First they came for smokers, then pets: New York City Cracking Down On Bars That Allow Pets

[The Straight Story]

New York City Cracking Down On Bars That Allow Pets

"The New York City Health Department has been cracking down on animals in bars, much to the dismay of pet and bar owners.

Between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, the health department issued 469 citations for having live animals in bars and restaurants, The New York Times reported."

I`ve lived in many large cities including San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley and I`ve never heard of a dog-friendly bar. Even in an "anything goes" city like Frisco, the health department would shut down a bar that allowed patrons to bring their dogs with them.

A bar that allows you to bring your pooch with you is as close to paradise as you can get in this sad world. A bartender will don a sympathetic expression on his face as long as you tip him, but your dog will empathize with your plight as you drown your sorrow in suds.

http://thesop.org/story/20110828/outrage-new-york-city-cracking-down-on-bars-that-allow-pets.html

Next up - no pets in cars with kids :rofl:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Not too long ago I was in a bar/restarurant in Amsterdam.

There was a cat sitting on a bar stool; he must have been one of the regulars. Most places in this country would have 86'd the cat and fined the restaurant. I don't understand why dogs and cats are considered too filthy to set foot in a restaurant or bar - as long as they are kept out of the food and off the counters, what's the problem?

Smoking, on the other hand - I'm OK with no smoking. It's nice to be able to go out somewhere for the evening and not come home stinking like somebody's dirty ashtray.

[The Straight Story]

3. Well some people might be allergic to pets, or may not want to smell like them

Now one COULD offer a choice based on the bar (we allow pets, another bar does not) - but choice, it seems, is something that is frowned upon in 'free' countries these days.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Or may not want to have catshit in their food...

Love cats...don't want them licking their ass near the serving surface.


Is it just me?

[JustAnotherGen]

9. Nope

You aren't!

[The Straight Story]

10. I lick my ass at the bar all the time

They gonna ban me? :rofl:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Not as long as you don't lick the plates when you're done.

[Randypiper]

41. I think there are some bars that cater to that.

[RC]

55. Or have them jumping up on the table after pawing the litter.

Not so sanitary.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. I'd be okay with that

But you have to put a highly visible sign on the bar and meet a higher level of inspection. You can't sneak it in.

[pipi_k]

2. You would think they'd want to raise the class level of the joint...

So let me get this straight...

People who act like uncivilized beasts are allowed.

Animals who sit quietly and don't make any trouble are not allowed.


Give me a room full of dogs any day....

[Maine-ah]

13. I've had dogs get into fights

at the restaurant I work at. We have outdoor seating that goes from a terrace to a large dock. People bring their leashed dogs. So far this summer we've had 3 fights.

there are usually kids out there, servers with trays of food...I've tripped over someone's beasty numerous times, kids holding leashes with larger dogs...etc.

From a servers POV, I would rather no dogs.

[pipi_k]

70. Well, people with dogs that can't get along with others

should not bring them into situations like that.

And people should NOT let their kids take "control" of the family pet in public.

It's not the dogs, it's the people who own them...although I do see your point.


Of course, many dog owners think their dogs are just models of civilized behavior, just like most parents think their kids are the best, smartest, cutest, etc.


I know my two girls well enough not to expose them or others to that sort of thing. They do NOT play well with other dogs.

Still and all...dogs will sometimes fight. They're dogs.

Human beings are supposed to be better than animals.

I've seen more humans getting into brawls than dogs...

:shrug:

[JustAnotherGen]

4. I'm dreadfully

Allergic to cats. My mom is the same way - it sets off her asthma. I love animals. Right now I'm watching our turtle we found on a busy street with a cracked undersell chase fish. . . but I wouldn't bring R. Jack out to Manhattan on a Saturday night for a cocktail wit us. So - do non paying cats take precedent over a Kir Royale lover? Or is it - stay home so the cat can be happy and enjoy the Muddy Waters cover guy and have a cocktail?

[Logical]

5. I LOVE smoke free restaurants. Best thing that has ever happened!

[ixion]

14. It's extremism

and you should be ashamed for celebrating crap like that.

[The Straight Story]

15. Hey now, limiting choice is now seen as good. We saved the Indians and other people from themselves

Now it is time to save everyone else from making choices we deem to be 'savage'.

Controlling others is the best way progressives have of making this a better country for all.

Ban sins, create a puritan society, and complain about all those who came before us and did the same thing....

Control, it's not just for the RW fundies ya know.

[ixion]

17. Yeah, no kidding

extremists on both sides making the Rest of Us miserable. Joy.


