I have heard this, too, though I appreciate the clarification. I feel this also falls into the category of “inherent work condition.” If you don’t want to breathe second-hand smoke, you probably shouldn’t work in a bar, just as if you don’t want to be exposed to hazardous waste, you probably shouldn’t go into the hazardous waste disposal business. Both are perfectly honorable vocations, but it’s silly to point out a hazard that is an inherent part of the job (not that you were doing so).
Several years ago British Columbia repealed a short lived ban (about 1 year IIRC ) on smoking in bars throughout the province as a result of change in government. All the two bars I’m familiar with opted to spend ten’s of thousands on ventilation rather than ban smoking when new regulations on bar smoking went into effect.
Well, it just didn’t bother people enough in the old days until the campaign against smoking heated up. Hell, if you wanted a good time did it matter whether you drank more than two drinks in an evening, even though that is unhealthy? Cigarrette smoke was normal and a fact of life.
Well you forgot to mention the spittoons.
mangeorge I’ve scratch my head trying to see the humour in my previous post but I failed.
His point is that bars that aren’t advertised exclusively as ‘cigar bars’ that just happen to permit smoking cater to both smokers and non-smokers, in which case nonsmokers have as much right to complain as smokers have to smoke. I thought of this argument when I saw your "Anyone who goes to a place where smoking is permitted has conceded his right…to bitch about it’. However, I think a bar that doesn’t offer a non-smoking section does not cater to non-smokers, therefore if you go to a bar you are effectively volunteering to sit in the smoking section.
IMO, if the smoking community doesn’t have the clout to prevent this kind of legislation, then bars may be doing themselves a disservice by only catering to smokers. If political clout = more money, then bars stand a chance to make more money and pay their musical acts more as well by changing their clientele to those capable of imposing on their old clientele.
I’d like to see these regulations get repealed after five years or so, and let bars voluntarily go back to smoking if they think it’ll improve the bottom line.
Complain away. But you don’t get to demand (or shouldn’t) that every place you walk into conform exactly to your standards. It’s not a matter of advertising. If a bar permits smoking, and that is unpalatable to you, go somewhere else.
If you don’t have some kind of respiratory condition, you’re striking me as reeeaally uptight here. You are not going to get high by being in the same area as some people smoking pot, except for maybe if you were in like a car where a lot was being smoked and the air wasn’t turned on. Are you just that unable to deal with the concept of people smokin’ a doob?
And please tell me when the association between marijuana and live music events was “undone”. It must have been pretty recently, because I’ve definitely been to shows within the last couple of weeks where the association was in full force.
The point is, I believe that the argument still holds. Sorry, but if you want to go to these types of events, you do so accepting that all odds are that people will be smoking pot and tobacco there. And for that matter, why would we think that this will even work at larger concerts, where as it is people sit there and toke off of a pipe, which is surely more illegal than smoking a cigarette in a non-smoking area. At these kind of events, it’s just something that happens, and the force of that is stronger than the law. That’s a pretty strong association, IMHO.
LC
LC
That’s one think I love about this board. Propose a thought experiment and someone shows up with info about it actually having been done somewhere already!
Very interesting, grienspace. And it points to one of the problems when you drag the gov’t into this sort of thing. They legeslate actions, rather than net results. Instead of taking a stance that air quality has to meet certain conditions, you end up with a req’t of how to meet those conditions. Ventilators can do a very good job of keeping the air clear in indoor spaces, but no one has that option in CA.
I am a frequenter of bars, and I’d be surprised if any of the ones I go to would allow smoking if the ban was lifted. A few might opt for the ventialtion method and allow smoking, but then I think everyone would be happy and we’d have one less unnecessary law on the books.
grienspace say’s;
“mangeorge I’ve scratch my head trying to see the humour in my previous post but I failed.”
The humor (mild though it is) is in the idea that the marketplace accommodates servers and staff in these places. That’s all.
If you work in an unhealthy environment, something should be done about it.
Not “find another job”, as some would propose.
I suspect it’s because the ban gets rid of the unpleasantness of smoking, but allows the operator to blame the “govt”. It gives them a level playing field.
Has there been a post-ban survey of business owners in CA to see if they would like to have the ban lifted? I’ve only heard some interviews and such, and the answer was a definite “no”.
I guess the attitude among bar owners is that they don’t want your stinky old smokes in their business’, and if you don’t like it you can go somewhere else.
I guess.
