Well HomerIU, I suggest you do some research rather than living with your generalized feelings. There are many cities/provinces/counties across North America that have banned smoking without any negative effect on bars and restaurants.
As for being chilly, NYC does get COLD in the winter, and people can and do step outside. Or, heaven forbid, they actually decide not to have a cigarette :eek:
I am against the government stepping in and banning smoking in bars. I am a non-smoker for the last 4 years and do not mind smokers that much, though I always seem to have the chainsmokers sitting next to me. I do not like bars that have poor air handling systems and get all smoked up. I will not hang out in those types of bars. What would be nice is if building codes manadated air handling standards for public establishments that allow smoking.
Not gonna get into the argument; been there, done that.
Since this was supposed to be a poll, I will add my voice in favor of having clean air to breathe in public places. I am against being forced to choke on noxious fumes in public places.
Of course, if you really wanted an accurate poll, you would need to word the question in a neutral way, something the OP hasn’t done.
And then, the issue is moot anyway, because even if the majority were in favor of smoking in pubs (which I doubt, but just for the sake of argument), a representative Democracy does not function by the majority dictating its wishes to the minority.
O.K, I lied - I will get into the argument:
I don’t understand what rhetorical point you are attempting to make with this question. Are you saying that 2 wrongs make a right? It’s O.K. for you to affect other people’s health because some people drive drunk?
We’re not discussing public places, we’re discussing bars. When you are in a bar you are in a privately owned business. You want to impose your wishes onto another person’s business. Unless you were dragged into a bar against your will you were not forced to inhale smoke.
Personally, I don’t think you (blowero) should be allowed to drink in a bar. You have not demonstrated the willpower required to avoid situations you deem harmful to your health (he said with good natured tongue-in-cheek ribbing).
Well, Barbarian, I still wouldn't buy that it doesn't cost bars business just based on certain studies in particular cities. How many places have created a ban with negative consequences? You can't just name this city or that city that has not had a negative effect and use this as definitive proof that a smoking ban doesn't cost business. It would have to be a comprehensive study that compared all the cities that have banned smoking. So, sorry, just because you say it is true doesn't mean I believe it. Is that what you mean by relying on generalized feelings?I don’t know of any studies looking at places that have imposed smoking bans and seen a drop in revenues-- I also don’t have a complete list of every place that has banned smoking. If you’re a sociology or economics student needing a PhD thesis, this would make a great topic.
However, I did find a couple studies from the CDC indicating that bar and restaurant revenues in 8 cities after imposing smoking bans stayed the same. Here’s two online
El Paso, Texas http://cisat.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm
West Hills, Texas http://cisat.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00037061.htm
Having spent years in Vancouver before and after a ban, I read (and wrote) many articles examining the issue of bar revenues, and because most bars are private companies, they’re under no obligation to make any fiscal reports public. But since none of the bar owners that opposed smoking bans closed their establishments after a ban was imposed (and, colloquially, the number of people I knew who suddenly started attending bars) I suspect that bar revenues go up.
I found claims of the opposite, but they’re mostly from Forces (a group of smokers who think smoking doesn’t hurt anybody) so I don’t trust 'em very much.
This survey is from the New York Nightlife Assn, and covers the initial six months of the smoking ban in NYC. It’s anecdotal evidence from an informal q and a, which as far as I can tell means calling up the bar and asking if they’re making less money. If they actually looked at the whole year, it’d be better.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/eis/index.ssf?/base/empire-1/107080650069030.xml
So as far as I can tell, the accumulation of trustworthy evidence indicates that when smoking is banned over a sufficiently large geographical area, there is no loss of business to bars and restaurants.
If you can find proof of the contrary, please post 'em.
Hmmm…this is precisely why I should have gone with my original instinct and stayed out of the argument - guess I’ll never learn.
This is the very same nonsense that was being spouted in the other threads I participated in. Sorry, but you’re just plain wrong. Utterly, completely, unquestionably wrong. Bars are public places, as are restaurants, libraries, museums, train stations, stores, etc.
Here’s a good litmus test: Can the public go there? If yes, it’s probably a public place. “Privately owned” and “public place” are not mutually exclusive. The concept never seems to get through to some smokers, though. I don’t know if it’s just that they don’t see the other people around them, or if they just don’t care. (Oh, BTW - I wrote that in a good-natured, ribbing sort of way.)
