a cozy spot on the city's far southeast side, is still a haven for people who want to light up.

Unless other customers object, owner Pat Carroll usually allows smoking. He keeps a "smoke jug" in view for $5 donations to offset fines.

"It's good business to allow smoking. It's a free country," says Carroll, owner of Crow Bar for 28 years. It's near the border with Indiana, which allows smoking in bars. He says his customers would patronize bars there if he forced them to smoke outside.

After inspectors found a souvenir ashtray behind the bar, Carroll, a smoker, paid a $340 fine. Repeat violations would mean bigger fines, which he says would make him rethink his leniency.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-06-bars-ignore-smoking-bans_N.htm

[proteus_lives]

1. I think this falls in the "No Shit Sherlock" category.

[dmallind]

2. Give him a couple of months and a few fines and he'll come to his senses.

I wonder if it's "a free country" for him to decide not to comply with food handling laws too....

[mrbarber]

3. Yeah, how dare he run his business the way he see's fit..

and not listen to the nanny state. After all, it's for our own good, right.

As for the food handling comparison, not even worth a comment.

[dmallind]

4. Well both are laws, and both for public health

so yeah I can see why you wouldn't want to comment about his "rights" to do whatever he feels aginst the law and contrary to public health....

[mrbarber]

19. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's right.

Food preparation laws are there for obvious reasons. Smoking laws are nothing but a further step towards a nanny state. Don't want to sit in a smoky bar? Don't go to that bar. For goodness sakes, it's a bar. What's next, shall we ban alcohol too, for "public health"? Considering all the people killed by drunk drivers (which is enormous compared to the number of people supposedly killed by second hand smoke) I wonder why your not advocating that.

[dmallind]

37. You fail to acknowledge the distinction

between an unhealthy habit that hurts only the one with the habit as a direct and unavoidable consequence of indulging in it (drinking) and the unhealthy habit that impacts others who do NOT choose the habit as a direct and unavoidable consequence. (smoking). 49,000 deaths is a midrange CDC estimate for ETS in the US every year. ZERO is the death toll due to second hand drinking. Drinking and being violent is not a necessary part of drinking. Drinking and driving is not a necessary part of drinking (and by the way both are already illegal, so do you really want that parallel?). Exhaling a cloud of poisions and carcinogens IS a necessary part of smoking.

And no you are wrong - even in their wildest propaganda MADD only claims 17,000 or so deaths due to alcohol related fatalities (and 70%+ of those are the driver themselves). The 49,000 number is far higher than ALL traffic deaths.

The alcohol/smoking parallel will only be valid when there is a way for smokers not to exhale.

[mrbarber]

47. You want to know how you can avoid inhaling that "cloud of poisons and carcinogens"?

Don't go to the bar/restaurant that allows smoking. It's THAT easy. Why should the government have to babysit us? What's next, not smoking in a household that has a non-smoker? No smoking outdoors in case someone should walk by?

And I was talking about about second hand smoke, not all smoking deaths.

[dmallind]

51. So was I

Total smoking deaths is 435,000 annually. Nothing even comes close in health impact. ETS still WAY exceeds all traffic deaths, let alone drunk driving deaths.

Again I ask WHY should I assume smoke is a necessary part of going to a bar? Why should it be the vast majority who do not smoke who have no option to enjoy themselves in bars rather than the minority who simply have to walk a few feet to smoke all they want? What is it inherent to a bar that necessitates smoking as opposed to other formerly smoky places pre-ban such as planes or arenas or fast food joints?

[harkadog]

60. What unhealthy habits do you engage in?

I want to see what else we can outlaw.

[dmallind]

none that are unhealthy for others

Since you ask I'm a fat bugger who drinks too much to be optimally healthy. Either one may kill me early - I am well aware of that. Neither however has the remotest chance of hurting anybody else by direct and universal consequence of my beer intake or waist measurement (I am not so obese as to risk killing anybody by falling over on them yet).

Oh I also do long distance motorcycle riding - and agree with helmet laws.

[harkadog]

120. What happens when your early death happens when you behind the wheel

and crash into one of us. I think we should ban all drivers over their optimal weight -- of course that will be determined and regulated by a nanny branch of the government. Since you are so concerned about second hand smoke I have to say that the crap coming out of your tailpipe is much more poisonous than second hand smoke. If you don't believe me try breathing the tailpipe fumes for 10 minutes and get back to me if you are still alive. Yet you have no problem poisoning me with those. Why? because it is something you use.

[dmallind]

130. Once again the concept of analogy is beyond smoking advocates

The death of a physically perfect specimen is just as likely to occur behind the wheel as my death, assuming we both drive around the same amount. There is no part of being overweight that makes death in a vehicle more likely. There is a part of smoking that makes risk to others increase. Smokers and their shills always get analogies wrong because there ARE no analogies to smoking. Nothing else even remotely legal causes undeniable harm to others as a certain and unavoidable part of an activity that is not their choice. I'm fat. I drink. Harms me. You smoke in a shared space. Harms me. Unless you can stop that happening all your analogies will be false.

It may encourage you to consider that tailpipes are also banned in bars and other enclosed spaces. I would indeed have a very great problem if that were not so, and would certainly be against my tailpipe emissions being allowed in an enclosed space we shared. Likewise I have no problems with you smoking in the open air. I am consistent. Try it.

[harkadog]

137. You lose on the analogy

Overweight people are at far more risk of a heart attack than "a physically perfect specimen". When that happens while driving look out.

So you think all those millions of tailpipes do no harm just because they are in "open air". Why does anyone try to regulate them if that is the case? That's all they do because they know they can't ban them without creating chaos. But they still put out millions of tons of poison but since it is still PC to drive they are tolerated. You know very little about the movement of air. I do, I did my dissertation on it. Air in an urban environment is in no way "open".

Is someone ordering you to go where people are smoking? Stay out if you don't like it. I'm sure you can find thousands of places to drink and eat where there is no smoking. But no, anti-smoking fanatics are just like the religious kind. They want to save everyone and drag them into their intolerant authoritarian world. And they can't bear to see anyone enjoying themselves doing something they don't do or can't do.

[dmallind]

157. Oh for Christ's sake

What is it about fat people that makes their chance of dying while driving greater? Really? We all die. There are no immortal humans. If I spend as much time driving as any other normal person (I do) why should it be more likely that I die while driving? I may (MAY) die earlier, but there is absolutely no difference in the chance of that happening while driving! Or while talking on the phone, or while walking down the street. How easy is that to understand?

Tailpipes should emit less dangerous gasses. Sure deal - but how again is that relevant to smoking? How exactly is it OK to do X but not Y?

Bullshit for staying out! The 20% tiny minority can stay the fuck out instead of the 80% majority. Why does the right of the pathetic wheezing hacking idiot override mine to avoid his noxious effluence? Why do they automatically have the right to all bars and we don't? What idiocy!

[beevul]

163. But its ok to do it to them...

"Why do they automatically have the right to all bars and we don't? What idiocy!"

And yet you are all for turning the tables, where your side has all the bars and they get none. So terrible and enraging when they do it, and yet just fine when the other side does it.

"fuck you, I got mine", isn't that about it?


Pot meet kettle.

[dmallind]

173. Nonsmokers aren't harming smokers. Why is this so hard to get through?

Me not smoking does not kill 49000 people a year. How the hell is that an equivalent position? Is it equivalent in your mind to want all bars to not allow public urination and to want all bars to allow it? Are they pot and kettle of the same argument? Urine of course is not harmful - just unpleasant.

[beevul]

178. Having some places for non smokers, and some places for smokers...

Having some places for non smokers, and some places for smokers...does not fit your diatribe. Having that, assuming both groups go to the places that fit thier lifestyle, does not kill your 49k per year.

Doing such a thing is the textbook definition of reasonable, as opposed to unreasonably pushy.

Kindly explain if and why you might oppose such a thing.


Because this middleground DOES exist, my statement:

"And yet you are all for turning the tables, where your side has all the bars and they get none. So terrible and enraging when they do it, and yet just fine when the other side does it."

It fits quite nicely. The fact of the matter, is that its wrong for iether group to have all the venues "thier way".

[harkadog]

182. What you suggest would require tolorance

That is something anti-smoking fanatics never have. They are true believers and want to create the New Man -- a concept many totalitarian societies have shrived for in the past. These nutballs are even upset when Obama sneaks a smoke at the White House. Heaven forbid he gets to relax once in a while.

[harkadog]

183. How many people does drunk driving kill each year?

How many families are destroyed by alcohol? Plenty in both cases. Therefore since others are being harmed by alcohol we should ban alcohol completely. But of course you drink so you won't support that. But when they get rid of smoking your alcohol will be next.

[misanthrope]

184. You avoided the question**nm

**

[mrbarber]

64. Again, not talking total smoking deaths. Talking about death PURELY caused by second hand smoke.

Have any numbers to show how many that is?

[dmallind]

74. YES - read the post!

The 49000 IS repeat IS the ETS death rate. Nonsmokers killed by ETS. Way higher than any and all traffic deaths.

435,000 is total smoking.

[mrbarber]

85. Where did you pull that number from?

[dmallind]

91. CDC. Ya know the people paid to do health studies,

Kinda thought that might be relevant to a discussion of health policy personally. Oh and my apologies for using the out of date 435000 total smoking deaths. It's gone up again to 443000.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data%5Fstatistics/fact%5Fsheets/health%5Feffects/tobacco%5Frelated%5Fmortality/

Quote:

Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1

443,000 deaths per year (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women


Cigarette use causes premature death:

On average, adults who smoke cigarettes die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.7
Based on current cigarette smoking patterns, an estimated 25 million Americans who are alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses, including 5 million people younger than 18 years of age.8
Secondhand Smoke and Death
Exposure to secondhand smoke—sometimes called environmental tobacco smoke—causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1

Secondhand smoke causes 3,400 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 46,000 annual deaths from heart disease.1,9,10




Queue smoking advocacy sight quotation displaying ignorance of how mortality studies work for ALL causes (including alcohol and obesity) in 3...2....1...

