PDA

View Full Version : List of State smoking bans in the United States with map - Kind of interesting


astro
04-27-2008, 12:30 PM
List of smoking bans in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States)

Amsuingly North Carolina has a ban on smoking bans.

There are no smoking bans at the state level in North Carolina. A state law passed in 1993 expressly prohibits any smoking restrictions to be passed by any form of local government (counties, cities, towns, etc.)

nikonikosuru
04-27-2008, 12:35 PM
List of smoking bans in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States)

I wish it was banned in Michigan. :( I get tired of smelling like an ashtray whenever I go out to eat. It's one of the things that makes me look forward to moving to California.

astro
04-27-2008, 12:41 PM
I wish it was banned in Michigan. :( I get tired of smelling like an ashtray whenever I go out to eat. It's one of the things that makes me look forward to moving to California.

We had our statewide ban happen earlier this year. It is great to be able to go out to any bar, club or restaurant in MD without ending up smelling like an ashtray at the end of the evening.

AuntiePam
04-27-2008, 01:07 PM
The Iowa ban goes into effect on July 1. I'm a smoker, but I rarely go out to eat or drink, and I have no problem not smoking for a few hours.

What's interesting about the Iowa ban is that the only two exemptions are casinos and the Veterans Home in Marshalltown. I guess gamblers and old soldiers have some influence.

The Them
04-27-2008, 01:56 PM
If it's your place, you don't want smoking? Fair. It's YOUR place. Elsewhere FUCK OFF.
Does it not occur to you ever-so-healthy-and-pure-shitheads-puritans that there may be more to these laws than the well-being of people shoved outside to feed their monkey? Think control. The Prohibitionists and Drug Warriors claim to be doing good too.

To paraphrase Sam Kinnison: Give us back our heroin, we'll give you back your tobacco.

Otto
04-27-2008, 01:57 PM
It's been banned in restaurants in Madison for at least as long as I've lived here. I remember visiting my parents after they moved to Iowa and being shocked at seeing (and smelling) someone smoking when we went out to dinner. Now it's banned in bars, for which I am quite thankful, but oh the bitching from bar owners about it when it went through, all terrified that they were going to go out of business (IIRC something like two did). There was talk of a statewide ban in the last legislative session but it didn't make it through because of the bar owners demanding an extended phase-in time.

Otto
04-27-2008, 02:02 PM
If it's your place, you don't want smoking? Fair. It's YOUR place. Elsewhere FUCK OFF.
Does it not occur to you ever-so-healthy-and-pure-shitheads-puritans that there may be more to these laws than the well-being of people shoved outside to feed their monkey? Think control. The Prohibitionists and Drug Warriors claim to be doing good too.
I for one welcome our tobacco-snatching overlords.

racer72
04-27-2008, 04:39 PM
If it's your place, you don't want smoking? Fair. It's YOUR place. Elsewhere FUCK OFF.
Does it not occur to you ever-so-healthy-and-pure-shitheads-puritans that there may be more to these laws than the well-being of people shoved outside to feed their monkey? Think control. The Prohibitionists and Drug Warriors claim to be doing good too.

To paraphrase Sam Kinnison: Give us back our heroin, we'll give you back your tobacco.
As a fair reply, take your cigarette butts and shove them up your ass. I consider the air that I breathe to be my place and I don't want anybody poluting it so they can slowly kill themselves. That includes anyplace open to the general public. My state has the strictest anti-smoking laws in the US and I don't think they are strict enough. Personally I won't be happy till the use of any and all tobacco products are outlawed.

Marley23
04-27-2008, 04:52 PM
If it's your place, you don't want smoking? Fair. It's YOUR place. Elsewhere FUCK OFF.
As a fair reply, take your cigarette butts and shove them up your ass.

This is NOT appropriate in MPSIMS or anywhere outside the Pit. Stop it now.

Ephemera
04-27-2008, 04:55 PM
When did you become a moderator, Marley?

Chefguy
04-27-2008, 04:55 PM
While Alaska doesn't have a statewide ban (fat chance!), at least Anchorage has a city-wide ban. It's wonderful.

nikonikosuru
04-27-2008, 04:59 PM
If it's your place, you don't want smoking? Fair. It's YOUR place. Elsewhere FUCK OFF.
Does it not occur to you ever-so-healthy-and-pure-shitheads-puritans that there may be more to these laws than the well-being of people shoved outside to feed their monkey? Think control. The Prohibitionists and Drug Warriors claim to be doing good too.
Wow. Sounds like somebody needs their cigarette. :rolleyes:

I for one welcome our tobacco-snatching overlords.
I like you. I like the cut of your jib.

Marley23
04-27-2008, 05:00 PM
When did you become a moderator, Marley?
About a month ago. Kneel before Zod! :p

beanpod
04-27-2008, 05:04 PM
A semi-hijacking question: What's wrong with allowing "smoking" licenses to certain businesses, like liquor licenses? They'd have to advertise it outside and all that jazz.

There'd be a tax and some overhead they'd have to go through, so it would discourage the average family restaurant from allowing smoking, but businesses that want to cater to smokers could. That way us non-smokers could happily avoid smoking places, but smokers would still have plenty of places they could go to. Without the license, smoking would be prohibited. Then maybe with all this good will floating around, smokers might be a little bit less touchy when visiting non-smoking places, too.

