I don’t often go to bars, so I don’t (and I generally don’t drink more than one anyway, so non-extreme price differences don’t matter much to me). But plenty of other people do, especially if they’re planning on drinking a lot. When I suggest nicer places when the co-workers want to go out, or for a night out with “the girls,” I frequently get vetoed on price issues. And we’re not talking $6 beers, either.
WHY do you keep assuming this is an equally comfortable option? I don’t want to step outside because I’m wearing four-inch strappy sandals, backless black satin, and it’s 45 degrees outside and spitting rain, okay? And I’ve just spent 9 hours in my smoke-free office and 2 1/2 hours at a smoke-free work-related awards banquet. If I go outside I’ll have to put on my coat, and hang my purse over my shoulder where it might get lifted by some bum, this being a weird neighborhood, and besides I’ll look like a streetwalker (although kind of an old one). Not to mention the dirty looks people give you as they pass by you to get inside the bar, if you’re out there smoking. My preference is to sit with my drink in front of me and be warm. And relax.
Really, I pretty much ONLY smoke in bars. At this point these two facets of the bar experience, booze and nicotine, are so closely bonded that if I have to go outside (in Colorado, where 11 months out of the year it’s really too cold for me out there after dark), I just won’t go to the bar in the first place.
Like when my favorite bar took my favorite songs off the jukebox. I found a new bar and never went back, even though the new one didn’t have a jukebox at all. Going to a bar is not something I have to do, after all. If it’s not comfortable, I’ll find an alternative.
(Colorado has lots of non-smoking bars, not to mention restaurants and almost all concert venues. People who want to avoid cigarettes have alternatives. How come people who don’t want to avoid cigarettes can’t have alternatives?)
I understand all that, Cicada2003, I really do. But it’s your jones. You’re asking other people to go somewhere else just so you can indulge, and it’s not merely an annoyance. Cigarette smoke is nasty. Most smokers hate to have their own smoke hang in their faces. Do you not wave smoke away?
[sub]quitquitquitquitquitquit[/sub]
OK, so why not let the smokers go to a different bar so they can indulge, and let the nonsmokers stay where they are? Would you agree to a plan to let a city keep, say, 3 smoking bars, and all the other bars must be nonsmoking?
I suspect you wouldn’t, because I suspect your real motivation is anger and/or the “holier than thou” satisfaction of a convert: you’ve seen the light, and now you want to punish smokers by making them stand in the street.
Actually I’ll go somewhere else. Where I can sit by my drink without offending anyone, because all those who would be offended by smoke are in a place where there won’t be any, and there are plenty such places. (Even a jazz club.) All I’m saying, why can’t there be both kinds of places?
No, smoke doesn’t bother me unless there’s really a lot of it. In fact there is a point–this only works with someone else’s cigarettes–right after they light up (usually a Marlboro or one of those old-fashioned full-flavor brands), when there’s a whiff that’s actually a little jolt of simple olfactory pleasure. Kinda like getting a sniff of smoke from a wood fire in the winter, or the first inhalation of coffee when you’ve just broken open the can.
All I’m saying is that there is a point of balance, and I think it’s been achieved. Nobody, repeat, nobody, has to go to a bar. It’s entirely optional. If they want a non-smoking bar that, too, is an option.
Oh sure. You quit. Now you think everybody should.
Then you’re damn lucky. Where I am, there is essentially no such choice. At least, I don’t call approximately 1/10th of 1% a choice. I’d be happy to exercise my free choice if I had one. (And this is a major metro area of several million people.)
Nah, I’m not angry, nor am I holy. Smokers around here have had to go outside long before I quit. And I haven’t found any real huge benefit to not smoking, except to save a little money, and not having the huge hassle of smoking. And I no longer need to fool myself that I “enjoy” smoking. :dubious:
It’s just real nice to be able to drop in at a bar or cafe without having to get a snoot full of smoke. Even when I did smoke.
And that seem’s to be the consensus around here among non-smokers, ex-smokers, and smokers in general.
So don’t get mad at me. Get mad at those turncoat smokers (there are many) who prefer non-smoking environments. 
Bob Cos I apologize for responding so late but I do have a few points I would like to make.
First I see differences between your house and a bar or a restaurant. A bar or restaurant, as I noted previously, is created expressly for the purpose of availing itself to the public and providing to the public within its own premises a service in hopes of making a profit.
A bar, although it is a private establishment, and a restaurant then avails itself to all members of the public and when this happens the state is justified in regulating the bar or restaurant to ensure the safety of any and all citizens that may venture into the establishment for service. Since a bar or restaurant will attract smoking and non-smoking citizens alike and second hand smoke has been proven to increase and in some instances substantially increase the likelihood of developing certain types of cancer, then the state is justified in regulating this activity in restaurants and bars to protect the health of its citizens. It is no difference from those health codes that preclude other types of conduct by patrons, employees, or owners.
Can’t someone invent some type of vacuum device to be worn on the face that will suck all the smoke right into the smoker’s own lungs? Then everyone will be happy.
Nope, I disagree. Some regulations are undue; e.g., when there is already nothing preventing someone from visiting a non-smoking establishment. Using your logic, should we force cigar bars to be smoke-free? Screw the fact that they are specifically designed to cater to smokers? Can we outlaw cars at NASCAR racetracks because I want to be able to go there and not breath noxious carcinogens? After all, this is a public place.
It’s simply a ridiculous notion that the right to a smoke-free environment means that all environments must be smoke-free, especially non-essential venues like bars. You want the subway platform smoke-free? I’m with you. You don’t want to smell smoke when you’re drinking? Drink at a bar where the owner prohibits it.
Except that in many places, there are essentially no non-smoking establishments.