Wait for acceptance of valid scientific data against personal bias in .....infinity minus 1.... minus 2....minus 3

[SidDithers]

94. +1...

good post.

Sid

[mrbarber]

95. I"ll have to read more on that. Interesting study.

However, I don't see what that has to do with a smoking ban in bars.

[dmallind]

100. So it's OK to kill 49000 people a year if they go to bars? NT

[mrbarber]

112. You are suggesting we ban all tobacco and smoking than?

I'm saying there are places that should allow smoking if that's what the patrons and the owner want. If they want to kill themselves, they should be allowed to. If they want to inhale second hand smoke, they should be allowed to.

[dmallind]

116. Of workable options that's the best for bars yes

It would be fine to have a proprortional system covering all different areas and levels of bar so smokers could have dedicated options in relationship to tehir population, but it's hardly workable. Allowing smoking everywhere is a death sentence to 50K a year. Banning it everywhere means smokers have to walk a few yards to light up. I honestly cannot see how any consideration of the two options would favor the former.

[metalbot]

151. There's nothing that ties 49000 people to deaths from bar smoke

The 49k figure clearly would include a significant number of people who are married to smokers and who are exposed to smoke full time.

The real question is "what will the fatality rate from second hand smoke be if we ban smoking in bars?" If the answer is "48750", does that still merit changing behaviors for millions of people?

[dmallind]

158. So it's OK to kill people if they go to bars in any amount? NT

Why is walking a few feet more important than ANY number of lives?

[beevul]

179. Assuming what you say is true...

People that walk into venues where there is smoke CHOOSE to kill themselves.

[beyond cynical]

153. Why not just ban tobacco?

Wouldn't you like to see another drug sold on the black market?

[tyedyeto]

165. Total ban on tobacco is probably what the poster wants.

The rants made have shown that the poster feels no one should ever smoke. And that business owners have no rights to what their clientele want. And smokers are lower in life than pond scum.

Of course, so many of the taxes on tobacco products these days go for education (not just anti-smoking ed but for funding many other areas of education), a total ban on tobacco would seriously de-fund many education programs in our schools.

A couple of years ago, Arizona added a 'new' education tax on tobacco that was not geared toward anti-smoking education but for environmental studies. Schools could use this money for any program which promotes environmental health. Not just for people who smoke tobacco, but could be used for any ecological program a public school system wished to earmark it to.

Now, the schools here in this state are cutting back on so many programs that I doubt that this tobacco tax has made any impact whatsoever on what programs the schools are spending their money on. The arts and most elective classes have been at the top of cutbacks. And guess what? Ecology and environmental studies are at the top of the academic chopping block.

The kicker in Arizona is.......

No smoking in a bar but you can carry a gun into one. Now, which has a quicker death? The cigarette or the bullet?

[dmallind]

172. you're not much good at mindreading either.

I can point you to at least half a dozen of my posts that mention smoking outside is just fine by me. Smokers however do not have the right to make me smoke too in enclosed public places. Home, car, outside - go nuts.

As for guns - the (rather obvious) difference there is carrying a gun does not kill anybody unless it's used - an extremely rare occurrence in bars. I have absolutely no problem with smokers carrying cigarettes in bars and using them as infrequently as guns are used.

[beyond cynical]

181. No doubt—and although I am sure the poster means well,

he demonstrates the controlling nature of his personality. I am a non-smoker and I have somehow managed to avoid being in situations where I am exposed to second-hand smoke. But this poster seems to believe that the entire world should cater to his desires. He simply cannot grasp the concept of “live and let live.”

[SallyMander]

132. I wish everyone approached debate the way you do here

You know, reasonably... respectfully... and with FACTS. DU and the world in general would be much more pleasant. :hi:

[tandot]

188. Great post. Thanks, dmallind.

[metalbot]

150. There's nothing to stop a bar owner from banning smoking

Surely if there are so many non-smokers who are going to go drinking (a vast majority), then they would flock to the smoke free bars, basically voting with their dollars (the last line of this post explains why this won't work).

If we do have to legislate this, then the answer is not "ban smoking in bars", it's "ensure that the air in bars is not harmful". I've been in bars that allow smoking that have extensive air filtration systems, and there's no scent of smoke on me when I leave. Set a level of second hand smoke that has an acceptably small risk, and inspectors can simply sample the air in a given bar to see if it's in compliance.

I'd also like to point out that "who simply have to walk a few feet to smoke all they want" is a gross simplification when it's -10 degrees out or pouring rain.

"What is it inherent to a bar that necessitates smoking as opposed to other formerly smoky places pre-ban such as planes or arenas or fast food joints?"

Bars make their money from alcoholics, who have a much higher rate of smoking than non-alcoholics. It's really about knowing your customer (and why no bar wants to voluntarily be smoke free).

[dmallind]

174. And preban where are these choices? Your characterization of bars is amiss

Bars do not need alcoholics. Responsible bars do not WANT alcoholics. Drinkers =/= alcoholics. Even if ALL smokers go to bars (an absurd idea) there are still 2.5 times as many drinkers who do not smoke. When 67% drink and 20% smoke how could it be otherwise? And of course the number of alcoholixcs does not approach 67%, so we can kill two birds with one stone.

Bars are reluctant to ban smoking independently because it is expensive and a pain in the ass to enforce unexpected regulations. It would be equivalent to a bar deciding to ban talking about sports. In preban areas, in the very cases where I have seen bars try to go nonsmoking, enforcing that rule is a constant battle as it is simply not the norm. Especially since nobody gives you any notice they are going to light up and you get smoke anyway before you can correct the errant patron.

[misanthrope]

185. Also, capitalistic ventures in this country seem to be naturally conservative...

...They are afraid to break ground in a lot of regards. That is why it has taken governmental regulation to implement things like decent working conditions, overtime, fair pay, food standards, etc.

[wolfgangmo]

76. You want to know how you can avoid spewing a cloud of poisons and carcinogens?

Do it somewhere that is not open to the public. Your entire line of reasoning comes down to the following: because I wanna.

The privilege to smoke is yours. And no one is telling you that you can't. Light up and enjoy.

[walldude]

141. LMAO.. Public Health.. In a BAR????

What are you kidding me?

[Threedifferentones]

146. Who is well served when someone contaminates food? No one.

Who is well served when someone allows smoking inside a bar? People who like to smoke cigarettes inside bars, and the people who own said bars.

Your comparison was irrelevant.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

24. yes, everyone should run businesses as THEY see fit!

With no regulation or oversight! :eyes:

[mrbarber]

30. Is anyone advocating that? No.

[Deep13]

147. It's against the law.

No one cares about your childish me! me! me! tantrum. Get over it and quit smoking the goddamn things. You are not cool. Your are not exercising free choice. You are a slave to market-driven peer pressure and to a huge, RW company that supplies your fix. Deal with it.

[AngryAmish]

5. I found one of thee while out drinking Friday

And no, I'm not telling.

[SidDithers]

6. He needs bigger fines...

If the fines aren't big enough to change his behaviour, then the fines need to be bigger.

Sid

[MindPilot]

11. some behaviors the government doesn't need to concern itself with changing

this is one of them.

[Froward69]

7. I reced this UP

because the choice to allow smoking in a bar should be up to the owner. should you want a "smoke free" bar I am sure you could go find one. (the argument for "a smoke free place to bring our children" does not hold up as a bar is no place for a kid... period.)

here in my state more than one bar allows smoking even though it is outlawed. the non smoking zealots that report it, routinely get 86ed and subsequently arrested for trespassing.

[pengillian101]

167. Now there's an idea!

here in my state more than one bar allows smoking even though it is outlawed. the non smoking zealots that report it, routinely get 86ed and subsequently arrested for trespassing.

I will share that with a bar-owner pal. Thanks ;-)

[Fumesucker]

8. I wonder if they would mind if I burned a spliff?

Something tells me the bar owners wouldn't cotton to that so much..

[MindPilot]

15. Yeah but I'll bet you'd make some new friends among the patrons!

[MindPilot]

9. I demand clean air in the place where I drink poison!

A ashtray was sufficient evidence for conviction?! Good thing he didn't have a lighter or he'd probably be in jail.

[dmallind]

12. The difference of course being that I don't force others to drink the poison.

[MindPilot]

13. of course, but the key is the quote from the article

"unless other customers object"

[harkadog]

61. No one is forced to go into that bar. I used to live in Chicago

and if you want a drink you will not die of thirst. Plenty of bars everywhere.

[laughingliberal]

10. Nevada passed a ban a few years back but it's still allowed in casinos but not their restaurants

Those in favor of the ban insisted the ban has never hurt bar business anywhere a ban has gone into effect. But we did have a call recently to repeal the ban (it failed) as quite a few neighborhood type sports bars saw a big drop in customers and have gone out of business.

Few months ago I went into a casino restaurant and they asked if I wanted smoking or non-smoking. I asked how they could do that since the ban. The answer was, "we don't allow children." I remember that being the basis for the ban, anywhere children might be present. I don't understand why more businesses can't ban children and allow smoking for those who wish to patronize smoking allowed establishments. Nobody would be forcing non-smokers to patronize the business. I can't think of any reason a person would be forced to go there.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Nice for his employees

Funny how an employer can deliberately ignore health regulations, expose all of his workers to unpleasant toxic fumes, and find so many defenders on DU. I am sure if the CEO of a chemicals plant did that he would be (rightfully) condemned here. But all of a sudden workers' rights are forgotten when smoking bans are concerned. "But they *choose* to work there!" "Let them work somewhere else!" "Tell them to get another job!" Yes, it's *such* a great economy and there are *so* many jobs out there.