LurkMeister
04-27-2008, 07:21 PM
North Carolina may have a state law against smoking restrictions by local government, but there are apparently a lot of voluntary non-smoking areas. Just about all the restaurants I go to are non-smoking, much of the UNC campus is non-smoking as of last year (even outside the buildings).

I do like beanpod's idea, though. I have no problem with people who want to smoke, as long as I have the option of not inhaling the by-products of their habit.

nashiitashii
04-27-2008, 07:48 PM
Amsuingly North Carolina has a ban on smoking bans.

In contrast, Washington State's ban is the strictest in the country and even goes as far as banning smoking in cigar bars. That's a bit strange; what do people do in cigar bars in WA, then? :dubious:

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to be able to smoke in restaurants, shops that aren't purveyors of tobacco and offices. Though smoking is a very addictive habit, it can and should be something that isn't forced on everyone else who doesn't smoke, and allowing people to smoke in all public places forces a lot of us to have to deal with smokers who force the ill effects of their habits on us when we don't smoke.

Brown Eyed Girl
04-27-2008, 08:07 PM
In contrast, Washington State's ban is the strictest in the country and even goes as far as banning smoking in cigar bars. That's a bit strange; what do people do in cigar bars in WA, then? :dubious:
Drool, longingly and cry in their scotch? Seriously, are there any actual cigar bars (not tobacco shops, but actual bars) left in WA? It seems kind of pointless and cruel.

I've grown used to the smoking ban. I don't go out much anyway and when I do and want to smoke, I step outside. But I just don't get removal of butt cans and built into trashcans ashtrays outside the buildings. Now, I have no place to get rid of my butt, except throw it in the trash can. (I do try to roll out the spent tobacco though, but not everyone does.) And I have noticed a lot more cigarette butt litter outside establishments since the ban took effect. Just give us some butt cans back, please?

amarinth
04-27-2008, 08:17 PM
In contrast, Washington State's ban is the strictest in the country and even goes as far as banning smoking in cigar bars. That's a bit strange; what do people do in cigar bars in WA, then?The one I knew of closed.

In my last workplace, there was a sad, little, open sided tent all the way across the parking lot so that the smokers could have something to stand under when they needed a nicotine hit in the Seattle mist & rain. If having to trudge out there and get rained on (not to mention the price of cigarettes) wasn't a deterrent...well, it was easy to see how hard it must be to quit smoking.

I just can't imagine being able to smoke inside an office building. That's just insane. And apparently, good percentage of the country can.

picunurse
04-27-2008, 08:36 PM
We have the most restrictive smoking ban yet. Before it went into effect there was a lot of woe is me by bar owners. Since it was inacted there has been little or no change in the number of people in bars and restuarants. Compliance has been very good. There's one seedy bar we go to for breakfast that still allows smoking, under the table... literally. :rolleyes:

neutron star
04-27-2008, 08:38 PM
A semi-hijacking question: What's wrong with allowing "smoking" licenses to certain businesses, like liquor licenses? They'd have to advertise it outside and all that jazz.
Because that's a rational idea, but the people who push smoking bans sound like this:I consider the air that I breathe to be my place and I don't want anybody poluting it so they can slowly kill themselves. That includes anyplace open to the general public. My state has the strictest anti-smoking laws in the US and I don't think they are strict enough. Personally I won't be happy till the use of any and all tobacco products are outlawed.

I just can't imagine being able to smoke inside an office building. That's just insane. And apparently, good percentage of the country can.
There's a smoking room where I work, and it's a state building! The one thing I actually don't agree with, though, is that the vending machines are in the smoking room, so if you want a snack you've got to smell my cigarette smoke.

You know, looking at the linked map, Pennsylvania is starting to look a little lonely up there...

Harmonious Discord
04-27-2008, 08:49 PM
I love going to eat in Madison and the malls. I stay away from some of the Dells restaurants, because of the horrid smoke filled rooms. In a number of towns I've seen restaurants go from smoking to non-smoking because of the loss of business. You'd go in and there were long waits in line. The smoking section might have 25% occupied at the most. They made a monetary judgment to go 100% non-smoking. they still fill up so you have to wait, but they now use 100% of their seating, during the peak meal times.

Brown Eyed Girl
04-27-2008, 09:09 PM
We have the most restrictive smoking ban yet. Before it went into effect there was a lot of woe is me by bar owners. Since it was inacted there has been little or no change in the number of people in bars and restuarants. Compliance has been very good. There's one seedy bar we go to for breakfast that still allows smoking, under the table... literally. :rolleyes:
You go to a seedy bar for breakfast? :confused:

I've had Bloody Mary's for breakfast after a late night out clubbing, but I didn't really call it breakfast. :p

amarinth
04-27-2008, 10:14 PM
There's a smoking room where I work, and it's a state building! The one thing I actually don't agree with, though, is that the vending machines are in the smoking room, so if you want a snack you've got to smell my cigarette smoke.When smoking was allowed in bars, on the rare occasion I went to bars, I'd come home with my hair full of smoke and my clothes full of smoke. It was unpleasant - but hey, I could avoid it by just not going.

