How would you know this? There might well be jobs available if these currently smoking owner-operated bars could hire them.
I’m not implying that you agree with the policy.
I don’t know how it is in other cities, but here in Chicago if one needs to avoid smoke, but wants to hear live music, one has very few choices: Symphony Center, the Lyric Opera, Jazz Showcase, and the Old Town School of Folk Music. All are great places, but this still limits my options to what, less than 1% of what’s available in this city? including the vast majority of types of music. Other places have occasional smoke-free shows (I saw Indigo Girls not long ago, and that was smoke-free at the artists’ request, much to my pleasant surprise), and there are outdoor concerts in the summer, but the winter is long and hard here.
I maintain that the crowd-surfing analogy is not accurate. It’s still possible to remain on the sidelines at a show like that and be safe, but smoke permeates every nook and cranny of the vast majority of concert venues. I often wonder what asthmatic musicians do before they are famous enough to demand a smoke-free environment.
I was, of course, being flippant with “for your own good”. I screwed up the :p. But non-smokers do have the moral high ground in this. Smoking is the abnormal act, not refraining. That they could “go somewhere else” has nothing to do with it. A non-smoker should even expect a smoke-free visit when invited to a smokers home (which I have provided in the past).
But, most of you would admit, the world would be better off if no one smoked.
I’m not a ban fan either, but this one I happen to like. I liked it when I did smoke and I like it now. It’s all good.
Cigarette smoke outdoors quickly dissipates. Think of the times you walk past a guy smoking a cigar; you get a tiny whiff of tobacco. Anybody who’d blow their smoke right in your face is just being incredibly impolite (and probably picking a fight).
Here’s another angle:
People have suggested that there’s no reason for government intervention – after all, their reasoning goes, any bar owner can decide to ban smoking in their own establishment.
The problem with this is that bar owners are loathe to risk doing so. Many believe (correctly or incorrectly) that banning smoking would alienate existing customers and drive them to their competition. They figure, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? The number of bars which prohibit smoking (in my area: zero) should be something of a testament to this.
The argument that really pisses me off is that the employees are subject to second hand smoke. Well what about a lot of us including employees that work with chemicals and particulate emvironments that require us to where respiratory protection? Why are we expected to accomadate the market but hospitality workers are to be accomadated by the market? By the way, I quit 3 1/2 years ago, but this discrepancy in equality of legislated worker protection makes a mockery of the entire worker protection system.
[tom green]I guess SOMEBODY wasn’t listening to the speech![/tom green]
Because we are talking primarily about music venues here, I used the example of a concert where it’s typical to have crowd surfing and moshing going on all over the place. If I go to one of these shows I DO NOT have the right to expect that I will not be punched, elbowed or shoved by moshers, or that I won’t be kicked in the head by a passing crowd surfer. Under most circumstances, walking around on the street, I can expect not to be exposed to this kind of thing. When I pay someone for the privelege of going to a place where this is a known and expected, albeit dangerous, activity, I do not have that right. I feel that the same logic should apply to smoking in a bar/music venue.
I could understand a ban on smoking on public sidewalks, parks, whatever. But when it comes to private establishments, especially with something like a concert, I feel that the government is going too far in demanding something like this.
LC
So how do you fix it? Require wait staff to wear gas masks? Companies where I live are required to mitigate particulates and such.
I hope you realize your post is kinda funny. 
Allright, Lucki Chaarms, we’ll allow smoking where there are mosh pits, and ban it in all other venues.
Not the point, dude. A person who doesn’t wish to be moshed doesn’t attend an event with moshing. We’re cool with that. A person who doesn’t wish to inhale smoke doesn’t attend an event with smoking. Considering that there’s a lot of crossover here, it seems to be a pretty fair analogy.
LC
Got it. I misunderstood you the first time around and didn’t realize you were talking about the owner operated bars.
It would be a very interesting social experiment to see if CA decided to repeal the ban on smoking in bars, if people would demand, by their patronage, that most bars remain smoke-free. I know a lot of us used to tolerate smokey bars because we didn’t know any better, or really had no choice. If you wanted to go to a bar, you put up with smoke. I don’t think people would go back to the old system and you’d find that the vast majority of bars would remain smoke free with a few here and there that allowed smoking. The latter might especially be small, neighborhood type bars where most people knew each other and just decided that smoking indoors would be OK. Just MHO, but it’d be interesting to see what would actually happen.