[MindPilot]

18. From the article it appears to be a classic dive bar.

I would guess there is one, maybe two employees at any one time, and the owner probably clears it with them too.

[Nye Bevan]

20. "Clears it with them"

Of course in this economy many employees will agree to the boss's "suggestion", even if they don't like it, because they don't want to lose their jobs. That's why we have laws (like this one) protecting employees.

[Johonny]

29. I agree

[Kalyke]

58. So set up an exchange program.

Those who want to make more tips and put up with smoke can work in the smoking bar - those who don't can work in the non-smoking bar down the street.

This is just an exchange of employees' workplaces - the duties would be nearly identical (take order, place order, serve customer, treat customer nicely, etc.). The jobs are fairly interchangeable.

[Nye Bevan]

66. In other words, allow employers to violate health and safety standards for employees

provided that the employees receive more money. I am sure that in today's economy an employer could find employees who would tolerate unpleasant toxic fumes in their workplace in exchange for higher wages. But in general I am opposed to allowing employers to effectively buy their way out of having to comply with employee health and safety requirements.

[phasma ex machina]

16. "It's a free country" Can't say it often enough. nt

[Kansas Wyatt]

17. Those who don't want to be in a smoky bar, don't have to go there.

A person doesn't have to work there either.

Sorry, but who in the hell goes to a bar and doesn't expect to be around smoke?

Whiny people, who cannot stand that the crowd is at the smoky bar, but not their Smoke free Chic Pub or Tavern.

Yes that is the bottom line to it all, because you do not have to go to a place where smoking is allowed, so it shouldn't concern you.

[Nye Bevan]

21. "A person doesn't have to work there either"

For some reason, smoking ban threads on DU always seem to assume an alternate economic reality where everything is rosy, there is full employment and plenty of jobs for everyone, and anyone who wants to (like the poor guy stuck working in the smoky bar) can simply get a well-paid job somewhere else, no problem. I wish the *real* economy was like this.

[Kansas Wyatt]

23. Does that 'poor guy' smoke?

A lot of the people I seen working in bars, smoked themselves.

Oh, and since your Chic Smoke Free Pub or Tavern is doing so well with business, couldn't the non-smokers work there, since it's their choice?

Sorry, the bottom line is still whiny people throwing a tantrum, because they cannot attract the crowd and they cannot stand it. Because gosh darn it, they deserve to be popular too!

[dmallind]

39. You seem to be projecting a situation that is unusual

I have lived in pre-ban areas. ALL bars are smoky. I have lived in post ban areas. NO bars are smoky. I am aware of areas where there are significant numbers of bars that allow smoking and significant numbers that do not (indianapolis for example - where the distinction is whether or not they allow minors at any time) but they are far from the norm, and when I have visited the smoke free bars seemed to be doing just fine thanks. Most of the population centers of the country (including all of CA, NY, IL, etc) have it one way or the other. And when they go from smoking to non-smoking, OVERALL licensed premises receipts either go up or stay static (using data prior to economic downturn, which caused both smoking and non-smoking areas to see similar downturns). So apparently going nonsmoking doesn't hurt your popularity all that much.

[Kansas Wyatt]

42. "going nonsmoking doesn't hurt your popularity all that much"

Key words... 'all that much.' It depends on what type of bar you are talking about. The one I go to, the non-smokers follow all the smokers outside and leave the bar empty in the winter, because it is against the law to smoke in bars. And yes, the ban hit the bar hard. But hey, if you would rather have all the butts outside blowing away, the energy consumption to provide heat outside, and non-smokers following the smokers outside... Wait a minute, now you are going to want to ban smoking outside too. Better crunch the policy wonk numbers on that to justify that too.

Just the simple fact that a bar, which doesn't allow minors in anyway, cannot decided whether it is a smoking establishment or not, tells the whole story. If you don't like smoke, you do not have to go there or work there. Simple fact. Only whiny people in their Chic Non-Smoking Pub or Tavern, can't stand the crowd being at the smoking establishment.

In the KC Metro area, the biggest force behind the smoking ban for whiny people, was the Casinos, who just happen to be exempt from any smoking bans. But that's okay, because they put the push behind it. It's all bullshit.

[dmallind]

46. You're just not making sense

Read the post - the "all that much" was ironic.

Do you ever go anywhere else besides this bar where "all the nonsmokers follow the smokers outside"? I mean I've been a frequent bargoer in many areas and I've never ever seen that happen. Even if I take your word for it - how common is that phenomenon across all bars? How many have you seen this phenomenon take place in? Apparently you haven't been to the vast majority of bars that allow in minors for a start.

You are apparently taking it as axiomatic that bars should be smoky. Why? What about a bar in its nature makes that an assumption? Clearly I have been to dozens of bars that are not smoky post-ban. They remain bars. All the activities that bars provide remain there once the smokers have to walk that dreaded few feet. Are you saying these activities - ranging from pool to darts to trivia to big screen sports watching to meeting up with friends to just drinking alcohol - they have no value? It is the smoking that I must accept if I want to do these things? Why? Why should smoking be an essential part of a bar experience? You might as well say I should expect to be date-raped if I go to bars, since that happens sometimes.

Frankly all I can extrapolate is that you think smokers are fun and cool and attractive BECAUSE they are smokers. Surely you are not so gullible?

[mrbarber]

52. Why are you so agaisn't people being allowed to smoke where they want to?

You like non-smoky bars? That's fine. Some people like to smoke when they drink, sometimes it's the only time they smoke, when they can get out of the house. Why do you want to take away the rights of smokers to smoke and the rights of business owners to run their business as they see fit? (And please spare me the "food safety laws and regulations" strawman argument.)

And also, before you ask, I don't smoke, nor do I go to bars. I just don't see why adults can't make their own decisions and business owners have to be victims to busybodies with to much time on their hands. It's a bar. It's not suppose to be a wholesome enviorment, that's why kids aren't allowed in them. Since when did we because so damn infantile that we have to have the government lead us around my the hand?

[dmallind]

54. Well let's see

1) They can smoke all they want - a ban on smoking in toto would not get my support. They can smoke when they are drinking even - outside.

2) When they find a way to smoke without making me inhale that same smoke, I'll be fine with it. It's the same argument that says your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You cannot place the "right" of someone to engage in a harmful activity above the right of others not to be harmed by it.

3) The food safety parallel is EXACT. It is far from a strawman. You just don't like it. Businesses cannot legally decide to put people at risk by storing food at improper temperatures etc. Why? because it risks the health of their patrons. In what way is that not exactly like smoking? Just eating some contaminated soup does not automatically cause you to die or be seriously injured. We all eat food that is contaminated to more or less an extent. But we still don't allow that contamination to be wilfully caused. Why should we allow ETS?

4) The unwholesomeness of nonsmoking bars - the basic unwholesomeness that comes with serving people a substance that lowers their inhibitions and impairs their judgement - does not by it's basic nature harm others. I DO go to bars, a great deal by US standards. I see all manner of unwholesome activities go on. None however are an unavoidable, universal and consistent part of drinking. Millions of bargoers drink responsibly and leave without fighting, throwing up, or driving incapacitated. I do so consistently myself. The lower level unwholesomeness of profanity, loud rambling discussions, slurring and so on harms nobody but those who choose to harm themselves. Kids ARE alllowed in the vast majority of bars in this country, from dives to chains to fancy places by the way.

5) We need the government because despite appeals to compromise now, smokers NEVER compromised when smoking was allowed everywhere. Apparently some people believe that preban there were a huge range of places to choose from; some that allowed smoking and others that did not. BS! I have lived in three different countries and seven different states. I have traveled to dozens more of each. NEVER have I had a reasonably accommodating nonsmoking choice in bars without a ban. Major metropolitan areas had one or two at best - and if you don't live/have business close to them then what? Without a ban which bars would be available to nonsmokers? Why is there an assumption that a bar has to be smoky?

[mrbarber]

59. Let's see.

1) Unless there is outdoor seating, no they can't. Public consumption of alcohol is almost always illegal.

2) There is a way for you not to inhale that smoke. Don't go to the bar that allows smoking.

3) No, it's not. Food and smoking are entirely separate. Stop using that argument. Using your arguement, we should ban alchol too, since it "risks the health of the patrons". So does deep-fried food. So does listening to really loud music. When are we going to ban these also?

4) Your opinion is duly noted, but you do realize that is' not the end all of the argument? There are plenty of people who can argue just as forcefully that smoking is an integral park of drinking. I have many family members from Europe who are flabbergasted at the ban on smoking in bars. Just ask Eddie Izzard. What bars allow children that aren't sports bars (resturants) or chain restaurants that just happen to have bars?

5) Again, personal experience does not equate fact. And it would also seem that that vast majority of bar patrons want to be able to smoke-but thank goodness there are busybodies like you to prevent them from doing so! You must be a thrill to hang out with.

[dmallind]

67. And see some more...

1. Then they can choose to go to places with outdoor seating, right? Damn sight more choice than nonsmokers ever got preban.

2) Why should the 80% have to stay away from bars (which by logic and by postban evidence do not HAVE to allow smoking to remain bars) when the 20% can just walk a few feet?

3) Bullshit. Alcohol only risks the health of those who choose to consume it. I assume we can take it as given that people would not choose to eat contaminated food. Smoking affects the health of those who do NOT choose to smoke - hence the parallel remains.

4) Oh the irony. How is smoking an integral part of drinking? You can't even do it at the same time! Two completely different activites/ The vast majority of drinkers do not smoke (objective fact not opinion). There is nothing that makes them HAVE to be synonymous. Are there no bars in California any more? New York? Illinois? Eddie Izzard incidentally lives/lived in the UK, where smoking is also banned in bars (finally). Any bar can allow in minors (some smoking bans make some of them have to choose not to). Most do. Why turn away patrons just because they have kids?