But at work...I can't avoid work. So having to come home every day and wash out all of my clothing or have everything dry cleaned after every time you wear it (which becomes a bit expensive and wasteful) and having to wash my hair every day (which will not be good for my hair. Or my mood). That would be really annoying. And I'm not even one of the people who gets sick from smoke. Thinking that it's totally ok to smoke in the office...that's very different.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus
04-28-2008, 01:39 AM
I was surprised to see from the link that some places apparently ban smoking in bars, but not restaurants. That makes no kind of sense to me at all.

Cisco
04-28-2008, 01:57 AM
I was surprised to see from the link that some places apparently ban smoking in bars, but not restaurants. That makes no kind of sense to me at all.
No, that would be blue. There aren't any blue states on that map.

I grew up in NC, and when I was a kid you could smoke EVERYWHERE. Teachers smoked in the teacher's lounge with the door open (it was right next to the office), people smoked in the grocery store while shopping. Even in high school (mid/late-90s) I smoked inside gas stations. I'm glad it's not like that anymore, but some of the bans are getting a little ridiculous in the other direction. I wasn't even aware of the ban here until more than a year after it took effect, because I don't smoke anymore, but someone was telling me it's illegal to smoke within 150 feet of any entrance to any building, or somesuch pish posh. That's absurd.

Amblydoper
04-28-2008, 02:25 AM
A bit off topic, but why do so many smokers get so defensive about their right to smoke, then complain about how hard is it to quit, and how horrible it is to puff in the cold and rain? Do cigarettes cause lung cancer AND hypocrisy?

*not referring to anyone in this thread*

Rick
04-28-2008, 03:16 AM
A semi-hijacking question: What's wrong with allowing "smoking" licenses to certain businesses, like liquor licenses? They'd have to advertise it outside and all that jazz.

There'd be a tax and some overhead they'd have to go through, so it would discourage the average family restaurant from allowing smoking, but businesses that want to cater to smokers could. That way us non-smokers could happily avoid smoking places, but smokers would still have plenty of places they could go to. Without the license, smoking would be prohibited. Then maybe with all this good will floating around, smokers might be a little bit less touchy when visiting non-smoking places, too.
Wouldn't fly in California. the smoking ban in restaurants/bars was enacted as a workplace safety measure due to increased lung cancer deaths among restaurant and bar workers.
Cal OSHA would make such an idea an non-starter.

VarlosZ
04-28-2008, 03:48 AM
"I can't stand cigarette smoke, but no one seems to care down at the Drink & Smoke & Drink & Smoke Tavern." -- Tom Epstein (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/37860)

Seriously though, just on principle I'm not a fan of smoking bans applying to private businesses, but I can see where the other side is coming from on that issue.


This type of attitude, on the other hand, drives me up a damn wall:
Personally I won't be happy till the use of any and all tobacco products are outlawed.
Ew, ew, ewww. I want to buy a cigar, and that guy wants to sell me one. You don't get a say in the matter, and if you insist on obtaining one then you forfeit the right to complain when I start crossing items off of your shopping list.

Noone Special
04-28-2008, 04:19 AM
If it's your place, you don't want smoking? Fair. It's YOUR place. Elsewhere FUCK OFF.
Does it not occur to you ever-so-healthy-and-pure-shitheads-puritans that there may be more to these laws than the well-being of people shoved outside to feed their monkey? Think control. The Prohibitionists and Drug Warriors claim to be doing good too.So I gather that you won't mind me scattering some asbestos fibers in your general direction while you're smoking in my presence?

Passive Smoking (in closed quarters) is detrimental to health. It makes sense to me that laws can and should regulate one's activities that impact negatively on uninvolved bystanders, and smoking in closed areas is such a case.

Tamex
04-28-2008, 05:34 AM
There's a smoking room where I work, and it's a state building! The one thing I actually don't agree with, though, is that the vending machines are in the smoking room, so if you want a snack you've got to smell my cigarette smoke.

You know, looking at the linked map, Pennsylvania is starting to look a little lonely up there...

I went to a wedding in PA in 2001. The cigarette smoke in the lobby of the place where they had the reception was horrendous. I was definitely not used to it--smoking had already long been banned in most indoor places except bars and restaurants in MN at that time (from that link, looks like it's been since 1975!) Nobody went outside to smoke because it was raining and, of course, they didn't have to. Really turned me off and I was glad to get back home. I don't think I'd get used to smoky bars and restaurants in places that still have those, either.

jjimm
04-28-2008, 05:58 AM
I am a smoker but I support the bans. It's not about the patrons, it's about the staff. Patrons can vote with their feet; staff not so much. People who work in catering and hospitality are often the lowest paid and most vulnerable members of society, with less chance for them to move jobs, and the chance for coercion into an unhealthy working environment is great. They shouldn't have to breathe it in.

Sure it sucks on a personal basis to have to go outside, but if I have the chance to smoke in bars or restaurants (like whenever I go to Asia) I do, and I love it. Someone needs to protect the workers from my selfishness.

Sticks and Scones
04-28-2008, 06:55 AM
I wasn't even aware of the ban here until more than a year after it took effect, because I don't smoke anymore, but someone was telling me it's illegal to smoke within 150 feet of any entrance to any building, or somesuch pish posh. That's absurd.