Check this out, among places where you can’t smoke in Berkeley;
“U.___ Within 20 feet of any entrance, exit or air intake vent to any building that is open to the public, except while passing on the way to another destination. _For purposes of this section, entrance or exit shall mean an opening into a building from a contiguous street, sidewalk, walkway or parking area, and “air intake vent” shall mean an opening into a building that draws in air from the outside as part of a building ventilation system but shall not include windows, entrances or exits.”
Yep, you can’t smoke outside the door at a bar.
Just another example of the Goverment controling our lives. The rich smoke anywhere they please, and nothing is done. I heard the next thing to be banned is eating meat!
I think it’s ridiculous that marijuana is illegal, so I don’t think I’m that uptight about people smoking it.
Fact is though, it is illegal. And Mr. Shakespeare holds down a day job that requires random, unannounced drug tests. (In fact, I had one about six weeks ago – it felt great to whiz away, knowing that I had nothing to worry about).
I am prepared to state that people who want to hear live music should not have to accept the chance of arrests and unemployment.
While plenty of musicians still smoke pot, I rarely if ever encounter people openly doing it in the venues I play, even backstage. This was a lot rarer twenty years ago although I don’t doubt it varies with venue and genre – YMMV. Alcohol too – I don’t know how old you are, but when I started playing, there were no ‘dry houses’ for under-21’s to hear live music. ‘Undone’ may be too strong a word, but it’s certainly been reduced.
As for the OP – please read my first post in this thread, in which I state my opposition to a ban on (tobacco) smoking in bars. Make marijuana legal (and convince my employers to loosen up their policy) and I will lighten up on my concerns about contact highs (which can definitely occur amid heavy smoke and/or a small room).
Until such time, wacky weed and wacky terbacky are not the same animal.
Do you live in the US, waltcatb?
Welcome to the SDMB
Peace,
mangeorge
My last post should have read, “… wacky weed and tobacco are not the same animal”.
I’m another one of those people who don’t smoke, but have to wonder why the hell this bill even made it to the floor. It hits me as another example of “Healthy Living Gone Awry.” I remember watching one council woman talk about how “As a mamma, and a grandmamma, she wants the bill passed.” The only thing I could think of is “But you’re not my mamma or grandmamma.” It’s nice if you want to protect your family from outside harm, but some people feel the need to protect EVERYONE from EVERYTHING, and I’m sorry, that’s just ridiculous. Especially when it comes to this type of scenario. Pretty soon, there’s going to be a ban on the number of cheeseburgers one can eat in a week. It’s just getting really out of hand and silly.
It reminds me a lot of prohibition. The government stepped up and made alcohol illegal “For the benefit of the citizens,” and what happened? Lots of people making booze in private because alcohol was important to them. I’m guessing a lot of businesses are going to find ways around the ban.
Again, I’m really getting sick of people trying to run other’s lives for them over something they see as a horrible health risk due to the “victim’s” apparent lack of knowledge. I’m betting 99.9% of those who smoke KNOW the consequences, and yet they CHOOSE to smoke. If you don’t like to smoke, avoid smoke. My old roomate had horrible allergies to cigarrette smoke, so when it came to going out, he would avoid heavily smokey areas, or make sure to leave and get fresh air when he needed it. These laws don’t seem to be set up to protect those who don’t want to smoke, they seem more like a forced 12 step program for smokers. All the taxes, laws, and regulations set against such a silly thing…
Being someone who frequents downtown a lot, it’s going to be really odd watching my favorite band play without cigs hanging out of their mouths. It just adds a nice appeal, you know?
For all you analogists, there are already bans on pulling off a piece of your cheeseburger (or meat) and poking it down the throat of passerby. Or the guy on the next stool.
Good one, huh? 
By your logic, then, why would the city needs to ensure that a bar or restaurant serve food and drinks of at least a minimal standard? Wouldn’t “free market” takes care of this as well?
The truth of the matter is that when a city government allows a bar or restaurant to open, it’s taking responsibility of protecting any and all potential customers from certain harm, seeing that the government needs to be responsible to the people of the city.
Sure, a bar may be a private establishment, but it is a public space [public area], thus, laws that does not apply to one’s own home can apply here. You can walk around naked at home, can you do that in a bar?
Furthermore, opening a restaurant is not a right, it is a social contract. You need to satisfy a number of laws and ordinaces, for example, fire safety, food hygiene, even down to size of bathrooms and such. If you want to serve liquor, you need to follow additional regulations as well. So, why can’t such regulations extend to smoking?
Smoking is not a right. It never has been.