Well said. :toast: :smoke:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. You keep whining about "choice"

You have a "choice" to stay outside and smoke... or go inside and NOT endanger other peoples' health.

What's the big deal?

[The Straight Story]

37. And you have a choice not to go to a bar that allows smoking - what's the big deal? (nt)

[dmallind]

46. only now - no fucking choice before the bans. Welcome to my old world. After 400 yrs we're square.

[The Straight Story]

56. You could always open a non-smoking one back then, Wendy's went no smoking long ago

Didn't like it, you could eat elsewhere.

Oh, and who made you go to such places anyway?

[uppityperson]

43. "choice" is always limited. They even have laws prohibiting people from killing each other over

trivial things. Can you imagine? Oh yes, unrec for comparing second hand smoke to second hand pets.

[Odin2005]

63. Your right to swing your fist ends at MY FACE.

2nd-Hand smoke = hitting someones face.

[uppityperson]

65. aw, come on, you extremists want to limit EVERYTHING

agree with you

[Logical]

19. I have to wear shoes, clothes, etc in stores. Any different?

[The Straight Story]

23. Yes - why yes it is:

A number of myths have existed from time to time about regulations requiring the wearing of footwear. In the United States, during the period of the counterculture movement of the 1960s, business establishments would deny admittance to barefoot hippies arguing that health regulations required that shoes be worn.<53> This led to a belief by many in various nonexistent OSHA or local health department regulations preventing people from going to stores, restaurants, and other establishments without shoes. Such businesses would post "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" (or similar) signs. However, those regulations that exist apply only to employees, and not customers.<54> Similarly, there are no state health codes that require customers to wear shoes, as was demonstrated by a project undertaken by The Society for Barefoot Living in 1997, and again in 2002.<55> Individual businesses, however, are free to refuse service to customers without footwear or clothing that they deem inappropriate, and individual cities and towns may also require certain footwear in public places. In August 2009, Burger King admitted that it took this rule perhaps a bit too far when employees at a Sunset Hills, Missouri restaurant asked a woman to leave because her six-month-old baby was barefoot.<56>

It is not illegal to drive a motor vehicle while barefoot. Some people speculate that driving barefoot increases the risk of an accident if bare feet slip off the pedals.<57> It is legal throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom to drive barefoot.<57><58><59> However, in some jurisdictions, police officers may ticket you for other things if the fact that you were driving barefoot or in flip flops/high heeled shoes hindered your driving and/or resulted in an accident.<60>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot

So stores make their own choices here. And if one wants to allow you in there barefoot - do you think they should not be allowed to offer said choice?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

24. Eliminating secondhand smoke in an enclosed area is extremism?

:rofl:

[The Straight Story]

26. It's called "no one makes me go to a bar, so I don't have to be around the smoke"

choice - you can choose to go to a smoking or non-smoking bar.

It's extremism when you remove choices. Like abortion (don't want one, don't have sex - the RW and some on the left I think are married in their desires to limit choice and control others).

[Starbucks Anarchist]

28. You don't get it.

Secondhand smoke is a major health hazard. The smoking bans are not some big-government plot to keep you from smoking. It's to keep other people from being harmed by your secondhand smoke.

Nothing is stopping smokers from walking 20 feet to outside the bar's entrance to smoke. And comparing it to abortion is ludicrous and insulting (there are no secondhand abortions), and the sooner you understand why indoor smoking bans are in place, the sooner you can drop this stupid charade of the poor oppressed smoker that you somehow manage to shoehorn onto every goddamn thing you post.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dmallind]

48. no-one makes smokers go to bars now so quit whining. nt

[ixion]

29. Yes, it is, because it removes CHOICE

and it's not funny.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

31. The choice to expose everyone around you to secondhand smoke?

And the fact that you're so worked up about being denied the right to expose others to secondhand smoke and harm their health is hilarious.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. If I was an extremist, I would tell you not to smoke at all.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking harming the health of others near you is some sort of God-given right.

[ixion]

36. There is no god

and it's not up to you to tell anyone how to live. Oh, and those so-called 'studies' on second hand smoke are as bad as the 'studies' that claim marijuana is dangerous.

[dmallind]

45. It's just sensible

And you should be ashamed for pissing over complaints about real extremism by pretending not wanting to breathe in a noxious amalgam of poisons and carcinogens is even vaguely extremist. What's next - equating the expectation that bars provide toilets to gay-bashing?

[ixion]

47. spoken like an extremist

thanks for proving my point.