5) Neither does the personal experience of people who think smoking is essential equate to fact. I however have proof on my side, as bars remain thriving in postban areas. How can the vast majority of bar patrons want to smoke when only 20% smoke and 67% drink? How does that math work out even if you assume NO nondrinking smokers? As far as my thrilling or otherwise nature, I will leave that ever so informed and relevant assumption with the observation that I actually do hang out in bars, and don;t seem capable of emptying them out with my presence, whereas you claim not to even particip[ate in the activity you so passionately want to remain smoky for some reason.

[mrbarber]

73. What's good for the goose...

1) And you can choose to go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. See how easy that is?

2)So your saying that 80% of people don't smoke in bars? Have anything to back that claim up? Maybe bars attract smokers?

3) And once again, you are free to go to a bar that does not allow smoking if you do not want to inhale the smoke. Nobody is advocating getting rid of food safety laws. Once again, it's a strawman argument.

4) Oh the irony. Why isn't smoking an integral part of drinking? Because you said so? From your own claim, the vast majority of places you went didn't offer non-smoking options and you were forced (oh, the humanity) to stay in a bar that allowed smoking of your own volition. As for the kids-I really can't believe bars would allow children to sit in them unless they were also a restaurant. But because their are kids in bars, as you say, than we should also ban violent television shows and loud music, both of which are detrimental to your (mental/physical) health.

5) You do realize that your "facts' Only show that people will continue to go to bars even though they can't smoke because they HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. How about we allow smoking and non-smoking bars and see which attracts larger crowds! And than everyone is happy (except busybodies, of course, who want to make sure that everyone follows their code of ethics)

[dmallind]

78. Nope

1) No I couldn't preban. There were none in many ares.

2) 20% smoke. 67% drink. Can you please find a way that the math works out that most drinkers are also smokers? I don't see the problem you are having here. By definition even if there are NO nondrinking smokers then a minimum 47% of the adult population drinks but does not smoke. Is that bigger or smaller than 20%?

3) see point 1. Where were these nonsmoking bars preban? Nobody IS advocating getting rid of food ssfety laws. That's why it's a constant amazement that people want to keep allowing smoking. The inability to accept a parallel does not make this a strawman.

4) Do you know what integral means? It means whole, unseparated. In what way can two completely separate activites where huge numbers of people engage in one or the other but not both be considered integral? Can anyone drink and smoke at the same time even? Sure some people enjoy both - but that's like syaying if I enjoy scuba diving and golf I must then expect everyone who scuba dives to also play golf. There is no reason they need to be enjoyed together, and many examples of where both continue to be enjoyed completely separately. hence, definitely not integral. Yes I was so forced - I valued the benefit of bar activities higher than the harm of ETS. But that does not mean ETS is not harmful, and that laws tio reduce that harm are not warranted.

5) Funny how smoking advocates want compromise now. Where was this compromise preban? Did you all agree to stay out of 80% of the bars so they would be nonsmoking? I personally would be willing and indeed interested to try that experiment. Let's make 20% of bars smoky and 80% not (heck let's assume that there are no nondrinking smokers and make that the 30/70 split that would remain just to be superfair). Allocate each on a lottery system ensuring adequate coverage of both options in all areas as it is essentially illegal to drive even after one or two beers now. I could go for that. Because I've moved around a lot and seen a lot of bans start. Once people get to experience smoke-free environments they never want to go back to the bad old days.

[mrbarber]

89. Why wasn't the niche filled?

1) Than open one up, or move to a place that has non-smoking bars. It's not your right to have a non-smoking bar nearby. If it's so important to you to hang out in bars, you should have done a little research before you moved, just like you would make sure not to move to a dry county.

2)Your implying that all drinkers go to bar. I'm saying that people who frequent bars might also be smokers, and judging by your posts about how every bar you went to was filled with smokers, I would say that not such a stretch.

3) There was a niche. Someone should have filled it. If it wasn't filled, than i"m guessing the demand really wasn't there, was it?

4) First, yes you can smoke and drink at the same time-maybe not at the exact same second, obviously, but yes, you can enjoy a drink while enjoying a smoke, especially if it's a pipe or cigar where you take your time smoking it. For some it's a way of relaxing, and in todays stressful world, you'd think there would be one place where you could engage in some vices-alcohol and tobacco-that are severely limited everywhere else. But that's not good enough for the busybodies of the world.

[dmallind]

99. Many reasons

1) I was actually working on that very idea when the ban became a certainty. Obviously IO needed to wait until I could afford to consider it, and by that time would not have been a niche. I do in fact only consider moving to ban areas now. Turned down a job in Michigan recently for that reason. It was only a few years ago that I ever had a choice, and by that time the MN ban was looking very likely if not inevitable.

2) Why would drinkers not go to a bar? I'm making an exactly equal assumption that smokers go to a bar, and trust me that's much more of an unsupported assumption. Sure you can drink at home - but you can smoke at home too. Do you think the first is more likely than the second? Alcohol intake after all is seen as a scoial activity much more than smoking (there are no questions about if you smoke alone to determine possible addiction after all) If I decrese one I must decrease the other. The numbers still will never come up to a majority of smoking bargoers on an aggregate level. You just can't get there from here. And no anecdotal tales of bars where everyone smokes do not refute this - even if by any wild stretch some of them are true.

3) The bar industry is a depressing me too segment, and enforcement of any rule outside the norm is both very expensive and very ineffective. That's why bars that try to prevent colors/gang signs etc always have to have bouncers. Much easier to just go with the expected norm until smoking bans became prevalent.

4) Then they are not integral. We know that because they can be, and often are, separate. It's back to golf and scuba diving again. Because some people do both should not mean everybody who enjoys one activity should have to particiapte in the second.

[mrbarber]

106. So we agree.

1) I just want the option there for people. I personally would visit a non-smoking bar and a smoking bar depending on whether or not I wanted to smoke my pipe. What's really funny is that even bars that allow smoking will not allow pipe or cigars.

2) I don't go to bars. None of my friends go to bars either. It's for a myriad a reasons-economic, distance to drive, not to mention the fact that the vast majority of bars only serve watered down crap and charge exuberant prices for any decent beer. (My beer snobbishness is showing, isn't it?)

3) If the demand was there, there should have been no problem with keeping smokers out, because it would have been filled with non-smokers who came there for the explicit reason of being in a non-smoking bar. And non-smokers can get very touchy about people smoking in places there not suppose to.

4) I look at it more like a scuba diver who is also a photographer. It's difficult to do both at the same time (expensive cameras are needed, etc) but for many people, one is integral to the other.

[dmallind]

114. In some limited ways yes

1) I have no problem if a reasonable number of bars do allow smoking as long as there are plenty of choices in a variety of locations and a variety of types that do not. Making this even remotely practicable as a law would be very difficult of course. But the theory is fine. Never said otherwise. No smokers ever came up with that preban though.

2) I share your beer snobbishness. Luckily I have an outlet that sales micorbrews of various kinds for $4 pints and $6 25oz mugs. Not cheap, but far from the silly prices some places charge. Good bars abound and I am (sincerely) sorry that you are not near one. They are a source of great pleasure.

3) There would be and indeed was. There were two just two nonsmoking bars in the entirety of the 7 county Twin Cities metropolitan area pre-ban. I would go to one occasionally just for some respite even though it was a long way away and didn't offer my main activity of choice (I am a keen player of NTN/BT satellite trivia). Not once in my many visits was somebody not reminded they could not smoke when they lit up - even having passed the prominent signs and seeing no ashtrays. This was a tiny bar too with the owner almost always present to be the enforcer. People preban expect to be able to smoke, and no amount of signage seems to be able to get that idea out of their heads.

4) I'll buy the scuba diver analogy is closer your way sure - but remember many people do one and not the other even so. Some people liking both is not a measure of an integral pair of activities. The Venn diagram may overlap more for photography than golf, just as one for drinking may overlap more with smoking than, say, ballet dancing, but the circles remain separate in large measure nonetheless.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

65. The Right Of Smokers To Smoke?

Gee, that's funny. I studied the Constitution for 3 years in Law School, and make a living knowing what it says, yet I've NEVER seen a single sentence in it granting anybody a "right to smoke." It's a funny phenomenon that goes on in this country, that people like to claim they have rights to do things they don't actually have the right to do. Here's a quick and handy guide to determining whether whatever it is you want to do is a right: If it's a right, the Government has to provide it to you free of charge if you can't afford it. Need a lawyer to defend you in Court, even though you can't afford one? No problem, the Government will pick up the tab. Want to exercise your RIGHT to free speech and hold a protest or parade on public property, but can't afford the application fee? No problem, the Government will waive those fees for the destitute. Want to exercise you RIGHT to vote, but your local polling place is charging a Poll Tax? No problem, the Government made Poll Taxes illegal for this very reason. So, the next time you want to claim that smoking is a right, walk into your local Stop 'N Rob and demand your free, Government-sanctioned pack of cigarettes. Want MORE proof that you don't have a right to smoke? Go get some food stamps (you can get food stamps if you're poor because you DO have at least a limited right to eat food even if you're poor), and try to buy some cigarettes with them. Stopped cold, eh? Gee, maybe it's because YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SMOKE.

This concept became crystal-clear to me during my first year of Law School. During First Year, all Law Students take a year of Constitutional Law. One case that is taught to EVERY first-year Law Student is the case of the guy who demanded that his local bakery make certain concessions to him even though he was physically unable to handle the responsibilities implicit in working in a bakery. Guess what the Supreme Court said (and this is the Law of the Land to this day). The bakery won and the disabled baker lost. Why? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE A BAKER.

I think people would be a lot less obnoxious about "their rights" if they actually knew what "their rights" were.