But this part makes sense to me. There's nothing like leaving a non-smoking business and having to 'run the gauntlet' of smokers by the entrance. Yes, it may only be for a few brisk seconds, but tell that to my hair which is fairly long and thick and will grab the scent of cigarette smoke seemingly instantly.

Boozahol Squid, P.I.
04-28-2008, 07:56 AM
North Carolina may have a state law against smoking restrictions by local government, but there are apparently a lot of voluntary non-smoking areas. Just about all the restaurants I go to are non-smoking, much of the UNC campus is non-smoking as of last year (even outside the buildings).

I do like beanpod's idea, though. I have no problem with people who want to smoke, as long as I have the option of not inhaling the by-products of their habit.

It is a little bit telling that a bar opened up in Durham in a place where three or four drinking holes had failed. This bar wasn't particularly different from any of the bars before it, other than the proprietor made it a non-smoking bar. It's been hugely successful here for pretty much no reason other than that. Even as an occasional smoker, I enjoy going out to a bar where I don't come home smelling like an ashtray.

It's a wonderful option. And there's great reasons to ban smoking in public buildings and hospitals. I wouldn't go to eat in a restaurant that didn't have a non-smoking section where I couldn't smell cigarette smoke.

But banning smoking? Where the hell do people get the idea that the few venues that do allow smoking are the only source of jobs for people? And more importantly, where do they get the idea that it's a good idea to give the government the power to regulate the consumption of a legal item on private property?

Brown Eyed Girl
04-28-2008, 08:10 AM
A bit off topic, but why do so many smokers get so defensive about their right to smoke, then complain about how hard is it to quit, and how horrible it is to puff in the cold and rain? Do cigarettes cause lung cancer AND hypocrisy?

*not referring to anyone in this thread*

Why do drivers complain about traffic and yet continue to drive in it?

Smokers don't want other people, more specifically governments, telling them what to do with regard to smoking. They want control over whether they smoke or not.

Sigmagirl
04-28-2008, 09:26 AM
There's nothing like leaving a non-smoking business and having to 'run the gauntlet' of smokers by the entrance. Yes, it may only be for a few brisk seconds
I'm with Always Brings Pie. I shouldn't have to go through a cloud of poison gas to get from my office to my car.

Otto
04-28-2008, 09:34 AM
There was a report on the radio this morning that mentioned one of the more vociferous opponents of the recently-enacted smoking ban in Fitchburg (next door to Madison). She feared that she would lose all of her business if the ban were enacted. Instead, she's seeing increased profits from food sales.

pbbth
04-28-2008, 10:04 AM
If other people smoking didn't effect me at all I wouldn't care what they did. I don't mind people drinking or chewing tobacco around me. I don't do either of those things and I think that chewing tobacco is gross but they aren't forcing me to do it so I couldn't care less. Smokers, however, are forcing me to inhale all the toxins and carcinogens in their cigarettes if I am with them in an enclosed space. I don't mind you stepping outside for a smoke if you step away from the front door a few feet. 150 feet is a bit much, but stepping back to provide 3 feet of space on either side of the door prevents the smoke from wafting back inside when the door opens and stops people from feeling like they are "running the gauntlet" to get in and out.

Cisco
04-28-2008, 10:28 AM
But this part makes sense to me. There's nothing like leaving a non-smoking business and having to 'run the gauntlet' of smokers by the entrance. Yes, it may only be for a few brisk seconds, but tell that to my hair which is fairly long and thick and will grab the scent of cigarette smoke seemingly instantly.
Find me a spot that is 150 feet from any building entrance in a city of 4 million. It's like Dennis Leary said: eventually people will only be able to smoke in their bedroom, under the covers, with the lights off.

beanpod
04-28-2008, 03:17 PM
Wouldn't fly in California. the smoking ban in restaurants/bars was enacted as a workplace safety measure due to increased lung cancer deaths among restaurant and bar workers.
Cal OSHA would make such an idea an non-starter. Very good point that I didn't think of. I depise cigarette smoke and in general I'm for smoking bans, (My parents smoke and I grew up around it--and their denials that it was harmful or even smelled bad. :rolleyes: riiiight.) but stilll...I can't help but try to think of it from the other side here. We allow all kinds of other vices to have their place in public society. But smoking is kind of in a class by itself. Even all employees being smokers wouldn't work, because they're still exposed to very high levels of smoke, plus if they quit they'd have to find another job...say it's a very small business? What if the owner is the only worker there and they don't care? Guess not.

Also, re: entrances. I don't want to walk through a cloud of smoke when I'm leaving a business any more than I want to step in some drunk's vomit. I can definitely see banning smoking in certain public places like banning public drinking in certain places. But then you've got to take into account all the other disgusting and/or potentially harmful things people do in public that aren't against the law...

I'm torn. On one hand, I can see the reasoning behind searching for a compromise, but on the other hand I think "Ew, go away!"

I guess that's a very long post to say what pbbth said: If other people smoking didn't effect me at all I wouldn't care what they did.

iamthewalrus(:3=
04-28-2008, 03:17 PM
A semi-hijacking question: What's wrong with allowing "smoking" licenses to certain businesses, like liquor licenses? They'd have to advertise it outside and all that jazz.