Despite your argumentative way of wording it, we do this all the time. There are A MILLION things you can’t do in a public place, EVEN IF IT IS ‘PRIVATELY OWNED’. You can’t take a dump on someone’s plate in a restaurant. You can’t take a leak on another customers’ chess board at the coffee house. You can’t jump behind the checkstand at the supermarket and start humping the checker. So I guess YOU are “imposing your wishes” on those who want to shit on other diners’ plates, eh? What a silly way to word it. It’s not “imposing wishes”; it’s simply the idea of providing places where the public can go about their business without being subjected to unhealtful substances and/or noxious fumes. If anyone’s “imposing their wishes”, it’s the smokers who want to force everyone else to breathe their smoke.
Ugh! You’re just gonna trot out every specious argument in the book, eh? The old, “If you don’t like it, you can go home” approach. Yes, very reasonable.:rolleyes:
Oooh, we’re getting all the smokers’ fallacy greatest hits today. This is not about exercising one’s own willpower. If I’m calmly trying to enjoy my dinner or my drink, I can have all the willpower in the world and it won’t stop you from lighting up your nasty stink bomb right next to me. (Said with that good-natured thing you mentioned, of course.)
Blowero, you’re litmus test has nothing to do with private ownership. Your house is privately owned. You make the rules, not me and not the government. A library is a public place. The litmus test is pretty simple for ownership. It’s whoever’s name is on the deed. This is a very fundamental issue and should not be taken lightly.
Yes, the government could intervene in this issue as a matter of public health. However, this is an elected behavior by patrons in a private establishment. If the government can say I can’t smoke in a bar because it affects you then it can also say the same thing about my house. That is the difference when discussing the rights of private ownership.
I don’t know how old you are but I remember when smoking was removed from office buildings. Office buildings (privately owned) hold a captive audience so it is a more compelling argument to make. This is how some cities/states have argued the issue (on behalf of the workers in bars). I don’t dismiss this argument as irrelevant but it should have been addressed as an air quality issue (proper ventilation). I agreed with the ruling (as related to offices) but the argument against the law was to avoid a total ban of tobacco products (the slippery slope argument). The proponents said this was nonsense but I disagree. There have been court cases involving neighbors suing neighbors over the smell of smoke.
If you find the smell of smoke offensive that is not a health issue. There are people who want to ban perfume in public places for that reason. Be careful what rights you want to take away from other people because you are also other people. I love my seatbelts and feel naked without them but I’ll be dammed if I think it’s the government’s job to hold my hand.
When talking about bars that serve food, provide entertainment, and allow smoking I would like to pose a question. What if it was a smoking club that served alcohol,/food and provided entertainment? Is it your intention to close a business who’s specific purpose is smoking? If that is the case then you want to ban smoking entirely.
IMO, the most a government should be allowed to do (from a private rights stance) is to regulate air quality inside a building. This is something that can be codified and monitored.
Don’t be squeamish about debating, that’s how we learn from each other. If I think you’re wrong I will try to win you over with my reasoned words. I debate to learn something new.
Aloha;
These are probably specious arguements (and yes I can’t spell) but I am in total agreement with Barbizon.
For what it’s worth: I was a young professional in the early 70’s when everyone but MrPict and I smoked. We immediately knew who had been to a meeting at work on any given day based on the smoke on body, clothes and hair as we walked into the house after work. Showers first, then clothes into the wash. The crappy environment we worked in (because we chose 
to be engineers and work with other smoking engineers, yeah right like that was a choice then) sucked. Every office, every location was a smoking location including the bathrooms!!!
We lived with it because that was the way it was. In addition, for years we were bowlers but gave it up because we could not stand the smoke anymore. For the same reason we quit going to bars. We only patronized resturants that had non-smoking sections, and never did first available (which is always smoking). Many of our friends are of the same persuasion. And we, basically upper middle class folks, (aside from the bowling thing 
) simply quit the bar/resturant arena.
I am not in favor of more gov. but when visiting CA last year EVERY SINGLE waitperson I talked to was in favor of the smoking ban. Mainly because revenues and tips were up. We now go to non-smoking bars when available, but continue to avoid smoking bars.
But I do think that smokers should be accommodated too. I hate the fact that all of the secretaries where I work have to smoke outside in the winter. Why can’t we have a smoking room like we had in high school or something? I’m not against smoking, I just don’t want to be around it when I don’t want to.
But I’m still a hypocrit cause I hang out and chat with the smokers around the ash tray everyday anyway (as long as the breeze is blowing the other way). So I’m completely torn between what I want: Non-smoking bars/resturants/workplace, and what I don’t want: The Guvurment telling me and you what to do.