[Kansas Wyatt]

63. You conceded with "all that much." Don't explain away your concession.

Has it ever crossed your mind that some (think bars in Road House) bars, do not give a shit about your California and New York atmosphere?

Why do you even care about fly-over country?

BTW, yes I've been to several, all with the same complaint that pissy ass whiny people, who just can't stand what others are doing, have to come up with bullshit laws, so their Chic Smoke Free Tavern or Pub idea can be popular. Backed by gambling money, as long as the no smoking bans doesn't affect casinos. Come on now, stand up for all or none, if it really is that important. What? Don't want the old folks from the casinos to crash your Chic Smoke Free Pub or Tavern?

As far as all your assumptions you are claiming that I made... Tell me why in the hell do non-smokers follow the smokers outside in the winter, leaving the bar empty? There is nothing out there, but people doing what they used to be able to do inside a now very empty bar. And for you information, since you think you know so much about me, I do hate the smell of cigarettes, but I do like to smoke when I drink. Just something about the proper mixture of nicotine and alcohol.

Now, you obviously have some other problem going on, since you injected "date rape" into the subject for no reason. Why do you feel the need to get pissed off at someone about a different subject? I have never seen anyone get 'date raped' in a bar, and I've spent a hell of a lot of hours in bars in my lifetime. Maybe you should focus on banning 'date rape' in bars, since it's such a problem for you in California and New York, and just don't worry about smoking bars in fly over country.

[dmallind]

71. Oh dear.

CA and NY are what literate people call EXAMPLES. Look at a list of smoking bans for the full list. It is quite extensive, and close equivalents to fictional bar types exist in all smoking ban areas too (apparently you haven't visited either NY or CA much if you doubt that). I lived in the midwest for 17 of my 19 years in thsi country incidentally. The bar scene is much the same, with a wide variety of places in all areas.

If you cannot see the irony in "that much" when I flat out state in the sentence above that receipts either went up or stayed static, I can't help that.

Personally I don't think cainos should be an exception. Why is that such a deft syllogism? They are a public accommodation and should be held to the same rules. Happy? I'm not much of a casino goer so you won't see man examples on that front from me, but that's irrelevant. ETS is a health risk - a serious one. Everywhere. In cluding casinos.

I don;t know why the hell you thiink nonsmokers follow smokers. I've never seen that happen en masse personally - that's why I was asking. Couples maybe where one smokes and the other doesn't - but even there most of the time I see the nonsmoking one stay in to keep an eye on seats/drinks. I have certainly never seen this as crowd behavior. You brought it up as a truism. You explain why.

You really have a problem with analogy don't you? And irony.

[Kansas Wyatt]

83. You just do not get it.

Nobody in fly over country gives a shit about how you would do it in New York or California, nor do they care about what your numbers tell you there. Sure you lived out here in fly over country... NOT!

Oh, now that is a gem... "I lived in the midwest for 17 of my 19 years in thsi country" Either you are still too young to even go into a bar or you come from another country and want to tell people in fly over country what they must do. Which is it? What's the matter? You think we are just too dumb to not go into smoking establishments if we don't like smoke?

You do not care, as long as you get your way at any cost, which is why you don't mind casinos funding a push to ban smoking, as long as they stay exempt. The end justifies the means, so it works for you.

You really have a problem with others not sharing your views and ideals, don't you?

A little tip for you... People will choose the smoking establishment over your Chic Non-Smoking Pub or Tavern every time, which is why a ban was needed, to make those with the Chic Non-Smoking Pub or Tavern whiners feel popular.

[dmallind]

87. Oh dear part 2

Why the hell are you assuming ONLY NY and CA have smoking bans. I lived in the St Paul suburbs before and after the March 2005 ban. I saw all the doom and gloom forecast and none of it happen. I lived in Lincoln NE shortly after the ban. Bars were going just fine - and you don't get any more flyover than Nebraska. I even live right now in a suburb of Buffalo - so you can imagine all the chic trendy places I hang out at in that most cosmopolitan and fashionable of cities.

Ermm....people DO immigrate here ya know? Did ya ever think of that? Especially when I mentioned living in three countries? Bit of a clue there. And do you think immigrants should NOT have opinions on US laws? Why? My vote counts as much as anyone else's, as do my contributiosn to advocacy causes. It's called democracy.

What is the deal with you and the casinos? Didn't I say they should not be exempt? Why would I want casinos to be exempt?

You really have a problem with reading comprehension don't you?

A ban was needed becasue there no (in most places) or hardly any (in a few progressive major areas) nonsmoking bars to choose from. NOW you want compromise? Where was this pre-ban? Eventually the majority will have their way - and THAT is why absn came about, and will continue to gain momentum. There is no turning back. You should have compromised before the bans. Too late now.

[SidDithers]

104. I guess we should we look to enlightened Kansas...

to take the lead on matters of science, medicine and public health.

Sid

[Kansas Wyatt]

107. A simple sign that says Smoking or Non Smoking...

Is very easy to understand.

Are you trying to say that it is a trick question?

[Kansas Wyatt]

105. So you were never a regular at any bar, and only looked in from the outside?

How many countries have you immigrated to and are a citizen of?

Why do you hate fly over country?

You really aren't at the bar are you?

You just crunch numbers to get the results you want don't you?

Casinos pushed the ban at all bars, as long as they kept their (American Indian - Federal) exemption, just for the Chic Smoke Free Pub or Tavern... Or was it to attract more money into the only smoking environment around to pay for casino resorts?

Why can't you let people choose for themselves whether they want to go into a smoking or non-smoking bar?

If what you are saying is true, then an identical non-smoking bar would put the smoking bar out of business, if they were across the street from each other, so why wasn't that an option?

[dmallind]

110. Are you even reading?

1) Depends -under US law I am only a US citizen. Under UK law I am a citizen of both. I also lived in France but with no intention of becoming a citizen. Why do you care or think it makes a difference?

2) Why do you think I do? Let's use IL as an example of a smoking ban state if the very mention of coastal states as examples sends you in such a tizzy

3) Now? Nope. Certainly was yesterday and will be tomorrow too (tonight is my normal night off but may wander over if I get bored).

4) You just don't like the real numbers do you? Or you would argue against them rather than an absurd idea of what you think I am like.

5) I do not speak or answer for what casinos did. I think they should be included in the smoking ban, contrary to another of your silly assumptions.

6) Because without bans there is no choice.

7) Bars are a me-too industry and enforcing unexpected rules is both difficult and expensive. When nonsmoking is expected, it never returns to smoking.

[Kansas Wyatt]

113. Yes I was, and you just BLEW IT!

When asked why you couldn't let people choose for themselves, you replied...

"6) Because without bans there is no choice."

You are done, and you cannot come back from that statement. Anything else you say to me, you will only get this post repeated to you. Just pathetic.

[dmallind]

118. Why would I want to?

It's a perfectly true statement. Business owners will always choose the easy way out and not enforce regulations on their customers beyond those that the law demands. Why do you think that is a statement I would WANT to retreat from? Lemme guess you misunderstood a simple sentence again didn't you?

[northzax]

192. sure they can

if they think there's money in it. you've never seen a dress code, for instance? is that mandated by law?

[wolfgangmo]

81. Sorry sport, but the facts don't support your argument.

The facts are that almost all bars and taverns make more money after the ban is passed than they did before it.

Why? Because more folks are now going to bars because they don't have to deal with dittoheads who call anyone whiny if they don't want toxic stew blown into the air they breath any more than they want their food prepared by someone with e-coli laden shit on thier hands. And lets not even talk about the responsibility of employers to make sure that the workplace is not dangerous to their health.

Your entire argument comes down to "I wanna so I'm gonna" which sound suspiciously like a teabagger or an addict.
Cheers.

[Kansas Wyatt]

90. 'but the facts'

By all means, present your case comparing smoking establishment attendance and take compared to the Chic Smoke Free Tavern or Pub across the street.

The smoking establishment will always win.

"Your entire argument comes down to "I wanna so I'm gonna" which sound suspiciously like a teabagger or an addict." - If that were the case, then the ban was NEVER needed to put an end to smoking in bars, if what you say is true. The bar owners didn't want it, because they did not want to piss off their customers. Refusing to give the bar owner the option is the fact that you cannot escape.

[mrbarber]

92. They do? Have anything to back this claim up?

[northzax]

193. you can cite this?

because the only comprehensive study I can find that shows this effect is in New York, and includes restaurants and coffee shops as well as taverns and nightclubs.

[The Straight Story]

32. Like I always say "Your body, your choice" - where to drink, work, etc

Choice is progressive position, yet so many seem against it at times.

[Viking12]

38. Yeah, we should do away with all occupational safety laws.

Free choice and all.

[The Straight Story]

44. ALL? Who said that? Not me. Grocery stores, hospitals, etc fine. You don't need to go/work in a bar

Such places exist for leisure.

[dmallind]

50. And why does leisure come with an assumption of smokiness?

I see this truism constantly and nobody has been able to explain WHY the assumption is people should expect to deal with smoke when they go to bars. Bars can offer a huge range of activities: why should I assume taking in clouds of poison is a necessity to enjoy them? Why is it that the small minority who smoke are given the role of being an ssumed obstacle to the vast majority who do not? 20% of adults smoke. 67% drink. Even if EVERY smoker drinks (an absurdity) that leaves the non-smoking drinkers still close to 2.5 times the population of their smoking barmates.

Yes I understand that bars were smoky when smoking was allowed in bars. But that's simply because with no restrictions, every enclosed public accommodation was smoky. Nobody still says you should expect smoke to be part of the experience if you fly (it used to be) or attend sporting events in enclosed arenas. Or even eat in fast food places. All used to be smoky places too. There is nothing, absolutely nothing,in the nature of a bar of any type - from neighborhood dive to classy martini bar - that means smoking should be assumed to be essential. The experience of two huge states - NY and CA - bear this out. Dives still exist. Family places still exist. Swanky joints tsill exist. Hip nightspots still exist - and all manage to do so very well without smoking.