There'd be a tax and some overhead they'd have to go through, so it would discourage the average family restaurant from allowing smoking, but businesses that want to cater to smokers could. That way us non-smokers could happily avoid smoking places, but smokers would still have plenty of places they could go to. Without the license, smoking would be prohibited. Then maybe with all this good will floating around, smokers might be a little bit less touchy when visiting non-smoking places, too.Personally, I hate the idea. The last thing we need is more local bureaucracy screwing with the ability of people to enjoy their vices in peace. If such licenses were unlimited, then it just amounts to a cash grab from local businesses. If they're limited, then you end up with yet another way that established interests and petty bureaucrats can set up barriers to entry and screw with newcomers.

I've seen first-hand evidence of this in Santa Barbara, where, in order to cut down on drunken disorderliness down town, they limited the number of dancing licenses. Dance in a bar that doesn't have one, and they get a fine. There are still lots of bars down town, but now the new ones are at a disadvantage, and there's endless small town politics involved in obtaining a permit for something that should never have required one anyway.

Of course, I'm also a non-smoker who thinks that the smoking bans are a bad idea. Bars and restaurants were always able to choose to "cater to smokers" before, and they all did. It's unfortunate if you like a smoke-free experience, but I don't see why, if there really are that many people who feel that way, then we could just let the restaurant owners decide to cater to them. If we want to discourage smoking in general (a fine public policy objective), then hike up the sin tax on cigarettes.

Harmonious Discord
04-28-2008, 03:30 PM
The British individual's fag license. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm)

Ghanima
04-28-2008, 03:33 PM
I'm all for restaurant and workplace smoking bans, but not smoking in bars seems a little ridiculous. Bars should be able to have designated smoking areas. You're there to kill brain cells anyway, why not go the full monty?

I wish I could institute a smoking ban outside our apartment. Until recently I was convinced I was hallucinating the smell of cigarettes in our apartment every now and then. Turns out our neighbor comes outside to smoke sometimes and it blows in under our door! I didn't notice as much until I was pregnant. How do you politely tell your neighbor to stop stinking up the outdoors?

Really Not All That Bright
04-28-2008, 03:46 PM
I'm all for restaurant and workplace smoking bans, but not smoking in bars seems a little ridiculous. Bars should be able to have designated smoking areas. You're there to kill brain cells anyway, why not go the full monty?

[Eddie Izzard] No smoking in bars in California, and pretty soon no drinking and no talking! [/Izzard]

I'm fine with banning it in restaurants. I'll go outside. However, if you want me to stop littering, put a fucking ashtray outside. If you want me to stay more than three feet from the door, put the effing ashtray more than three feet from the door. And...
I'm with Always Brings Pie. I shouldn't have to go through a cloud of poison gas to get from my office to my car.
... please get over yourself. One whiff twice a day isn't going to kill you, believe it or not. It isn't even going to make you smell bad. The sky isn't falling, promise.

bouv
04-28-2008, 03:47 PM
I'm generally in favor of smoking bans. I agree that 150 feet from an entrance is too much, and whoever came up with that distance had no adequate knowledge of how close buildings and their entrances are. But, like many have said before me, I used to hate being dragged out by my friends to go to a smoke-filled bar. I would stink when I got back and had to shower or else the smell would then get onto my sheets, would would then need a washing the next day. Sure, I could have avoided the whole problem by not going out, and that's what I did most of the time. But if it's a friends' birthday, and he decides he wants to celebrate it at XYZ bar, then yeah, I'll go with them to buy him a few rounds.

Now that bars don't allow smoking, I've found I can enjoy going out. I was reminded the other weekend of how much I really didn't like it when I was visiting a friend in S. Carolina, and we went into N. Carolina to go bar hopping.

Smokers like to say that non-smokers can "vote with their feet" by not going to bars that allow smoking...well, most of us did! That's why, despite the crying to the contrary, a lot of establishments saw an increase in business when the laws were enacted. And why can't it be the other way around? Why don't all the smokers vote with their feet and not go to places that don't allow smoking, to try to get the bans lifted? I think it's because it's a lot less of a hassle for them to step outside for five minutes to have a smoke than it is for us to be in a smoke-filled bar for two hours.

Merneith
04-28-2008, 03:59 PM
I live in Ohio. That wiki page says that smoking is banned in all restaurants and bars in OH and yet every time I go to a restaurant, I'm asked, "Smoking or Non?"

Is it just reflex that people still ask this? I didn't even know about the ban. Maybe I need to get out more. Or maybe that page is not accurate?

LilShieste
04-28-2008, 04:01 PM
We moved to California back in 2004, but every time we go back to Missouri to visit with friends/family it still surprises me how much my clothes smell like cigarette smoke at the end of the day. I absolutely love being able to go to restaurants and bars (and especially bowling alleys) in CA, without having to worry about that.

Really Not All That Bright
04-28-2008, 04:06 PM
Why don't all the smokers vote with their feet and not go to places that don't allow smoking, to try to get the bans lifted? I think it's because it's a lot less of a hassle for them to step outside for five minutes to have a smoke than it is for us to be in a smoke-filled bar for two hours.
Uh... because then we wouldn't be able to go anywhere.

