Seeing as Austin, a city known far and wide for its live music/nightlife scene has just passed a smoking ban that would forbid smoking in any of our bars/nightclubs/venues, I have a real desire to talk about this. I considered a pit thread, but I’d rather really have it out.
I have 2 basic arguments with which I plan to start this debate, but more may be added later if someone posts a good rebuttal.
A bar or restaurant is a private establishment. The city does not pay to run the restaurant, therefore they should not interfere with the way it is run, beyond ensuring the food/drinks are pure and the customers know what they are getting. A customer does not have to patronize a bar or restaurant if they feel that the services or atmosphere there are undesirable, and this alone should take care of the problem (the free market at work). If people didn’t want to go to a bar that allowed smoking, a non-smoking bar would open and do well. Since this doesn’t happen, we can safely assume that bar patrons do not mind the smoke.
I’ve heard it said that second-hand smoke is harmful to the health of everyone in the establishment, and a person should not have the right to harm another’s health. As an example, I have heard it said that you are not allowed to walk up to someone on the street and hit them, as they have a right not to have their well-being interfered with. Fine, but as a frequent concert attendee, I can tell you that I am frequently shoved, punched elbowed and kicked in the mosh pits that break out at local rock shows. I do not have the right to attend these shows, stand in front of the stage, and expect that I won’t be physically harmed. I know that this is something that occurs at these shows, and I don’t have to attend. Likewise, at bars, nightclubs and concerts, people like to smoke. This is something that is simply expected to happen at these places, and a person is totally free to decide whether or not to attend.
I know, I know: smoking is a horrible habit. I don’t smoke myself, I never intend to, and I wish that my friends who do smoke would quit (although I don’t harass them about it, because that would accomplish nothing but alienating those friends from me and making them feel guilty). But the government has no business telling people not to smoke in bars and nightclubs. Most indoor public areas? Sure. But a bar? See the link above; she puts it better than I could.
I think most of the decisions are based upon the employees who ‘have’ to be there.
I am a bit torn on the issue. I do smoke, but I never smoke in a resteraunt or other establishment I may be in with my wife because it bothers her. I step outside, or to the bar.
I do agree with you on the private ownership argument. Second hand smoke may cause resperitory illnesses, but so do many things in other jobs that are used solely to be more expedient, or lucrative to the owners. I used to work refurbishing metal in office buildings like elevators and handrails and metal doors and such. The chemicals we used would get you high as a kite, and even though we wore masks the paint and lacquer we sprayed would clog your nostrils and leave an aftertaste a raw onion couldn’t kill. I left that job becuase of the health implications. If I was a bartender or waiter, and thaught that second hand smoke hurt me, I would leave that job also. The same goes for auto mechanics who breathe exhaust in somehwat closed areas.
I think this is an attack on the tobacco industry, and the tolerance of a public health issue more than anything else. The intention seems to me to be less friendly to smokers in the hopes that the smoking population would lessen.
Even as a smoker, I can see the benefits in that. I just don’t think they should be hypcritical about their resons. But I guess if they didn’t it would become a civil rights issue. That is if it already hasn’t
I don’t really care about the tobacco companies; they make enough money selling their poison as it is. But if you have that much trouble with second-hand smoke, you could look for a job in a restaurant instead of a bar–where I live, there are plenty of restaurants with no smoking areas at all. But if you’re going to work in a place that sells alcohol, which isn’t exactly health-friendly itself, I’m inclined to say that you should, as mangeorge so eloquently put it, “suck it up.”
The government doesn’t have a right to legalize morality, or to tell people “we forbid you to do this because it hurts you.” Yes, they have a right to ban smoking in most public areas, because non-smokers shouldn’t have to have their lungs polluted in places they need to be. But if non-smokers (such as myself) want a night out, we can go to any restaurant with a decent non-smoking section (there are many, at least around here, and there should be many in other areas as well). If we want to go to a bar and not get our lungs polluted? Well, isn’t it possible to have some non-smoking bars without demanding that all bars ban smoking?
Yes, people like to smoke in bars. I have no problem with the concept, nor do I wish to impose my lifestyle habits on others.
However, as I am not only a nonsmoker but an asthmatic whose worst trigger by far is cigarette smoke, I must say that the current state of affairs in Chicago frustrates the crap out of me. I really couldn’t care less about hanging out in bars, in general, but it’s awfully difficult to see live non-symphonic music in a smoke-free venue. And as someone who is a big lover of live music, it frustrates me to no end that I have to either avoid shows in places that aren’t smoke-free, or risk having to walk out halfway through the first set with an asthma attack, because people are allowed to smoke in bars.
