So, instead of the smoke being in a building where people choose to be, the smoke is out on the street where people have no choice but to encounter it.
Sounds like a great solution.
I don’t drink or smoke, but I wish there were more places people could smoke so that those people would stop standing in doorways I have no choice but to pass through.
I can avoid bars, or restaurants that allow smoking. I can’t avoid the street. I don’t want smoking banned, I just prefer when it’s contained.
Julie
Good to see you’ve finally seen the light. 
I think it would be better to avoid a ban on smoking in bars.
Being forced to put up with smoke in an office (where I work during the day) is more intrusive that the same annoyance in a bar (where I play music several nights a week). For this reason, I am not willing to accept the argument that since attitudes on workplace smoking changed pretty dramatically in a few short years, why couldn’t bars do the same?
However, the issue is complicated…
Here in Maryland, there are rumblings about such a ban: a bar/restaurant-owner friend of mine received a survey from the government recently asking him his preference on one (I believe it was the county, not the state – but I’m not sure).
This guy voted in favor of a ban – and he’s a smoker himself.
His reasoning?
He is convinced there are LOTS of potential patrons who stay away because of the smoke. (Admittedly, this guy’s place is a both a restaurant and a bar).
Now, I asked him, why doesn’t he just ban smoking in his bar?
His reply: if he does that, he will lose his customers who smoke to the bar down the street. But if all bars ban smoking, the smokers might as well stay in his place. So, (the theory goes) with a blanket ban, overall business will increase, as new customers come out to eat and drink.
So it doesn’t appear to be just anti-smoking zealots who are pushing for a ban (although they’re probably the biggest part of the push).
Shakes:
Good point. I thought I had posted something similar, but it must’ve gotten lost in cyberspace somewhere.
I’m pretty much anti-ban, but a blanket ban is not all that bad. Here in CA we’ve had it in effect for about 5 or 6 years. Since it’s statewide, it’s not like you can just run to the next town to smoke in a bar. Everyone has adjusted fine, and there’s even somewhat of a plus side. If you’re trying to pick up on someone and you think they might smoke, you invite her (or him) outside for a little private conversation and a smoke. Then you see where things go from there.
I’d also like to add that smokers themselves are largely to blame. Too many or inconsiderate and caused a backlash. Is there anything as smelly and disgusting as cigarette smoke that would be tolerated in a resaurant? What if someone came in with an incense burner. They’d be kicked out in a hearbeat.
I always liked George Carlin’s joke: “Someone once asked me if I minded if they smoked. I replied ‘Mind if I fart?’”
BTW, cigar smoker here. But always outside and never if anyone’s around who might object.
I certainly won’t mind if the ban spreads and holds up in court, I hate smoke and know of the many dangers of second-hand smoke, but I have to (with some reluctance) agree that it goes too far. There is real informed consent going on here. It is legal to smoke and no one is being coerced to go into these venues. Different than say a resturant that could reasonably be expected to have children in it. Or many other confined spaces that all people have a reasonable expectation of access to. There should be no reasonable expectation to the right to see music in a private club that Eva is being denied.* Sure I won’t generally go to smokey places but I’m not a target market group, not single hanging out in bars. Heck, I’m thrilled to get to an ice cream shop with my wife after the younger kids are in bed!
*Although one does then have to question a parallel to handicapped accessibilty laws …
One question I’ve never heard answered; A person does have the right to poison himself, but what gives that person the right to compell everyone else to clear an area so that he can?
I like music with my meals, but not the stuff usually played in cafes. Can I bring my boombox…
All rambling aside, I like the ban in CA.
Yes, you have heard it answered. The person has the right to smoke by virtue of going to an establishment that permits it. Anyone who goes to a place where smoking is permitted has conceded his right, whilst on the premises, to bitch about it.
Can you answer my prior question? If I want to open an establishment specifically catering to smokers, why does the very existence of such a place bother you? Why can’t you go somewhere else?
Does this law still allow for the loophole of a “private club” where you pay a charge to become a member and then can smoke? I seem to remember such a loophole existing for some laws regulating restaurants or bars, but I can’t put my mental finger on it.
Julie
For Frithrah and Bobcos,
There are establishments that cater to smokers. Cigar bars are normally exempt from anti-smoking ordinances.