There were plenty of restaurants pre-ban that didn't allow smoking or only allowed it on outdoor patio thingies. There are no restaurants post-ban that allow smoking, because they can't.

psycat90
04-28-2008, 05:55 PM
It's banned outside as well in our town. No smoking pretty much anywhere downtown. It's banned on all city/public property, the parks, the transit mall, and around all of the businesses downtown. Our favorite bar downtown has outside seating where smoking was allowed until the new law went into effect a couple of years ago.

I'm not really a smoker so it doesn't make a difference to me one way or another. My husband just quit and I only smoked every now and then when he did.

Duckster
04-28-2008, 06:09 PM
It's been banned in restaurants in Madison for at least as long as I've lived here. MadCity's original smoking ban dates back to the 1970s when smoking was banned in retail stores, other than tobacco stores. I can't count the number of times while shopping with my mother that when she smelled tobacco smoke in a store, she went up to the store manager and demanded the manager tell the offender to stop or leave, or she would call the police and file a complaint against the store.

She never lost a case.

:D

silenus
04-28-2008, 06:28 PM
You go to a seedy bar for breakfast? :confused:

I've had Bloody Mary's for breakfast after a late night out clubbing, but I didn't really call it breakfast. :p

The Alger Bar & Grill (http://www.mytravelguide.com/restaurants/profile-26991205-United_States_Washington_Bellingham_Alger_Bar_Grill.html) has a really good breakfast/brunch buffet on Sundays, so the idea isn't unheard of.

Troy McClure SF
04-28-2008, 06:36 PM
It's always funny how smokers call non-smokers whiny crybabies, yet when anyone dares mention that cigarettes don't smell as pleasant as pixie dust, they start acting like some poor, oppressed minority.

Western culture is to the point that no person should ever be smell-able unless you're hugging them. I feel no need to accommodate those who haven't caught up yet.

Brown Eyed Girl
04-28-2008, 08:08 PM
The Alger Bar & Grill (http://www.mytravelguide.com/restaurants/profile-26991205-United_States_Washington_Bellingham_Alger_Bar_Grill.html) has a really good breakfast/brunch buffet on Sundays, so the idea isn't unheard of.
Oooh, okay, a bar and grill. See, I was picturing an wet t-shirt omelet bar and sausage oil wrestling. ;)

SmackFu
04-28-2008, 08:19 PM
That wikipedia chart is amazing. The idea that it would be clearer to make a chart using the additive property of light is mind-boggling.

Ignatz
04-28-2008, 08:48 PM
North Carolina state government bans smoking or tobacco use in all of its state government buildings. The smokers hang just outside the security doors and prop them ajar, thereby filling the nearby corridors and offices with their stench when the wind is our way. I used to work in an NC city office building that allowed and still allows smoking. My office was just down the hall from the field crew assembly room where the crews met at the end of the workday and 90% of them lit up. I've never smoked and I left there as soon as my age and time in service allowed. I now have COPD thank them very cough much.

Mister Rik
04-28-2008, 10:36 PM
But this part makes sense to me. There's nothing like leaving a non-smoking business and having to 'run the gauntlet' of smokers by the entrance. Yes, it may only be for a few brisk seconds, but tell that to my hair which is fairly long and thick and will grab the scent of cigarette smoke seemingly instantly.
In my Washington town, I haven't seen much enforcement of the "within 25 feet" thing. It's common sense, really. When you've got a row of businesses lining a street, the only way to stand 25 feet away from an entrance without being within 25 feet of a different business's entrance is to stand in the middle of the street. And I think the people that drafted our law knew that when they wrote it. Either that, or they were dense enough to think that every bar and restaurant is in a free-standing building surrounded by parking lot.

That being said, I'll have to admit that the smoking ban really doesn't seem to have had much of an negative impact on bar & restaurant business around here. Then again, my town is in almost the exact geographic center of the state - it might be a different story in border towns.

I wrote a blog post when the law was passed, though, because I felt sorry for one of my customers at the bar/restaurant where I cooked at the time. He was a 100-year-old man who would come in once a week. He'd order a small side of biscuits & gravy, and when he finished eating he'd bum a single cigarette off the bartender and smoke it while he waited for his cab to pick him up and take him back home. That was his "getting out" for the week, and the law pretty much took that away from him. A centenarian shouldn't have to stand outside in sub-freezing winter weather to enjoy one of his few remaining pleasures in life.

Diceman
04-28-2008, 10:49 PM
I'm in Michigan. I'm normally a diehard small-government type, but I really wish my state would ban smoking in bars and restaurants. I'm sick and tired of smelling like I just survived a house fire after going out to eat.

I've noticed an increasing number of restaurants proclaiming themselves to be non-smoking establishments, but all the big chain restaurants still allow smoking.

wmulax93
04-29-2008, 02:28 AM
When I went back to Michigan a couple of weeks ago, I went out with one of my friends. I had a hard time eating because everything tasted like smoke to me. Thus, the bad habit of other people was effecting me.

I love that Arizona has a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. Beer tastes better, food tastes better, and I don't need to take the drunken shower to get rid of the stench before I go to bed!

Athena
04-29-2008, 08:20 AM
I wish it was banned in Michigan. :( I get tired of smelling like an ashtray whenever I go out to eat. It's one of the things that makes me look forward to moving to California.