Why even a smoker would light up in a resturant is beyond me. Even my few smoker friends don’t want to eat in a smoky room. Ruins the taste of the food. But luckily for us, more and more restaurants around here have gone smoke-free.
Eva - I must say I hadn’t thought of the asthmatic situation, and I’ll have to think about that for a while and consider its repercussions as far as I how I feel on this issue. I will say that my initial reaction, while it may sound harsh, is that this is just something that comes with the unfortunate situation of having asthma. A hemophiliac may be a really big fan of punk and metal music, and it may be really annoying to them that it’s dangerous for them to get anywhere near the stage because they’ll be kicked by passing crowd surfers, but that doesn’t mean that crowd surfing shouldn’t be allowed at these shows. Don’t take this to mean that I’m heartless or unsympathetic, it’s just that everyone’s got SOMETHING to deal with, and it’s too much to ask that the general public cater to everyone’s needs all the time. I really do feel for you, though. That sucks.
And while I maintain my position about the right of restaurants to establish their own smoking policy, even as a smoker I would much rather patronize a restaurant that does not allow smoking. It’s just a much less pleasant experience to eat with a bunch of smoke hanging around.
The private establishment thing is appealing rhetoric, but it just doesn’t wash. There are all kinds of laws in place that affect how private businesses must operate, and by and large these laws are of great benefit to everybody. I’m glad they exist.
The question of whether or not the smoking ban goes too far is fine, but questioning the right of the city to tell businesses how to run things is a non-starter. They have that right, and we’re all better off because of it. No child labor, food preparation and storage guidelines, mandating fire exits, overtime pay, making buildings handicapped-accessible, the list goes on.
The idea that private businesses would take care of this stuff if the city didn’t force them to is laughable. The invisible hand simply doesn’t work for that kind of thing.
I’m actually surprised the smoking ban passed. It doesn’t go into effect for three months… I expect lawsuits against the city with the goal of seeing that it never goes into effect.
If it does hold up to legal challenges, I’ll be happy to take advantage of it and start going to shows and bars more often this fall. If the next city council repeals the ban, I won’t care much. I’ve already found other ways to entertain myself, and I’ll go back to doing them then.
A bar is a public accommodation, and as such, is subject to many regulations. Why do you draw an arbitrary line at pure food and drinks? A bar can’t refuse to serve patrons on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation… A bar must be accessible to the disabled. A bar must abide by laws mandating maximum occupancy, fire exits, fire extinquishers and sprinklers. A bar must admit guide dogs.
Private ownership does not mean you get to control everything that goes on behind your doors. Don’t like it? Get a job.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear–I don’t question the right of the government to tell private businesses to do (or not do) some things. I’m just inclined to say that this is going to far. However, I don’t go to bars myself (I’m under 21), and I’ve almost never been to a live rock concern (and the only one I did go to wasn’t in a bar but in a smoke-free part of a casino), so I’ll readily admit that I don’t have to deal with the repercussions of this law or the lack of it.
Eva - You’re right about there being more asthmatics than hemophiliacs, but I don’t know about the hemophiliac just having to stay out of the pit. Depending on the show, it could be dangerous to be anywhere in the standing room, due to crowd surfing. Crowd surfing can’t happen over a pit, remember, it takes a bunch of people staying still. I understand that the situations are different, but I think that to a large degree the principle holds. As I said before, I need to really consider this before I can say with certainty how I feel.
Hazel - I made reference to there being laws in place to control the activities of a private business. People have a right to know what they’re getting, and to assume that food they order has been properly prepared and stored. We as a society don’t allow child labor, but that’s a rule to protect children, not consumers, and it’s an across the board thing, not just for restaurants and other private places open to the public. Where you’ve got me is the handicapped access part. As Eva has pointed out, there are people with respiratory conditions that make it so that a concert where smoking is allowed is basically denying them access. Still, I think it’s a stretch to say that this is the same situation addressed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. I say that because the business is allowing these people the same access to the same product as everyone else, it’s just that the product is more harmful to them than others.
If I run a restaurant, should I be legally required to have meals on the menu that aren’t prepared anywhere near nuts, or contain no fish, or that are low in fat and calories? There are a lot of people out there with severe allergies and heart conditions, and while I do sympathize with them, I don’t believe that businesses should be legally required to provide services of which they can safely partake.