[Nye Bevan]

53. "You don't need to work in a bar"

There it is again! That fantasy wonderful economy where there are plenty of good jobs available for non-college graduates! Yes, these people should just go to work in comfortable air-conditioned offices with good salaries and plenty of benefits! Nobody needs to work in a bar!

I want that economy, dammit!

[dmallind]

55. yep and you don't need to work in a packing plant

so no guards on those bone grinders for you!

You don't need to work in a chemical factory - s no enforced PPE and MSDS access for you!

You don't need to drive a truck for a living - so to hell with sleep requiremenst and drive time limits!

[Nye Bevan]

69. So set up an exchange program

Inspired by Post 58. Workers who are willing to work in packing plants with *no* guards on the bone grinders could be allowed to do so, provided that they received more money. In this economy there are probably people who would be willing to sign up for that. After all, even without guards on the machines they *may* not lose any fingers.

[pipi_k]

22. Smoking sucks, stinks, and blows....but....

I still think that smokers should have a place where they're able to smoke if they want to.

As long as it's clear to everyone involved that it's a smoking establishment.

People who smoke can go there...people who don't can go somewhere else.


Everyone's happy.

:+

[Karenina]

25. That's what is done in my town.

Establishments have "Raucherklub" posted at the entrance. No muss, no fuss.

[laughingliberal]

31. Now, see, that's just WAY too sensible. lol. nt

[leeroysphitz]

48. That makes a world of sense to you and I but that isn't good enough for the busy bodies among us.

[Le Taz Hot]

26. They did that around here for awhile

right after the smoking ban went into effect in California. The local police department started sending in officers and more and more bar owners were paying fines so hefty they could no longer pay them. Those who did not have the space to build outside smoking areas closed down. I don't know of any bars around here that still allow smoking.

Edit for gooder grammar.

[MindPilot]

27. And what is so bizarre; the smokers gather outside by the door.

Now non-smokers who are walking on the sidewalk--have no intention of being in the bar--are exposed to the smoke and smelly ashcans that would otherwise be confined in the bar. The ban has had exactly the opposite effect.

[Kansas Wyatt]

33. And the bars that build an outside place for smoking...

The NON-smokers follow the smokers out there. But hey, at least there is a lot of room inside the bar for the Chic Non-Smoker, who deserves to be popular too.

[laughingliberal]

41. Lol! Back in the day a hospital I worked for had 2 break rooms

One was a nice, large, well appointed lounge for the employees. The other was a room really not big enough to be a closet with poor ventilation and no window. This was the designated smoking area for employees on that floor. The non-smokers always wound up cramming themselves in to the smoking room with us. It was hilarious after pushing to keep smoking out of the employee lounge it sat empty while the non-smokers followed us into our closet.

[misanthrope]

187. If it's that noxious outside...

...then what must it be like in an enclosed space?

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. You can go into neighborhood bars in the Outer Boroughs in NYC

where everyone is smoking. Only locals go to these places, and only locals want to go, and nobody would even think of snitching the place off to the cops, because their Dads went to that bar and now they do. Hell, many of the people smoking in these bars ARE cops. I know one place where the little paper Dixie cups for ashtrays come out at 9pm sharp every night.

Let me edit: YOU can't go to some of these bars, because YOU would get your ass kicked if you did. Locals go to these bars, and if you ain't a local, you'd probably turn around and walk out as soon as you walked in.

[zonkers]

34. Cigarette litter, billions of butts yearly wreaks havoc on our waterways, oceans and marine life.

Most smokers are irresponsible litterers.

[dysfunctional press]

36. and forcing them to go outside to smoke only makes it worse.

[Scout]

126. only if they are lazy, inconsiderate assholes who litter....

it doesn't HAVE to be worse, those smokers who litter will MAKE it worse ... but it doesn't have to be.

[dysfunctional press]

128. obviously a lotof them are- that's why there are cigarette butts everywhere.

i even found them littering the trails around cathedral lake in yosemite's back country. 9500ft. up, and an over 4-mile hike from the road.

forcing people like that to take their smoking outside only guarantees that the problem will get worse.

[The Straight Story]

45. We need litter laws

Oh wait....

[zonkers]

49. San Diego State scientists push to have cigarette butts reclassified as toxic waste...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Cigarette_butts_kill_fish,_scientists_complain

[MindPilot]

35. I'm far more concerned about the legal issue of ashtray possession

The article glosses over it, but the mere fact that there was ashtray behind the bar was justification for a fine? Does the law in Illinois ban ashtrays?

Business don't share all the same fourth amendment protections as persons or residences, but you still need a warrant to conduct a search and collect evidence.

Of course it would cost way more than the fine to defend, so this looks like just another example of law enforcement being used for revenue generation.

[pipi_k]

40. No kidding...ashtrays can be used for other things...

I haven't smoked in over 13 years...still have an ashtray or two in my home.

I use them for burning incense or for putting small votive candles in so they don't tip over and burn the table or whatever.


Like someone upthread pointed out, lots of other items can be used as ashtrays, including paper cups filled with a bit of water. I've even made little ashtrays out of aluminum foil. And you can buy portable ashtrays that have a lid on them.

People with a habit can be very resourceful... :7

[Tyrone Slothrop]

121. That's how the law in NYC is set-up

If you have an ashtray anywhere in your place of business (excepting retail establishments that sell ashtrays), you are subject to penalty.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/smoke/tc7.pdf

[spoony]

43. Strip them of their liquor licenses.

Then they can have even more fun ignoring two laws!

[KG]

56. routinely ignored in FL.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

57. Smokers Should Be Able To Smoke Where They Want, And I Should Be Able To Piss Wherever I Want

If I'm sitting at a bar having a few and feel the need to empty out the old bladder, why should I be forced to get up from my comfy stool and walk WAY OVER THERE to an end of the bar, AWAY FROM EVERYONE ELSE, be made to feel like an outcast, and have my rights trampled upon just because SOME people don't like to be around piss or to be pissed on directly? It's YOUR problem, not mine. If you don't want to go home with your clothes or hair smelling of piss, don't go to a bar!!! If you don't want to have your leg soaked with another human's urine, you have a choice not to go out. If you don't want me pissing into your drink while you're not looking, and running the risk of ingesting what comes out of MY body, you should stay home. Really, people should all cater to ME and what I want rather than the other way around. I like to piss wherever the urge strikes me. Just because 99% of the public has some problem with it, why do they have to victimize ME with their ridiculous anti-public-pissing laws? I heard the NAZIS had special rooms where you had to go to piss too!

What makes this little satire all the more hilarious is the fact that while smokers would all take great offense to being pissed on, it's actually about a billion times safer to get another person's piss, which is sterile, on you (or IN you) than toxic tobacco smoke.

So, hey, I'm all about compromise. Just like I'm willing to give Pro Life wackos their ban on abortion with some tit-for-tat compromises, I'm all for giving smokers the right to light up anywhere they please, just as long as they agree that if they smoke around me, I'm allowed to piss on them. Do we have a deal?

[mrbarber]

62. No wonder people don't like the anti-smoking zealouts.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

68. That, And The Fact That.............

.........you can't show me a single way in which my scenario of public pissing is different from Smokey Joe wanting to blow smoke wherever his fat ass happens to be sitting. Oh, except for the fact that urine, which is sterile, is safer to be around than smoke. That one I'll give you.

Your argument: Repeal public smoking bans. Don't like smoke? Don't go to a bar.
My argument: Repeal public pissing bans. Don't like piss? Don't go to a bar.

Please lay out all the vast and obvious differences for all to see. Lay my spurious argument bare, I beg of you.

[mrbarber]

75. Who's talking about smoking in public? Were talking about smoking in prive business establisments.

I never said anything about smoking in public.

Edited for snarky comments. Your name is hilarious, btw.

[Viking12]

80. You realize that once you open your doors for business, you're 'public', right?

The legal classification is "public accommodation" subject to restrictions and regulations from OSHA, the health dept, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, etc...

[mrbarber]

82. I do. Let me rephrase that since I didn't make my stance clear-

I meant private as in inside of a building, not working out in a public space, etc.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

102. I would say pissing is more compatible with drinking anyway .. LOL

In all my years, I've never heard ANYONE say "let's go out for a night on the town so we can smoke"


Pissing, on the other hand, is a natural consequence of drinking - that is once the seal is broken.

If someone wants to light up next to me and stink up my hair and clothes, I should be able to give them a little spritz.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

115. At Least............

...........and I do mean at the VERY LEAST, there can be a causal connection drawn between drinking and pissing. That's one part of the pro-smoke argument I've never understood. No one has ever been able to demonstrate WHY it's so important that people be allowed to smoke in bars, moreso than anywhere else. In order for the argument to hold water, you HAVE to draw a causal connection between alcohol and smoking. Since THERE IS NONE, then it's just an arbitrary "we want it because we want it" argument, and therefore holds no water.

Just because SOME drinkers also smoke, doesn't mean there's a causal connection. Heck, sometimes when I'm drunk, I like to jerk off and fall asleep. Since one goes hand in hand with the other (at least in MY mind), should it be legal for bars to allow public masturbation too?

See, this is what I'm saying. Until a causal connection can be drawn between drinking and smoking, it's just arbitrary whining.

[metalbot]

152. Cold Weather

"you can't show me a single way in which my scenario of public pissing is different from Smokey Joe wanting to blow smoke wherever his fat ass happens to be sitting."

You can go pee inside. You can take your beer with you to the bathroom. The smoker has to go outside, light up in whatever temperature it happens to be, then go back inside (potentially having to wait to get back in). If there were a smoking room in the bar, and smokers didn't want to use it, then your analogy would be more correct, but for some reason, very few no-smoking-in-bars ordinances allow bar owners to provide a separate room for patrons to smoke in, even though you could filter that room's air separately.