Kind of makes one wonder how the hell it ever got to be socially acceptable to smoke in bars or restaurants in the first place. But then, people used to smoke in elevators and bathrooms, too. Unbelievable.
Just FYI, some asthma stats from various spots on the American Lung Association’s website (www.lungusa.org)…asthma is much more common than I suspect some of you believe. Of course, these stats don’t include numbers of Americans suffering from other conditions aggravated by cigarette smoke, or who have reduced lung capacity for other reasons:
“26 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma in their lifetime. Of these 26 million Americans, 10.6 million have had an asthma episode in the past 12 months…
These statistics most likely reflect an underestimate of true asthma prevalence, since studies have shown that there are many individuals suffering from undiagnosed asthma.”
“More than 25 million Americans are now living with chronic lung disease.”
“Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.”
“Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).”
Again, the situation of an asthmatic is NOT analogous to that of a hemophiliac; the hemophiliac just has to stand away form the center of activity, but can still enjoy the performance. The area of involvement for an asthmatic is anywhere in the enclosed space; the only way to remove oneself from the danger is to leave entirely.
Believe me, I wish I could just suck it up and deal with it, but the potential result is ending up in the E.R. hooked up to a nebulizer, or worse.
Been there, my friend. As you know, it’s pretty easy to avoid the mosh. Not so with the smoke.
And it’s a lousy analogy.
I think if CA tried to repeal the ban, you’d see more resistance from the owners than from the patrons.
An interesting and timely thread (see my post above about the situation in Maryland – and yes, I have confirmed that the proposed ban here would indeed be statewide).
Some thoughts…
Smoking and toking or, politics does indeed make strange bedfellows
Culturally, smoking used to be pretty universally accepted here in the US, with the exception of certain religious and health-oriented groups. Back in that day, lumping tobacco and marijuana together was rare, if not kooky. That evil weed, the choice of Mexicans and colored people?!?
But smoking is now approaching the same status of marijuana (and other drugs), albeit in a much more gradual fashion (e.g., marijuana was banned* overnight in 1937.)
Many of my smoker friends seem to have problems reconciling these facts with their current feelings about how ‘intrusive’ government has become in the 21st century.
Tobacco and music – not molecularly intertwined
I have never smoked tobacco, or marijuana. I have been a musician, and music lover, most of my life. In my adolescence, I wanted very much to listen to live music, but dreaded the contact high from the extant marijuana smoke. I was told to ‘get over it’ – you wanna hear jazz (or rock, or pretty much anything but classical or gospel), you gotta put up with a little doobie, that’s life – what are you, some kind of fascist?!?.
Time has undone this association, and I wouldn’t be especially surprised if the same thing eventually happens to tobacco: the owner of a bar where I am a house musician (a smoker himself) is optimistically hoping for a smoking ban in Maryland bars.
- Well, not really banned – the federal govt. outlawed its interstate transport without federal stamps, and then produced no such stamps – try to imagine how tobacco smokers today would react to such an action.
Why?
Even without the ban, nothing is stopping them from being non-smoking. In fact, if non-smoking does in fact increase business, they’d be better off, because OTHER businesses would go back to smoking, increasing their own share.
I was disappointed the ban was even proposed, and I was surprised that it was passed. While I don’t have any particular attachment to smoky bars, I believe the decision to allow smoking should rest in the hands of the owners. If owners want to accomodate customers with asthma and allergies, more power to them.
According to articles in the Daily Texan (UT’s newspaper) and News 8 Austin’s website, the ban doesn’t cover pool halls, bingo parlors and some other places. If the ban is intended to protect employees from second-hand smoke, what about employees in these establishments?
FUS: I read your post above. Sounds like your bartender friend wants to defeat the free market.
Why can’t there be a place for smokers and non-smokers? If he wants to take his chances branching out to non-, he’s welcome to.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Do you agree that if I want to open a public place that caters to smokers (not necessarily a cigar bar), then it’s my right to do so and your right to go elsewhere? Or, again, does the very existence of such a place bother you?
If the argument falls apart on the sidewalk, I suppose it’s a good thing I wasn’t arguing that.
And, just to make it clear, I’m not arguing for a private club. I’m arguing that a public establishment that specifically caters to smokers ought not to be banned.