[dmallind]

49. spoken like a moron - thanks for proving mine. Now whine about this too.

You had it your way from the invention of smoking centuries ago. Can you give the rest of us a decade or two of getting your old deal before you go crying to mama?

[XemaSab]

51. If bars didn't provide toilets

then people would have to risk a public charge for exposure by peeing on the street. People could even get put on the sex offender registry! And you know what other people have been unfairly labeled as sex offenders? Gay people! And since people on the sex offender registry risk being attacked by vigilantes, not providing toilets could lead to a rise in vigilante attacks, much like gay people risk being bashed.

Oh, wait, am I supposed to provide a specious argument FOR toilets, or AGAINST toilets?

Okay... regrouping.

Bar owners should have the CHOICE to provide toilets to their customers. Their customers can either choose to go to a bar with a toilet, or just pee in the alley around the corner. Some people even prefer to go to bars without toilets. But forcing a bar owner to provide a toilet for customers is just wrong. Do we permit homophobes to go around beating gay people? Certainly not! So why should we force the homophobe-like health department to go around financially "bashing" bar owners by insisting that they provide toilets?

[XemaSab]

53. BTW ^that^ was as specious

as calling people who are in favor of smoking bans "extremists."

It's hard to call a majority of the American public "extremists," but the druggies in this thread sure did it. :P

[Fokker Trip]

52. Second hand smoke is a danger to my health.

As someone with Cystic Fibrosis, my health suffers a lot if I am exposed to smoke or dust in any quantity. I used to have to say no when friends wanted me to go to a bar or restaurant with them. Now that smoking is banned in restaurants and bars (I'm in Canada) I can go to any of these establishments without much concern.

As I look at it, the extremism on display here is in your viewpoint that smokers sould be allowed to endanger my health for the sake of imbibing the drug nicotine.

Frankly, I think that you should be ashamed for espousing this viewpoint. If you need a hit of nicotine(and that's what it is...a hit) in the bar or restaurant then chew some nicotine gum. I chewed it for a while years back, its good stuff.

[Odin2005]

61. You are free to smoke in the pricacy of your own home.

Don't make the rest of us have to breath that shit.

[ixion]

66. yeah, it's YOUR world, we're just living in it

:puke:

[edhopper]

21. K&R!!

[leftyohiolib]

27. me too!!!

[XemaSab]

42. Word

:D

[Odin2005]

60. Me too. If you want to smoke, practice your filthy habit privately.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Today in SF you would see all sorts of "service animals", not just dogs

[LooseWilly]

11. Whoever wrote that story doesn't know Oakland bars... George Kayes allows dogs and smoking...

http://eastbay.citysearch.com/profile/1021408/oakland_ca/george_kaye_s.html

"Great dog, great conversation and great juke box
by paulie_z at Citysearch

Friendly bartender, pours a qood pint of guinness and the juke box is great. Not many better places to while-a-way an hour or two. What a neighborhood bar should be!"

The bar is also owner-operated... and since CA anti-smoking laws are "justified" as being intended to protect employees— a bar that has no employees isn't subject to the anti-smoking law. An owner is allowed to subject him/herself to the "hazards" of second hand smoke if he/she wants.

And if you're in the Bay Area, calling it "Frisco" makes you an embarrassment to anyone within earshot...

[madinmaryland]

12. Sounds like a great idea. It will protect pets from the second hand smoke they would be exposed

to at the bar!!

:P

[Bluebear]

16. Yes when I think of Martin Niemollers quote, smokers come instantly to mond

:)

[sabrina 1]

18. So true ~ so easy to take away freedom, so hard to get it back.

[dmallind]

50. You took that SERIOUSLY?? Fucking Christ smokers are delusional martyr-wannabes. nt

[sabrina 1]

58. Who's talking about smokers?

We were talking about giving up rights ~ which as I said, is easy to do and very hard to undo.

[bluedigger]

20. Dogs are common in bars in New Orleans.

Just like the humans, "Be nice or leave".

[FLPanhandle]

34. I prefer dogs to some of the people in the bars

The dogs are probably cleaner too.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

38. Next up? No kids!

And guess what, that too will get the support of people who have no kids of their own. This is how we give our our freedoms. Authoritarians know to focus on particular pet issues of certain groups and once they succeed with on group, ie, the anti-smoking crowd, they move on to the next, then the next and the next and they will always pick up selfish supporters along the way.