[hayu_lol]

77. Have never seen a survey/report/study that has broken down...

the age numbers at time of death in order to show the age breakdown for claimed smoking related deaths. If a person has smoked, even if they fell off a boat and drowned, they are listed as a smoking-related death. So much for the total number of deaths.

How many 95 year olds died of smoking?

How many 90

How many 85

How many 80

and so on.

You won't find these stats.

Another point is that people who are killed by drunk drivers need to be classified as 2nd hand alcohol-abuse deaths.

In the case of this thread, the bar owner clearly states that he is close enough to the Indiana line that his customers will drive a couple of miles more so that they can smoke in the bar of their choice. Bar owner's choice is keep his customers or lose them and perhaps his business.

Should pot ever be legalized, some of us will stand in line to notify the PD and Fire Depts. Think about it all you potential pot smokers.

[wuushew]

70. Such a transparent agenda is disappointing

You need to more thoroughly mix your obesity and smoking posts with general interest and foreign affairs topics.

[Viking12]

72. He mixes them up with...

..a few global warming denial posts.

[Nye Bevan]

79. Ireland's smoking ban reaps benefits

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-10-17-ireland-smoke_x.htm


One year after the Irish Republic became the first country with a nationwide ban on smoking in workplaces, pub employees already are breathing easier, a study shows. The number of non-smoking bar workers with respiratory problems, such as coughs, has fallen 17%, according to a study published online Monday in BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal.

Researchers found no improvement in neighboring Northern Ireland, which did not ban smoking, the study shows. Inspired by its neighbor's success, however, the British government on Monday announced that Northern Ireland will ban smoking in enclosed workplaces.

In the study, researchers measured pub workers' levels of a nicotine byproduct called cotinine that scientists used to track a person's exposure to tobacco. Cotinine levels fell by 80% after the ban in the Irish Republic but only 20% in Northern Ireland, the study shows. That suggests pub workers in the Irish Republic today are exposed to less secondhand smoke, which can lead to cancer and heart disease.

Another new study finds that air is cleaner today because of the ban. Researchers found tobacco smoke in 98% of bars before the ban but only 5% afterward, the article says. In the United Kingdom, the rate of smoking in bars has remained nearly universal; it decreased from 98% to 97% in the same period.

The republic's new law has proven popular, even with smokers: 83% of Irish smokers say the law was a "good" or "very good" thing, the study says.

Nearly half of Irish smokers say the ban has made them more likely to quit, according to the Tobacco Control article. Among Irish smokers who have quit, 80% said the law helped them give up smoking, and 88% say the ban helped them remain smoke-free.


Seems that smokers in the US are more whiny than their Irish counterparts.

[mrbarber]

84. Next they should ban alcohol to see how the health increases.

[Nye Bevan]

86. Why?

Drinking provides health *benefits*.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8367141.stm


Drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third, a major study suggests.

The Spanish research involving more than 15,500 men and 26,000 women found large quantities of alcohol could be even more beneficial for men.

The researchers, led by the Basque Public Health Department, placed the participants into six categories - from never having drunk to drinking more than 90g of alcohol each day. This would be the equivalent of consuming about eight bottles of wine a week, or 28 pints of lager.

For those drinking little - less than a shot of vodka a day for instance - the risk was reduced by 35%. And for those who drank anything from three shots to more than 11 shots each day, the risk worked out an average of 50% less.

[mrbarber]

96. I think if you weigh the pro's and the cons of drinking..

You'd find that it's in no way a "healthy" habit. It might cut heart disease, but it does some awful things to the rest of your body.

[Nye Bevan]

97. Like many things

It's good for you in moderation. Not so much to excess.

[mrbarber]

101. Actually, in moderation it can still be harmful.

Especially to people with high blood pressure.

[Nikki Stone1]

88. Why can't there just be "smokers' bars"? The government could set limits on how many there could be,

you'd have to apply for a permit, and you'd have to pay a tax for state/local healthcare costs. Non-smokers would only go in at their own risk.

[Nye Bevan]

93. Because of the workers

Or are you OK with workplace safety standards being violated, and employers intentionally exposing their employees to unpleasant and toxic fumes?

And *please* don't say "they don't have to work there" or "let them get another job" as though that is easy in this economy.

[mrbarber]

98. People who work in loud music venues suffer from hearing damage..

We should outlaw that also.

And *please* don't say "they don't have to work there" or "let them get another job" as though that is easy in this economy.

[Nye Bevan]

103. We have already outlawed that

Causing damage to workers' hearing through loud music, that is.

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/teenworkers/hazards_noise.html


Workplaces where sound levels are an average of 85 decibels or higher for more than eight hours must have programs to save the hearing of workers. These workplaces must give free hearing protection devices to workers.

[mrbarber]

108. It would seem they found a way to work around the damage caused by loud music.

Why can't a comprise be found in regards to bars?

[Nye Bevan]

111. The equivalent solution for bars would be self-contained breathing apparatus for barstaff

Go ahead and propose that to your legislators if you like. Personally I think a simple smoking ban is much more practical.

[beevul]

134. The answer to that question is simple.

"Why can't a comprise be found in regards to bars?"

Most - not all but most - of the people behind things like smoking bans, gun bans, bans on MJ, and on and on and on...its not about compromise to them.


There is a certain "demographic" that will not...can not...be content...without telling others how to live thier lives. Its a need. Possibly even an addiction. To make others conform to thier beliefs. The religious nuts are chock full of them. The gun haters too. And the drug warriors of course. The temperance movement was an example of one such "movement" that attracted just that sort. Add to them, the "true believers", and you have the core of most "anti" groups. This crosses all political lines, genders, race creed and color. Extroverted control freaks come from all walks of life. I suspect that since they can feel no control over thier own lives, they band together in an attempt to control the lives of others to fill that need. Corner one about it...of any of the anti groups - tear away the contrived justifications...and see the vile venom and nastiness thats most likely left. Oh they'll try to hide it...try to blend in with the few that don't have such "issues", but they're as real as the sun that rises every morning.

That right there - that vile venom and nastiness - is your confirmation.

They don't like the light shone on them any more than cockroaches.

[hayu_lol]

109. The Irish study is interesting...

that said however, keep in mind that they predominantly burn peat, coal, and coke for heating homes and many public buildings.

[Nikki Stone1]

122. The workers would have to be smokers already; the bar wouldn't be able to hire anyone else.

That would be part of the law.

[Nye Bevan]

138. Problem with that

In this economy there are enough people desperate for jobs who would take up smoking, or pretend to be smokers, in order to get one of these jobs. Smoking is a deadly addiction and I am not sure it is a good idea to give hiring preference to smokers. I would rather just have all workers protected.

[TheKentuckian]

123. Whatever, if a percentage of the population smokes then

at least that many potential employees will smoke as well. Non-smokers will have plenty of openings in the 80% or so non-smoking bars. All of this is just rhetoric from armchair social engineers that wish to control. Zoning and licensing could resolve this debate along the exact same lines that liquor licenses are granted and allow everyone a chance to socialize in a comfortable environment.

The real truth is every smoking bar makes the non-smoking locations more lame. Otherwise, simple problem solving, some light math, and compromise would lead to a workable solution that makes most people happy. This is obvious that the anti's even try to ban smoking in places like cigar shops and hookah lounges where non-smokers should have no interest in working at or patronizing but of course the brown shirt mafia has no limits or logic just an iron will to dictate the actions of others from high atop a soap box.

[beevul]

136. Bingo.

Well said. Very well said.


Very much like religious fundamentalists. They have and feel a need to make others conform to thier way of being.


That isn't to say that all of them are like that, but I believe most are. Most act like it.

[Lilith Velkor]

140. An applicant who can't tell the difference between a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar

will not last long enough at the job to sustain any damage.

[Greyhound]

143. It's been tried and the results, with few exceptions, are that the smoking bars are busy

and the non-smoking go under.

Smoking bans hurt the bar and casino businesses.

[dmallind]

170. Cites for any of that?

[Greyhound]

190. Forget the pro-anti-smoking sites. Check out the Restaurant Suppliers industry figures.

Very consistent, smoking ban passes and orders drop 40%, six months later they are still down 30% and most never get back to what they were, let alone increases.

[joeybee12]

117. Yup, most addictions come in pairs, or threes...smokers and drinkers

also make up the majority of problem gamblers.

[dmallind]

119. So how come 67% drink and only 20% smoke? NT

[Greyhound]

144. Because addicts can't imagine that others can do the same thing without becoming addicted? n/t

[bamacrat]

124. Cigarettes and alcohol are like peas and carrots.

If you dont like smoke dont go to bars.

on edit: Even more reason to legalize weed. Just being around a cigarette can kill you. All you get from being around weed is a nice contact high.

[Berry Cool]

156. You know what? Some people love peas and hate carrots. And vice versa.

"Peas and carrots." Please.

As if it were physically impossible to drink and not also smoke.

Funny, I have managed to do it many times. And I'm deeply grateful I live in a place that doesn't force me to deal with smoke every time I want to sit at a bar.

[bamacrat]

189. Youre right, but there should be bars that you can legally smoke at and one you cant.

Have it posted so if you dont like smoke you know which bars not to enter. Best of both worlds.

[beevul]

125. River Tamm said it best...

"We meddle. People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, Don't walk. Were in thier homes and in thier heads and we haven't the right.

We're meddlesome." River Tamm. - "Serenity".


Closer than not, imho.

[Nye Bevan]

127. Yes, regulations to protect employees *are* meddlesome

I guess it could be considered meddling to pass legislation preventing employers from exposing their employees to unpleasant and toxic fumes. But then again most employee protection legislation could be considered meddlesome.