You don't have to go all the way to California. Come on up to the UP. There's no law, but most places around me voluntarily went non-smoking a couple years ago. It's really nice - virtually none of the bars/restaurants I frequent allow smoking, and from talking with the owners, it's worked in their favor.

Of course, you need to put up with the snow and us Yoopers, but those are pluses, right? :D

Eben
04-29-2008, 12:24 PM
I mostly agree with smoking bans, but if you live in a city with air pollution, it's a bit silly to declaim about air purity in bars being a factor. I'm in favor of public area bans, but private businesses should be allowed to do as they please. Going to a bar is a luxury and many times I've decided not to go to bars because of the stupid drunks being obnoxious. It would seem silly to ban drinking in bars due to the disruption in my fun caused by other drunks. On top of that, hanging out in a bar will make you smell like stale alcohol, so the stench argument works there too.

Napier
04-29-2008, 12:37 PM
>If it's your place, you don't want smoking? Fair. It's YOUR place. Elsewhere FUCK OFF.
Does it not occur to you ever-so-healthy-and-pure-shitheads-puritans that there may be more to these laws than the well-being of people shoved outside to feed their monkey? Think control. The Prohibitionists and Drug Warriors claim to be doing good too.


This is conveys a sense of annoyance, of resentment, maybe even anger. Or is that reading too much into it?

The bit about Prohibitionists and Drug Warriors is a mite confusing - do they stop people from drinking and taking pills, or do they stop them from pouring booze and pills into other people's mouths? I thought it was only the first one.

Troy McClure SF
04-29-2008, 04:44 PM
On top of that, hanging out in a bar will make you smell like stale alcohol, so the stench argument works there too.
No it doesn't, unless your seat is on the floor behind the bar, under the sink.

Purgatory Creek
04-29-2008, 06:57 PM
Wow, this thread makes me really glad I quit smoking. Minnesota is the Land of 10,000 Smoking Bans (and Sneaky Ways Around Them), so I long ago got accustomed to smoking outside. I didn't smoke inside my own house for the last 7 or 8 years of my smoking career because I was just so used to smoking outside and I liked having a slightly less polluted home.

I really feel for smokers these days, though, and I won't give them a hard time. As long as they're not lighting up in my house, they're not doing me any harm. I understand not wanting to walk through a cloud of tobacco smoke outside every door (I don't like it much either), but worrying about the overall pollution value of outdoor tobacco smoke is like fretting because you let the water run while you brush your teeth. Your tiny trickle of "wasted" water is nothing compared to what the factory down the road pollutes in a nanosecond, and all the cigarette smoke from all the smokers in the world is meaningless when compared with the heavy metals and other poisons pumped out by industry.

Roadfood
04-29-2008, 07:07 PM
... please get over yourself. One whiff twice a day isn't going to kill you, believe it or not. It isn't even going to make you smell bad. The sky isn't falling, promise.Ok, as I walk past you while you're smoking, do you mind if I spit on your shoe? One bit of saliva twice a day isn't going to kill you, believe it or not. It isn't even going to make you smell bad. The sky isn't falling, promise.

I have never and probably will never understand this attitude that somehow blowing smoke at me, or creating clouds of smoke that I can't avoid walking through, is somehow exempt from the basic social courtesy of "don't force your crap on me."

I mean, in all seriousness, just saying "spitting on your shoe" sounds ludicrous. No one would ever do that in polite society, and if anyone did it would be construed by the person spit upon as a very serious assault.

And yet, blow smoke in my face and I should just "get over myself" and accept it?

What's the difference, really?

SpazCat
04-29-2008, 07:30 PM
Most of the UNC system has smoking limits. At ECU it's 25 feet from the building. About the only place I see it being enforced is around the gym. Everywhere else is 25 feet from another building.

Then again, one of the old tobacco warehouses (http://www.reflector.com/local/content/news/stories/2008/04/18/fire.html) ironically burned two weeks ago, so maybe the limits are becoming stricter. :p

Ellis Dee
04-29-2008, 07:37 PM
What's the difference, really?Smoking has a lot more in common with wearing stinky perfume than spitting on someone.

Of course, if you really honsetly don't see the difference, you're hopeless to debate with anyway.

Rhythmdvl
04-29-2008, 07:44 PM
I mostly agree with smoking bans, but if you live in a city with air pollution, it's a bit silly to declaim about air purity in bars being a factor. I'm in favor of public area bans, but private businesses should be allowed to do as they please. Going to a bar is a luxury and many times I've decided not to go to bars because of the stupid drunks being obnoxious. It would seem silly to ban drinking in bars due to the disruption in my fun caused by other drunks. On top of that, hanging out in a bar will make you smell like stale alcohol, so the stench argument works there too.


Pretty spot on. I enjoy smoking bans, definitely. As an ex-smoker it's admittedly easier to go out and not relapse for a night or two (though I may be heading down to PA soon just for a nostalgic night around a pool table) and clearly the air is more pleasant.