Then one day when the original supporters of the crackdown on the first group, the people realize that one of their own 'pet' issues is now illegal, and they wonder why, and wonder why there are people who support the illegalization of THEM, when they thought they were the 'good guys' who had a legitimate case against the first group so why are THEY being treated this way now?

The intolerance and selfishness of some people is what is destroying this country.

[krabigirl]

39. Agree with you.

[The Straight Story]

40. When my mom was 6/7 her dad used to walk to the bar with her (talking 1930's here)

He did not drink much, would go down and see some friends, have a beer with some salt in it, and mom just hung out (sometimes with other kids).

She spoke of such things many times (her dad died when she was really young). A bar was a place people just came together to hang out in, kind of like if they did at your home but it was more central.

Me - I rarely go to bars (kind of not up on the whole drinking and driving home thing personally) but would be nice to go to one once in awhile to play pool and euchre (and the bar down the street has both - and they all smoke and could care less about the law).

Guess some folks just want to make sure we all have fun but only their way and based on their own 'religious' beliefs.

The hippies of the sixties are probably wondering what happened to all that freedom stuff today - guess we got new 'old white guys in suits' to replace the ones from then, but now they can be saying that they are doing things for our own good and if we are not hip with that we are evil and not thinking about how others might not like what we do.

Choice and freedom go together.

[sabrina 1]

44. Authoritarians have taken over everywhere and in the process

they have destroyed so many things. They have elevated the paranoid, the perennial victims, the fearful, the bullies, the control freaks, all those who are so self-centered they do not have any idea that there are actually ways of doing and looking at things, other than their own narrow viewpoints. They are not capable of empathy. But these fringes of society are useful tools for those who wish to take away freedom. The sad thing is they are only contributing to the destruction of their own in the end.

It's all about control and it appears to be working, for now.

[JustAnotherGen]

68. Why would someone

Bring a child to a rowdy bar on a Saturday night? Not being snarky but - seriously. . . and I 'grew up around' the hospitality industry. I can't imagine my mom making me sit at a smoky bar in the 1980's on a Saturday night. Kids no kids - it doesn't matter. Not everything is a good environment for a child. I'd say a bar - smoking or not . . . or a club - smoking or not . . . or a blues/jazz club - smoking or not . . . is not a place for a child at 1:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning. If someone thinks it is - then I want to be 'intrusive' and tread on their right to be a parent. I.E. Call CPS and turn their ass in.

And the cat hanging around the dance club floor? The raves I used to go to in the 1990's? That's one dead dog or cat. Seriously. People trance out on booze and/or X or 4 are not going to be paying attention. Shit - even the Limelight in Manhattan? That cat would only have had one life circa 1993.

[Fokker Trip]

54. Smokers are drug addicts.

I have absolutley no problem with anyone imbibing any substance as long as that activity doesn't endanger anyone else. Second hand smoke in closed spaces does endanger at least my health as I have Cystic Fibrosis.

So smokers, please don't defend you wish to get your fix at the expense of my health and other health/breathing compromised individuals(and given the number of young people who need inhalers, this is a large and growing number).

[Texasgal]

57. yeah, like ALCOHOL

dosen't endanger anyone else, right?

[Fokker Trip]

67. It certainly does when consumed in any large quantity.

I'm not sure what your point is? Are you agreeing with me or bugged by my openness to people personal choice of ingested substance? My parents were alcoholics and inflicted much emotional damage on my sister and I (I do believe that they did the best they could with what they had). I drink rarely and only in extreme moderation. I also smoked for about a year before I knew that I had CF(this was a real mistake...but I had no idea how addictive nicotine would be for me)

I don't believe that prohibition works at all and I also believe that all addictions should be dealt with as medical issues, not criminal problems. Addictions, after all, are attempts to cope with internal pain.

So I agree. Alcohol has much potential to cause harm to others and to the consumer. The solutions to drinking and driving and alcohol fuelled violence are much harder to deal with than banning smoking in certain locations.

[left on green only]

59. Don't Call It Frisco. Just say "The City"

The word "Frisco" is offensive to any person who actually lives there, and also to many who do not.

[elana i am]

62. only service animals are allowed around here

i can't remember a time it was any different. i'm not sure why this is an issue.

cigarette smoke and furry creatures set off my asthma. i'm perfectly willing to defer to service dogs, but i appreciate not having to vacate an establishment because of a smoker or a non-service animal.

[Odin2005]

64. Uh, it seems obvious to me that pets in restaurants and bars would be a sanitation hazard.

[rucky]

69. and if your pet smokes cigarettes, forget it.