See, the nice thing about bars and nightclubs is that they don’t pretend that a “smoking section” really helps prevent customers from inhaling unwanted second-hand smoke. Smoke wafting through a building doesn’t stop when it reads a non smoking sign. I support a ban on smoking in restaurants.
However, I believe smoking in a bar should be at the owner’s discretion. It’s a completely different atmosphere.
And I would MUCH rather smell a pipe than a dirty cigarette.
Just my 2 cents. 
I’m a non-smoker. Could we make a bargain with the smokers? They can be perfectly free to smoke in pubs so long as they actually take notice of the no-smoking signs in other indoor areas open to the general public. I am so pissed off with all the lazy inconsiderate smokers who think that it’s their right to light up wherever they like. I happen to like smoky pubs, it’s part of the atmosphere, but I also like being able to go to places and not have stale smoke hanging everywhere!
I’m a non-smoker, and I very rarely frequent bars that do allow smoking. My favorite pub, in addition to brewing the best beer in town, is smoke-free. But I don’t think there should be a ban on smoking in bars. If you want to go to a stinky bar and smoke, it’s no skin off my nose. In my neck of the woods at least, the free market has allowed plenty of non-smoking bars to compete favorably with those that allow smoking.
Ok, By my tally I have:
For banning:7
Against :16. Out of those 16 I count 7 who are non-smokers
undecided: 5 (Or maybe my reading comprehension skills aren’t sharp enough to decipher wether(sp) or not ones post is for or against)
Example:
Anyone else?
You can mark me Undecided/Indifferent, no reading comprehension required.
So if the ban passed, I might be more inlinced to go out more. But I’m not going to go out and work to get it passed, vote for it, or show much interest.
Interesting.
Rather than hijack this thread on this point, I’ve raised a new thread in GQ.
2 cents.
In my little hamlet of Grand Forks, ND we have a bar called “Dagwood’s”. It’s been in business for years and thriving. It’s the only smoke-free bar in town. Why is it doing well? Because those who prefer a smoke-free bar specifically frequent it. All other bars allow you to have a smoke.
I would prefer more smoke-free bars in town to get these pinheads to leave me the fuck alone about my choice to use a legal product. Which, by the way, provides children’s health programs through the taxes I pay.
If I may pose a rhetorical question…Why is it I get shit from someone about my smoke affecting his health while he gets a double martini before getting in his car to drive home?
Ban it.
Non smoker, who frequents bowling alleys more than dive bars, and doesn’t like the smoke in them. Stinky, makes my clothes and hair smell and aggravates the wife’s asthma.
When I go down to Delaware (statewide ban) to bowl it’s great.
If you’d asked me when I was a student I would have possibly been against, as according to my friend the college aged girl smoking is a good sign if you’re looking to hook up with her.
I bet there is some correlation.
d & r
I’ve lived in Vancouver before and after that city brought in a smoking ban, and I currently live in NYC. I also have two brothers who work in bars, and I’m originally from Montreal, probably the smokiest place in North America.
I fully support a government-imposed ban on smoking in bars.
Bar owners are traditionally very timid entrepreneurs, who aren’t willing to try anything new: this is understandable, since a great number of bars and restaurants fail in their first year of being open ( I remember reading failure rates of up to 50% in some cities, but I’m not going to look for a cite now).
In any bar where there are currently a great number of smokers, it’s understandable that bars want to allow smoking to continue-- you’ve already got your smoking customers inside, and you want them to keep coming back. And people who smoke are already used to spending ridiculous amounts of cash on quickly consumed items, so they’re likely to drink a lot.
And many non-smokers will tolerate smoke for a little while. (Last time I was in Montreal, I couldn’t stay inside any bar for more than 30 minutes.) However it’s been my experience that given a choice between having 5 drinks at a smoky bar, or going home early to do something else, many non-smokers will leave a bar once they’ve hit their tolerance level for smoke.
Which is why smoke-free bars in a straight capitalistic market tend to fail. Since many non-smokers already don’t feel like going to bars because they expect smoke, it takes that much more work for a non-smoking bar to reach out to them. Non-smokers have already self-selected themselves as not being welcome in bars.
But when the government imposes a smoking ban, everything changes. All those non-smokers suddenly realize they are welcome in bars, and they’re not going to stink-- and they can become outgoing party people, instead of drinking at house parties.
This actually happened in Vancouver. The first few years I lived there, everyone held rocking house parties until dawn. After the government banned smoking, people started going out to drink, and all those bars that fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban made more money than ever before.
smoking
I expect to be able to walk into a local bar and smoke. My town went no smoking last year , and now go to another town , where the bars have signs up stating smoking is unregulated in this establishment.
Market forces in action
Declan
I’m against a smoking ban.