Existing laws take care of this. If you get injured, you can press charges against the responsible party. This is the protection. There’s no similar protection against smoking in bars and restuarants, hence the new laws.
How is that relevant?
Yes, it did work, and despite protestations that they would all go bankrupt, there has been no special decline in business from this noted. Many claimed an *increase * in business. (after a brief, intial resistance).
The problem with the “Well, let there also be non-smoking bars” is that most establishments are conservative, and think any change will cost them business. Thus, until the law passed, there were almost no NS bars, even in liberal CA. Now, most bar owners say they wouldn’t go back.
The “experiment” here in CA worked. The same can’t be said for BC, although it appears they didn’t give it much of a chance.
If you really want to light up, there are private cigar clubs & the like, so there is a choice.
I have to agree with those who questioned why you draw the line at pure food and drinks. What about pure air? If you subscribe to the notion that it’s a “private business” and should be allowed to do whatever they want, then why regulate the food and drinks? Doesn’t your argument that the customer “does not have to patronize the bar”, apply to that as well? Or try substituting “smear feces all over the walls and tables” for “smoke”. Why don’t “private” businesses have the right to do that? It would actually be less intrusive, because the customers wouldn’t actually be forced to inhale the feces.
In that case, the government would be well within its rights to pass legislation banning violence at rock shows. (I imagine it already is illegal.) Are you arguing that 2 wrongs make a right?
Just because it’s expected doesn’t make it right. In California now, its expected that people will not smoke at bars, nightclubs, and concerts. It used to be expected that if you were black, you had to sit at the back of the bus. Of course, you were free to decide whether or not to ride the bus, but that didn’t make it right.
Lucki unfortunately Blowero made some of the comments I was going to make. Fortunately since I agree with Blowero my post will be much shorter as I can simply build upon what Blowero has already posted.
As Blowero very aptly demonstrated, you acknowledge in this quote the City or similarly the government can legitimately interfere with how private restaurants and bars are ran in order to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. This principle has also led to the protection of the individual from him or herself. For example in Indiana restaurants are forbidden from cooking hamburger meat below Medium Well even if the patron wants to Assume the risk of meat cooked at a lower temperature.
In each of these situations the restaurant or bar is precluded from creating an atmosphere which is harmful to its patrons. This is exactly what is occuring with the smoking ban in restaurants and bars. The city or state government is ensuring the bar or restaurant provides for a healthy atmosphere for all its patrons. The state and city government has done it before with Health Codes and so why can’t the city or state do it now in this instance?
As some have already eluded to a bar or restaurant is open to the public. It is a place of public accommodation as far as the law is concerned. As a result, it is subject to any and all regulations imposed by the state or city government in providing for the welfare and health of its citizens. This explains the existence of Health Codes such as the requirement employees wear gloves when handling others food, or regulations stipulating the necessity of fire extinguishers on the property. Restaurants and bars are heavily regulated by the state or city government to ensure they provide an atmosphere that is safe and healthy to its patrons. Smoking bans are just another regulation to ensure restaurants and bars provide safe and healthy atmospheres for its patrons.
Blowero stole my argument. If people attend concerts where “moshing” occurs and there is a high incident of unwanted injuries to patrons, then the state most certainly could, and probably has in some states, made it illegal to “mosh” at these concerts. In order for this analogy to work you have to assume the state could not legitimately regulate what occurs at these concerts but alas the states have and continue to regulate not only what the crowd may do but also what the band may do or say. As a result, I do not see any reason why the state should not preclude concert goers from moshing.
I’m so proud of my hometown. We got the bad-assedest bans anywhere.
Since I’m all about not getting food poisoning, yet in favor of leaving smoking bans to individual bar and restaurant owners, I had to give this comparison some thought.
In the case of sanitation codes, the public is protected against threats that aren’t immediately obvious. While it’s easy to see someone lighting up a Camel at the bar, few people are inclined to poke their heads in the kitchen and run a quick inspection. Barring filth on the scale described in Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London, it would be difficult to eyeball a room and make sure everything was safely cooked, stored and handled. If governmental authorities want to lessen the chances of the public puking after Jimmy the New Guy left some meat out too long, fine by me.
In the case of smoking bans, though, the point isn’t to protect the public against what’s going on behind closed doors. A citywide smoking ban requires an owner to protect voluntary customers and employees from other voluntary customers, even if the owner would be willing to accomodate both groups somehow, or lose out on the custom of nonsmokers. That, I’m not comfortable with.