Sometimes, meddlesome is appropriate.

[beevul]

129. Oh yes indeed.

Because people - those employees - have no choice but to be employed at that specific establishment, right?


Surely you can do better than that.

"Sometimes, meddlesome is appropriate"

Most often, it is not.

In my experience, whether there is rational logical justification to meddle or not, the meddling is done by those that are meddlesome by nature.

And that particular group, again im my experience, make up the vast majority of people that meddle.


The world would be a better place without that sort of "ideology".

[dmallind]

131. You don;t have to work at a chemical plant - so they shouldn't get respirators?

[beevul]

135. Just a hint...

When you have to go as far as comparing a chemical plant where respirators are necessary...to a bars, where people have smoked for a hundred years or longer...

You may be stretching things...a lot.

[Nye Bevan]

139. It's actually a pretty good comparison

The question is whether an employer can force his employees to be exposed to unpleasant toxic fumes. I don't think this should be allowed, whether the employer is a bar or a chemical plant.

[beevul]

142. Please...

"The question is whether an employer can force his employees to be exposed to unpleasant toxic fumes. I don't think this should be allowed, whether the employer is a bar or a chemical plant."

He would have to be able to force his employees to be...employees, before he would be able to "force his employees to be exposed to unpleasant toxic fumes" - which, unless we've descended into slavery again and no one told me, is not the case.

[Greyhound]

145. "necessitous men are not free" - FDR

[beevul]

148. "necessitous men"

Are those people that are compelled via governmental edict to make thier establishments (which are privately owned) "non smoking" establishments under penalty of fines or worse, "free" or "necessitous men"?


Who is it that is forced? Is it the business owner forced to make his/her establisment a non-smoking area, or is it the employee chooses to work there?


I think, possibly, I misunderstood your post.

Its possible we are in agreement.

[Greyhound]

166. We agree on your initial reply,

I don't think we do on the matter of employees choosing. We have allowed the demise of a standard that created choice in employment for millions of people. The phrase is from http://www2.austin.cc.tx.us/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm">FDR's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention of 1936.

The burden of necessity eliminates real choice in employment, similar to the phrase, "If you want to control a man, give him a mortgage".

[dmallind]

160. But the choice to avoid employment in bars and chemical plants is EXACTLY equal.

[dmallind]

159. Nope - perfect analogy

You say it should be up to the employee to assess the risks and choose accordingly. I say we should minimize the known risks. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but there is no difference.

[beevul]

161. You say there is no difference.

And that, is where you fail.


In one instance, you have property owners deciding what otherwise legal behaviors they will allow on thier property, and in the other you have a group forcing that same property owner through legal edict not to allow an otherwise legal behavior.

No comparison what so ever.

[beevul]

162. And you are entirely free to do just that.

"I say we should minimize the known risks."

On an individual basis. By not going to places where those risks - specifically the ones related to smoke - exist. We are talking about smoking here, not chemical plants.

I'll be quite plain:

For some folks, its not enough to have smoking and non-smoking venues. The antis want ALL venues to themselves. They want smoking STOPPED.

You can cloud the issue any way you like, but when its all said and done, thats where its being taken, and its no accident.

Thats whats being done, and thats exactly the intent.

[dmallind]

175. But again the employee can choose to work elsewhere. We have a responsibility to make places safe.

We can't just say "some people like to do this even though it kills thousands of other people every year, so let's say those other people just have to stay out of their way". In what other context would that be OK?

I wonder if you wanted the compromise of some smooking bars and some nonsmoking bars BEFORE the bans. I never saw smokers voluntarily avoiding any bars to allow them to be smoke free. Where was the compromise then? Smokers had all the bars. In many, albeit a shrinking number of thankfully, states they still do have all the bars. Do you have a problem with that? If not then your desire for compromise now is dishonest. If smokers had compromised, or would compromise, the current and inevitable future bans would not be necessary.

The problem with smoking is that it harms nonsmokers, directly and unavoidably. Nothing else comes close to doing the same while remaining legal. Expecting the right to continue to harm others where you choose is illogical, and is not even considered vaguely appropriate for any other activity. The right to harm yourselves? Go nuts. But it's smokers who need to keep that harm away from others, not nonsmokers who need to keep away from you regardless of where you want to smoke.

[beevul]

177. Employees have been covered in other posts.

"We can't just say "some people like to do this even though it kills thousands of other people every year, so let's say those other people just have to stay out of their way". In what other context would that be OK?"

Exceptions could have been made to hire smokers at smoking venues, and non smokers at non smoking venues. Thats already been stated elsewhere in this thread.

"I wonder if you wanted the compromise of some smooking bars and some nonsmoking bars BEFORE the bans. I never saw smokers voluntarily avoiding any bars to allow them to be smoke free. Where was the compromise then? Smokers had all the bars. In many, albeit a shrinking number of thankfully, states they still do have all the bars. Do you have a problem with that? If not then your desire for compromise now is dishonest. If smokers had compromised, or would compromise, the current and inevitable future bans would not be necessary."

Me personally, I'd have been just fine with that. The fact of the matter though, is that one side never bothered to ask, and just went full bore on the ban-wagon. Did you read that? YOUR side never bothered to try. And that right there is where the vitriol comes from. The people who support the complete ban are responsible for it. When you make a complete ban, you create an all or nothing situation, you draw a line in the sand. And in doing so, create a situation where people stand on one side of that line, or the other. It creates a situation where smokers look unreasonable and uncaring for opposing it, and thats been milked for all its worth too. No accident, that...but smokers are not the architects of that. I'd be willing to bet that if one were to suggest such a compromise, that its the anti smoking people who would be against it, not the smokers.

"Expecting the right to continue to harm others where you choose is illogical, and is not even considered vaguely appropriate for any other activity."

Thats nice, but I don't expect that. I don't think anyone REALLY expects that. I think that most smokers, myself included, just expected others to be reasonable. Banning it in EVERY bar isn't reasonable. And theres where the "fuck you" attitude from smokers often comes from. From dealing with others on the other side of the issue who are too "pushy" for thier own good.

"But it's smokers who need to keep that harm away from others, not nonsmokers who need to keep away from you regardless of where you want to smoke."

No, that works both ways. As a smoker, its encumbent on one to not smoke in a non-smoking venue. It is also encumbent on non-smokers to stay out of smoking venues or shut the hell up if they can't be bothered to keep themselves away from a smoky place. This is assuming that both groups have places to "call thiers". Placing ALL the burden on one side, or the other just takes things back to one side being too "pushy" again".

That there is the textbook definition of reasonable.

[ieoeja]

133. When smokers in Chicago talk about all the money being lost by this ban.

I ask them, "who do you personally know that cut down on going to the bar?"

It's been a couple years now, but nobody has yet been able to identify this elusive smoker that stopped coming to the bar.

In this case, where they have a smoking option nearby, there is a legitimate possibility they would move on. But I'm on Chicago's north side. Nobody is going to drive that far to do their drinking. For that matter there are a couple of bars in my neighborhood defying the ban. So why have none of the smokers from the other bars switched to those bars?

It turns out that location and the company is more important.

[dmallind]

176. True everywhere - bars overall do not lose.

Individual losers and winners may arise, but people keep going to bars even though they have to go outside to smoke.

[Deep13]

149. Huh. Too bad it's illegal, huh? nt

[beyond cynical]

154. Free bars for free people...

:hi:

[leeroysphitz]

155. Crack dealers say it's 'good business' to ignore drug laws

[Bill McBlueState]

164. I guess it's good business for some bars

With one exception, all the bars I've been in since smoking bans were enacted have actually been smoke-free. For the most part, management and customers seem to go along with the law.

The one exception was a creepy little place with a bunch of yeehaws that I wouldn't want to go back to anyway.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

168. I won't be going to karaoke night.

I am a damn good singer, but I have asthma and allergies and scar tissue in my lungs (my parents both smoked when I was little, up until I was ten years old). I have NEVER EVER smoked even one single cigarette, but I have scar tissue in my lungs.

If the bar owners wanted to solve the problem of the fumes, they could not be cheap bastards and get a large ozone generator here (www.mold-kill.com).

That will kill the odors immediately. However, you cannot breathe ozone because it is an irritant.

[The Straight Story]

186. Maybe you could get your own bar for non-smokers

Should be a market for it in your area.

[bluetrain]

169. When the smoking ban took effect in NYC, my friends and I discovered that bars we'd usually hang at

for round after round after round became one drink pubs between smoke breaks. We'd go out to have a smoke and wander off to another location. If everyone was doing the same thing, maybe the bars didn't lose any money because there would be a constant influx of one drink customers. We, also, started staying in more because it was cheaper and we could smoke. There were definitely a handful of spots which either didn't enforce the ban at all or didn't enforce it after a certain hour and they got most of our drinking business. I avoid bars in LA that don't have smoking patios or the like.

[RidinMyDonkey]

171. As a smoker, I hate smoking bans during the winter

I do follow them though, that's for damn sure. It's not my place to smoke up in someone else's face.

I do feel sorry for this particular owner because he is close to a border that does allow smoking in it's bars. It's similar like that here, I live in Minnesota, very near to the Wisconsin border. Some people drive the extra twenty minutes to WI to smoke in bar. My sympathy only goes so far though, because I never believe a profit is worth more than a life.

[wuushew]

180. Luckily the WI smoking ban goes into effect next year.

July 5th 2010. Man I can't wait for massively cleaner air.

[Capn Sunshine]

191. You fucking TOOLS

bought into the subversive crap foisted on you by big tobacco back when you were insecure and wanted something to do with your hands, and look cool. SUCKERS! 75% of us didn't.

Now, you expect all of us to ignore the basic fact that SMOKING KILLS for your "rights" to fuck yourselves over and contribute to the health care crisis in this country. We are expected to coddle your addiction.

waaa waaa waaa follows.