If that’s true, then there is not sufficient demand for one, which would suggest that a law forcing all bars to be non-smoking is a bit overbearing. Again, I don’t wish to seem unsympathetic, but we’re talking about bars here. Not courthouses or public libraries or hospitals or subway platforms. No one has to go to a bar.
IMO, there is not a fundamental right to a smoke-free bar, not a right that would demand that all bars everywhere must be smoke-free. If a bar permits smoking, and that’s not acceptable to you, you shouldn’t go there. If enough people feel that way, smoke-free bars would become more common.
That is a completely unsubstantiated claim, and one which happens to be patently false.
No, it is a statement that is true by definition, or else Econ 101 has been redefined since I went to college. Sufficient demand–i.e., a demand that is profitable to accommodate–will be met by a willing supplier. If it is not profitable enough to do so, then suppliers will provide nothing.
Again, this is not an opinion so much as it is the very definition of demand taught in typical introductory Economics courses, commonly known and, frankly, self-evident. You could plot this on a supply/demand graph and the very fact that there is not single non-smoking bar in a given area BY DEFINITION means that the supply and demand curves do not intersect. There is not sufficient demand to create an available supply. This is indisputable, or else I look forward to reading your counter-syllogism to the Law of Supply and Demand that will show the conventional wisdom to be a patent falsehood.
In the absence of such a proof, however, we can consider your post to be an example of an unsubstantiated claim, in case you’re really looking for one.
Absolutely correct. How is the free market supposed to find out about all the people who DON’T go to bars because they can’t, or don’t wish to, deal with smoke? We can’t exercise options that don’t exist.
Again, I am well aware that it’s not a physical necessaity to go to a bar (and FTR, I couldn’t care less about bars, except that to a large extent they constitute a majority of places where one is able to hear live music, which is something I care about quite a lot). I’d estimate that here in Chicago, maybe 1/10 of 1% of music venues are smoke-free. Do you really think that only 1/10 of 1% of Chicagoans would prefer a smoke-free environment? Or is it more plausible that a significant proportion of the remainder would prefer a smoke-free environemnt, but one is not available, so they choose to deal with the smoke?
However, it’s not a physical necessity for people in wheelchairs to go to bars, either, and we have laws that mandate handicapped accessibility. I’m not saying that a lack of smoke tolerance is on the same level as a handicap in most cases, but there’s a lot less accommodation for people who want or need to avoid smoke. Lucky me: I fall into that category.
Again, philosophically I’m not in favor of smoking bans, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that the free market solves all problems.
**Bob, ** to make things absolutely clear after your simulpost, supply and demand curves can’t intersect if there is no way for the supply to know about the potential demand. Your scenario assumes perfect information, which we don’t have in this case by any stretch of the imagination.
Eva, I hear you. But I would counter that if there is sufficient outcry, publicity and discourse to create a law outlawing smoking in bars, it defies logic that there is simply no way bar owners could know this demand exists.
If we extend the Supply and Demand logic: given the fact that there are already non-smoking venues in Chicago (your 1/10 of 1%), there is already a frame of reference for other suppliers. If these businessmen enjoy a better-than-average profit, then other suppliers will rush to gain access to the market. Such is the birth of virtually every market in the world, and I don’t understand why smoke-free bars would be different. Heck, even an average return would create some smoke-free bars.
Profits attract suppliers like blood attracts sharks. Even 1/10 of 1%–should this actually be profitable enough–would create a chain reaction that would proceed, however slowly, to the equilbrium point of the supply/demand curves. If the supply has not shifted significantly in Chicago–or not at all–then you are at the equilibrium point. That’s how much demand Chicago has that is profitable enough for suppliers to accommodate.
But **Bob, ** even the 1/10 of 1% is not by any means a representative sample of music venues. It consists of the Chicago Symphony, Lyric Opera, Ravinia (an open-air venue anyway, and one which attracts mostly classical acts), the Old Town School of Folk Music, and Jazz Showcase.
There is, to my knowledge, not a single primarily rock or pop venue in the Chicago area that is smoke-free. So please explain to me how a potential club owner is supposed to judge the potential demand for smoke-free music venues that showcase mainstream acts.
How does any market get created? Word of mouth, surveys, research, whatever. You are, IMO, significantly underestimating the vigor with which suppliers search for profit in a free market.
But you’re avoiding my main point: if there is sufficient hue and cry to create a law in a particular locale, how could the supply side of the equation be unaware of the demand? Certainly they are aware of it. It simply has been deemed as not profitable enough to accommodate. It is weak demand, or the suppliers would certainly react to it. Do you honestly believe that it’s the government’s role to “sense” untapped markets and legislate them into existence? If so, OK, but I strenuously disagree that that’s an appropriate role for the government.
So you are suggetsing what, that I create sandwich boards and campaign up and down Clark St. or in front of City Hall to demand the creation of a smoke-free club? I don’t get it.
And again, I have said multiple times that I am philosophically opposed to government regulation of private businesses for most purposes. However, if the free market solved everything, we wouldn’t need legislation to force taxi drivers to pick up customers in bad neighborhoods, or businesses to install wheelchair ramps (which also benefit non-handicapped people, such as those with strollers or wheeled shopping carts) or elevators or handicapped bathroom stalls (another measure that is immensely helpful for parents of small children, who were not the intended market). Let me tell you, spending a year on crutches definitely changed my view on legislated accommodation measures.
I’m convinced that if there was enough demand for a smoke-free club in Bloomington, Indiana, where I went to grad school, there is enough demand in Chicago, with a metro area in the neighborhood of 8 million. I don’t know the industry well enough to know what other factors may be preventing one from opening. Hell, if I had any capital, I’d open one myself. Any budding entrepreneurs out there?