We have two non-smoking bars here in Indy. I imagine if they are successful, other bars will follow suit or new bars will open that cater to the non-smoker. I see no need to have a government ban. Let it be up to the business owner.
I am for a smoking ban. Where I live, all bars and restaurants are non-smoking, and I love it. AFAIK, no establishment has lost a lot of business because of this.
The way I see it, smokers have a habit, which they are allowed to have. But, since that habit takes up space (by way of smoke), then it is the right thing for them to consider that their space isn’t intruding on someone else. When the smoke enters my lungs and seeps into my hair and clothes, it’s intruding. Smokers do not have a GREATER RIGHT to be in a bar than do non-smokers. Since non-smokers also want to be in the bar, they should be allowed to do so without being intruded upon by smokers and their smoke. The only way to do that, is to remove the smoke from the room.
Keep in mind that this isn’t a ban on SMOKERS it is a ban on SMOKE.
Funny little story - at my university about a year a go the decision to go smoke-free in the campus bar was put up to a referendum. Popular vote, majority wins. All students (full and part time) were allowed to vote. The decision was OVERWHELMINGLY to ban smoking. Once the policy went into effect, smokers got upset and started complaining, even though they had has much say in it as anyone else. Turns out they didn’t care enough about the issue to vote for it, but cared to complain afterwards. The bar is just as, if not more, successful than it was before the ban, from my perspective.
I am a nonsmoker and cannot stand cigarette smoke on my clothes. I spent the first 18 years around my smoking mother and never understood what it was like to NOT have smoke filled clothes until I went away for college.
However, I cannot support a ban on all smoking in bars. If you go to a bar, you ought to be able to smoke if you'd like. If I don't want to be around it, I'll go somewhere else. And I don't buy the argument that it doesn't hurt business. And some places get COLD during the winter, so simply stepping outside is not an option. Why can't they just have a designated smoking area inside? Sure they can't completely contain the smoke, but for the most part, if you don't want to be around it, go to the other end of the bar and you're fine.They tried a smoking ban in my area and all the smokers immediately threatened to boycott the entire city. Since a lot of the business comes from outside the city it was immediately shot down. The mayor had the balls to suggest a county wide ban. Didn’t fly very far.
There’s a simple solution to all of this. Smoke-free cities could sell smoking licenses in addition to liquor licenses. If it makes people happy, the government could ban non-smokers from these establishments since they obviously can’t stop themselves from going into a smokey bar.
Solution #2 for smoke-free cities. Private smoking clubs where the patrons bring in their own liquor. Call it the Utah amendment.
Smokers made similar threats here in CA. They didn’t follow through. I’ll admit the law might not work as well if one could just drive 10 minutes to another juristiction.
Here’s the point- again. There are far more Non-smokers than smokers. When you allow smoking in a bar, that bar loses most of the NS business, but retains it Smoker business. If you stop smoking in bars- the NS flock back- and still most of the smokers saty. Non-smoking bars make more money. Now- true, a single NS bar in a city might not do so well- as NS are used to niteclubs being nasty smokey places- they won’t enough think to look for a NS bar. But if they ALL are, the NS become patrons.
Non-smokers are the majority. However, smokers are a very noisy minority. There was one bar I used to frequent which had a small dance area upstairs which was non smoking, a main bar area downstairs which allowed smoking as well as an outside patio which allowed smoking. Smokers still whined incessantly. I’m sorry, but I don’t care how addicted you are, you don’t need to be smoking a cig on the dance floor and burning people with it.
Now if someone would just ban drinking at bars we’d be set.
I hate going out with my friends to a bar and have to deal with loud, drunk people.
I’m a smoker who loves pubs. I favour majority non-smoking pubs, to benefit both staff and for non-smokers.
However, I feel that it should be elective, not legislative. A pub should also have the option of a properly ventilated area for smokers, segregated from the non-smoking section.
This is not the case in Ireland, which is imposing a blanket ban on March 29th. We’ve only got 12 days left. Let’s get puffing!
Great point! With all the smokers here argung for the right to burn other people, I’m suprised someone didn’t call them on it earlier.
FTR, I’m firmly in the “It shouldn’t be up to anyone but the owner of the bar” camp.
If a law can make for safer working conditions where the only downside is that some people have to step outside for a few minutes to feed their addiction and an upside that leads to cleaner air for everyone, I have to say that’s one hell of a good law. Ban smoking in bars/clubs/restaurants/stadiums etc.
If smokers weren’t so inconsiderate to begin with, this wouldn’t be an issue. Sincw so many seem to see the world as their ashtray and don’t care that their polluting the air others have to beathe, I’m not crying for them when they lose their “right” to force others to inhale their vile pollution.