As for in public places shared by smokers and non-smokers, I support the right to smoke with one proviso, no exhaling. Your right to swing your fist ends where the other guys nose begins.
I’m against bans.
Just as it’s unfair to require non-smokers to endure smoke, it’s equally unfair to force smokers to have no place either.
I think this is the case where the free market should reign.
But that arguement falls apart on the sidewalk, or in parks, or between stores in shopping malls (privately owned shopping malls). So we should ban smoking in all those public places, including one’s car, and limit it to bars, etc?
Why can’t you (a small minority) smoke somewhere else?
Anyway, I don’t know anyone who objects to private clubs. I know they’re out there, I just don’t know any in person.
I’m doing this for your own good, Bob. 
By the way;
By all accounts I’ve read, owners of bars and cafes and such have come to enjoy the smoking ban here in CA.
Did you read argument number 2? Most people would agree that you should be able to go downtown and enter a venue to see your favorite band. However, depending on the kind of music, you can expect to be at risk of very substantial bodily harm just by standing in the crowd. This is something that is simply known to happen at these places. Not everyone likes it, and it does result in some people who like certain music staying the hell away from the shows, but they don’t claim that there should be laws preventing crowd surfing or moshing at these places. Smoking is just one more thing that happens at a concert or a bar.
So basically, I don’t think your argument holds water. There are times when I have the right to swing my fist, and the other guy has the right to stand there, but he doesn’t have the right not to get hit, OK?
LC
Lucki Chaarms says;
“So basically, I don’t think your argument holds water. There are times when I have the right to swing my fist, and the other guy has the right to stand there, but he doesn’t have the right not to get hit, OK?”
Come on, I think maybe you’re getting a little carried away in the arguement.
The other guy has no obligation to be aware of your swing and to duck. His nose’s right to be where it is supercedes your fist’s right to go there. Unless your “times” mean in a boxing match or something.
You may have been being flippant here; I’ll admit that possibility. However, I’ve always found the “this is for your own good” argument to be particularly loathsome. The government has tried the “banning stuff for your own good” approach before. It was called Prohibition. I’m not saying that banning smoking in bars is the equivalent of banning alcohol everywhere, just that if you take “it’s for your own good” to its logical conclusion, that’s what you get.
The justification in CA was that employees were unduely subject to the dangers of “second hand smoke”. I do know of a bar in SF, owner managed and operated, that legally allows smoking. No employees = no employee alheth hazard. So, it wasn’t the patrons that were being protected, but the bar employees. Kind of makes sense since patrons aren’t necessarily in the bar for 6-8 hrs/day.
I’m not saying I agree with this reasoning, just explaining it to you. Frankly, I think it is an end run for the anti-smoking folks to get the agenda enacted. But, it was a successful tactic ,as it did work.
Kind of makes you wonder, though, why the gov’t can’t use the same logic to ban adults from smoking in the home when children are present. The “health hazard” to children of smoking parents has to be worse than for bar employees, although the total amount of smoke in the bar air is probably much higher than a smoker’s home, so maybe that’s the issue. But I have heard of custoday cases where one (divorced) parent had legal req’d the other parent to refrain from smoking inside when the child was present. Don’t have a cite for that.
In other words, employees are, “for their own good” prevetned from taking a job in smoky bar. This man can’t hire someone even if they are fine with the conditions. Pure paternalism.
Here’s a question (just out of curiosity) for those of you who live in Austin…
Having only very limited knowledge of Austin, I do know about 6th Street and how it is some sort of open-air promenade lined with bars, clubs and whatever else. Doesn’t the smoking ban include language that “extends” these premises by a certain number of feet around each establishment?
If so, where exactly would smokers go to have a cigarette between drinks or establishments?
Again, I only possess anecdotal information about 6th Street since my brother lived there for about three years or so several years ago. Anyone care to enlighten me?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Apos *
**In other words, employees are, “for their own good” prevetned from taking a job in smoky bar. This man can’t hire someone even if they are fine with the conditions. Pure paternalism. **[/QUOTE
True, but since CA has no smokey bars in the whole state, no one is actually denied a job. As I said, I’m just explaining the way things are, not saying I agree with the policy. But I do think a state-wide ban is much better than a city by city ban. Especially in larger states. I remember living in MA when we couldn’t buy booze on Sunday, we just drove over the border to NH and made the purchase.