The line isn’t arbitrary at all. People have a right to know what they are getting when they purchase goods or services, but they do not have the right to engage in a transaction with anybody that they want to. The free market goes both ways: businesses shouldn’t be forced to engage in transactions with individual consumers any more than individual consumers should be forced to patronize businesses. Frankly, I believe that a private business owner should be able to refuse service for any reason at all to anybody at all. I would hope that known racist/sexist/homophobic establishments would be driven out of business by a population that refused to support them, but I will acknowledge that that is something of a pipe dream.
The point is, the government should not be stepping over the boundary in to regulating thought. A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone, and it’s just plain wrong for a government to accuse him of a crime for behaving in an otherwise legal manner while having unacceptable thoughts. It’s OK for a business owner to refuse service to someone for any number of arbitrary reasons, but if the owner performs the same action (not harming anyone, just saying that they will not be served) while having racist motivations/thoughts, they are a criminal? I just think that’s a scary place for a government to go. And keep in mind that I’m queer as all hell and living in the south, so it’s not like I never encounter any prejudice or hatred. I believe it’s very wrong, but I also don’t believe that my government should be telling anyone what they can and cannot think.
As a veteraran of the restaurant/bar business, I think it stinks.
I think most places are non-smoking by choice, ( no cite, this is personal experience). The people I know went non-smoking by themselves. They recognized the trend.
In Ohio, ( Stark, County ), there is a sticker for the door which explains the smoking guidelines. The local Yellow Pages lists restaurants by the smoking preference. So, it is harder to plead ignorance of the smoking policy of a business.
One of my favorite watering holes is a “pub”. Smoking is permitted in the Bar area, but no where else. They even have 2 seperate rooms specifically for Non-Smokers. The owner stopped having matches printed with their logo. He thought they sent the wrong message. In the bar area they have a smoke elimination system.
As far as employees are concerned, this business attracts smokers. My personal experience is that many people in this trade smoke. Why?, it is a generally accepted stress reliever. And believe me, we need stress relief.
But these things are different, aren’t they? They don’t alter the very nature of the service offered/desired. Some people specifically want to enjoy a Bud and a Marlboro. Why can’t an establishment cater to this clientele, just as another might cater to those who desire a smoke-free environment? Why can’t some one specifically target this clientele and advertise appropriately? “Joe’s Smokers’ Bar & Grille, Spirits and Tobacco.” If you don’t want to be subjected to smoke, don’t go here; it’s not for you. Or does it just bother you that such a place even exists?
Child labor laws ain’t the same thing. I might be glad they are in place, but that ain’t the reason I go to a particular establishment. You might just as well argue that cigar bars be smoke-free (perhaps you are).
Are you sure about that? I live in Austin and have been to several bars that don’t have wheelchair access and can only be accessed via a staircase. Elephant Room comes to mind, the bar on top of Katz’s, many places that have rooftop and second floor bars like Iron Cactus and Speakeasy. Also there are plenty of bars that don’t have hadicapped restrooms…at Joe’s Generic Bar you have to walk up stairs and go out back just to get to the men’s room. I’ve also seen lots of signs saying ‘We have the right to refuse service to anyone’, whatever that means.
What I’m surprised about with this smoking ban is that the smoking community, which I thought was significant, has so little political influence.
HOLY SMOKES! Bob and I are in agreement on an issue!
Funny thing though. I smoke but I also enjoy and appreciate a smoke free resturaunt when I go out to eat. What really irks me though…I can no longer smoke at the bar at Smokey Bone’s!
It’s a friggin’ smoke house for crying out loud! Is tobacco really that much more noxious than charred animal flesh? I’m mean I’ll grant you, it is less savory than Mmm, Mmm, Bar-B-que. But is it less carcinogenic or antagonizing to an astheamatic? It just strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
We banned smoking in bars in LA several years ago. There was some initial protest from the pub owners, but it has died down significantly, and there have been no headlines about bars closing down by the bucketload.
In the end, the bar owners seriously underestimated how many people were STAYING AWAY from their establishments because they smelled like nine-month-old ashtrays, and how many people could deal with not smoking while they enjoyed a drink.
The smokers huddle out on the curb like the addicts they are, and you can finally SEE the band!
A hearty Yes! from this asthmatic. Cigarette smoke has all sorts of chemicals in it that set me off wheezing faster than any other kind of smoke or almost any other kind of chemical fumes I’ve experienced. Leaving aside the carcinogenic nature of the chemicals in cigarette smoke, sometimes just walking through a bunch of smokers standing outside a building will set me off.