But just because I enjoy something doesn’t give me cause to climb up on a high horse or soapbox and proclaim how necessary the laws are and how horrid smokers are for fouling the air I want to breath. I think this is where the characterizations of ‘shrill’ and whatnot come from; ostensibly faux wrath and frustration ventilation coupled with dress up in victim-hood, targeted at a demonized sub-group of people. All over a preference that is arguably much more in the purview of private choices.

While I do acknowledge that there are circumstances where a smoking ban or regulation is warranted, and as a now non-smoker I can easily tell the difference between nights in clear v. cloudy establishments, I daresay that the hoopla and excitability over passage of such laws and apparent glee in the discomfiture of others suggests something of a sociological undercurrent unrelated to the issue at hand.

Roadfood
04-30-2008, 02:15 PM
Smoking has a lot more in common with wearing stinky perfume than spitting on someone.

Of course, if you really honsetly don't see the difference, you're hopeless to debate with anyway.I'm listening, please explain the difference to me. Everything that Really Not All That Bright said about smoking applies also to spitting on your shoe. So if those arguments are not any different, what differences do you see? I'm not asking for a debate, I'd really like to hear what the difference is.

Rhythmdvl
04-30-2008, 03:23 PM
I'm listening, please explain the difference to me. Everything that Really Not All That Bright said about smoking applies also to spitting on your shoe. So if those arguments are not any different, what differences do you see? I'm not asking for a debate, I'd really like to hear what the difference is.
I believe it’s in the associated baggage and social ramifications/implications. Consider the difference between an expectoral attack upon one’s loafers and an otherwise mundane conversation being interrupted by an accidental salivary expulsion—i.e., someone loogies on your shoe v. “thufferin’ thuccotash!” Basically, because you can’t excise the slew of associative intentions from someone spewing on your shoes, it’s a terribly (and needlessly) weak analogy.

Mister Rik
04-30-2008, 04:13 PM
I'm reminded of a T-shirt I saw years and years ago that had the following poem on it:

I've never been a smoker
But I really like to chew
So you don't blow your smoke on me
And I won't spit on you

Roadfood
04-30-2008, 11:01 PM
I believe it’s in the associated baggage and social ramifications/implications. Consider the difference between an expectoral attack upon one’s loafers and an otherwise mundane conversation being interrupted by an accidental salivary expulsion—i.e., someone loogies on your shoe v. “thufferin’ thuccotash!” Basically, because you can’t excise the slew of associative intentions from someone spewing on your shoes, it’s a terribly (and needlessly) weak analogy.So it is as I said: There is no actual difference, it's simply that the social convention (longstanding, though nonetheless arbitrary) provides for an acceptance of blowing smoke in my face, but not of spitting on my shoe. My point remains: Those who argue that people "suffering" second-hand smoke have no grounds for complaint -- based on the physical aspects of smoking -- could argue equally well that one would have no grounds for complaint against being spit upon. It's nothing but the social convention that makes them different.

Ellis Dee
04-30-2008, 11:30 PM
So it is as I said: There is no actual difference, it's simply that the social convention (longstanding, though nonetheless arbitrary) provides for an acceptance of blowing smoke in my face, but not of spitting on my shoe. My point remains: Those who argue that people "suffering" second-hand smoke have no grounds for complaint -- based on the physical aspects of smoking -- could argue equally well that one would have no grounds for complaint against being spit upon. It's nothing but the social convention that makes them different.By that logic, nobody has grounds to complain about any behavior whatsoever, since it all boils down to social convention. Thus the argument loses all meaning.

Yookeroo
04-30-2008, 11:36 PM
But just because I enjoy something doesn’t give me cause to climb up on a high horse or soapbox and proclaim how necessary the laws are and how horrid smokers are for fouling the air I want to breath.

But fouling the air others are breathing is pretty horrid behavior. Just because it's been tolerated for so long doesn't meant it isn't extremely rude.

Roadfood
05-01-2008, 11:20 AM
By that logic, nobody has grounds to complain about any behavior whatsoever, since it all boils down to social convention. Thus the argument loses all meaning.No, punching me in the face causes me physical harm. That's a clear difference from blowing smoke at me, spitting on my shoe, or wearing stinky perfume in my presence. Stealing my money causes me harm in the loss of the buying power of that money. Also a clear difference.

Remember, I was responding to a prior poster who said that anti-smokers should "get over themselves" because being around smokers "isn't going to kill you". I am trying to make the point that the logic that poster was using for why anti-smokers shouldn't complain can equally well be applied to other actions that are none-the-less very socially UNacceptable, and that therefore those arguments for why smoking should be accepted just don't make any sense. How about you try to focus on that argument, and not try to expand into total generalities?

Ellis Dee
05-01-2008, 09:13 PM
No, punching me in the face causes me physical harm.Isn't spitting on someone also assault?

Noone Special
05-02-2008, 03:04 AM
Isn't spitting on someone also assault?
I think the question people is asking is: "Why do we consider spitting on someone's shoes to be assault, but we don't consider blowing smoke in someone's face to be assault as well?"

I agree that this is a very good question. I think it's societal conditioning and nothing more.

Ellis Dee
05-02-2008, 07:38 PM
I agree that this is a very good question. I think it's societal conditioning and nothing more.Again, I think it's all societal conditioning. Go back to the wild west and you can walk up to a stranger in the street and punch him in the face without fear of legal repercussion, for example.