Damn I think I’m a 'Merican. 
Probably too many G & T’s here tonight.
Huh, whaaaaaaa??? That’s gotta be the non-sequitur of the century.
Yes, my litmus test: “Here’s a good litmus test: Can the public go there? If yes, it’s probably a public place.”, has nothing to do with private ownership. Which is a good thing, because that’s the WHOLE POINT.
Privately owned is not the opposite of public place. A PUBLIC PLACE can (but doesn’t have to) be privately owned. What part of that didn’t you understand?
Another non-sequitur.
The government can regulate your house, but traditionally you are allowed much greater freedom in your own home. I’m not sure if I’m grasping your point, but you seem to be saying that if a business establishment is privately owned, as opposed, I guess, to a government institution, that it is somehow equivalent to a private home. This is nonsense.
There are lots of things I can do at home that I could not do in a privately-owned business. I can drink a beer at home, but I can’t open a McDonald’s franchise and serve beer there, not without a license, anyway. I can walk around naked at home if I so desire; I can’t do that at McDonald’s. That’s just 2 examples off the top of my head, not intended to be an exhaustive list by any means.
Oh, I’m certainly old enough to remember the smoking days - ugh! And I’ll tell you, it SUCKED big time for the non-smoker. You could not go to work, go out to eat, or go to a bar without breathing acrid smoke. And your clothes would stink every day when you got home. They even allowed smoking on airplanes. Think about it - where does the air have to go in an airplane? Nowhere - it’s just recirculated, so everyone gets to enjoy the smoke. Yeah, I remember, because I danced a freakin’ JIG when they put a stop to all that nonsense.
Um, you do realize that anyone can file a lawsuit, right? The fact that any one individual sued another individual proves nothing, other than that people sometimes sue each other.
I find this argument unconvincing. I have heard very little in the way of cases of people wanting to ban perfume. Even if they did, perfume is a very poor comparison to smoking. It’s perfectly logical to regulate one thing without regulating everything.
Smoking in an enclosed public place is not a right.
Another poor comparison. My objection to smoking is that other people’s smoke hurts me. Whether or not you wear your seatbelt does not affect me. (Except in very indirect ways which I don’t really want to get into right now.)
A strawman - please quote where I said I “want to ban smoking entirely.” It’s my understanding that here in California, one may smoke in a smoke shop. So actually, you are allowed to smoke in a place where the specific purpose is smoking. Now a bar, on the other hand, is specifically for drinking, not smoking. And a restaurant is for eating.
I wouldn’t object to having seperate sections, IF the air in the non-smoking section is smoke-free, something which, to my knowledge, has NEVER been successfully accomplished.
Really, non-smokers aren’t the ogres you think we are. As it stands, IIRC, people can smoke on an outdoor patio, and while it’s annoying that I can’t enjoy sitting on the patio without breathing smoke, I’m willing to make that compromise, because I know some people enjoy smoking, and I can at least use the indoor area without choking. What I am not willing to stand for, though, is having NOWHERE to go that is smoke-free. I just want to be able to go to work, go out to dinner, or go out for a drink and be able to breathe. I don’t think this is too much to ask. Apparently, you do.
Ha, ha - you don’t know me very well. I’m hardly squeamish. It’s just that we’ve had SO many debates about this, and I’ve made ALL these points over and over. Of course that’s not your fault, but it’s why I’m kicking myself for letting myself get dragged in again.
As has been stated before, this is an opinion poll, not Great Debates. the only reason to post twice here is if you have changed your opinion. If you wish to debate the issue, well, you know where to go.*
*check out the hint in my first sentence.
I am over the age of 21. So, cigarettes are legal for me to buy, possess and use in all 50 states. That being said, in my town the only places (indoor) I can legally smoke are personal homes, vehicles (with permission of the owners, of course) and bars. Do to various city ordinances, all other public buildings – including restraunts – are NS. Many of the restraunts have (NS)bars, so the anti smoke folk have a place in which they can still have a drink in a bar atmosphere, without the smoke.
My question is, can’t we have some compromise here? 80,000 people live in this town, and we’ve got only about 25 public places where one may have a smoke. The smokers aren’t complaining about the situation as it is, but what’s so bad about leaving those 25 places as they are?
(As for the employees of those smoking establishments: all but one of the employees where I tend bar smoke themselves, and the one who doesn’t quit smoking only 2 months ago and is more than willing to put up with the smoke as opposed to quitting an great paying job.)