Please don’t misquote, if you are referring to my post. What I said was, if there is sufficient demand, then non-smoking bars would proliferate without anyone’s help. If you believe there is not sufficient demand to open up, say, a single downtown non-smoking bar that could support itself in response to the demand of all these aggrieved non-smokers, that should tell you something about how overbearing these laws are.
Didn’t mean to misquote you; I’m not sure what I said that is inaccurate, but please accept my apologies if I did so. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I explained my position, and why I think you’re mistaken, and now you have simply repeated your assertion, so I don’t know what else to say.
I think they sould prohibit any bar or nightclub from having a parking lot, before they do anything about smoking. Once they get rid of all bars with parking lots, then, only after that, should those busy-bodies can work on getting laws passed banning smoking, drinking, and dancing in bars.
John Mace wrote:
For this reason, I suggest that areas considering this issue should adopt a temporary ban. Let bar and restaurant owners try it out for, say, a year or so. Then the ban would be lifted, and they would be free to allow smoking or not.
Like you, I’m betting a lot of them wouldn’t go back.
I think non-smoking customers would have come to expect a smoke-free environment, and would loudly complain if the smoking started again.
A lot of smokers have also come to expect, and appreciate, a smoke-free environment. I know I have. Even more so, I think, since I quit.
It is a good thing to be able to choose a bar or club by the music they feature, and not be concerned about whether or not the air inside will be breatheable.
Man, I’ve been to some Blues clubs…
You can design a building to accommodate a smoking environment. It’s not rocket since to calculate airflow. Filters weren’t invented yesterday. I’m not implying most bars are designed well, I’m implying they CAN be designed well.
Government intervention in privately owned business [for the benefit of society] should be based on scientific criteria. We have air quality standards for all manner of machines and factories. The same can be applied to establishments that allow smoking.
Many people have objected to the smell of smoke. Icky, but not illegal. You can’t legally throw a bum out of a library for body odor and THAT is a public building.
There are people who are allergic to smoke. There isn’t enough space to list all the products that cause allergies. If you ban a substance on that premise you will be left with water as the only item on a menu.
It is a quick trip to legislative hell if governments are allowed to eliminate all forms of potential hazards in our lives.
Ahhh, but the difference between smoky air and a menu item is that it’s perfectly possible to patronize an establishment and avoid any particular menu item, or even all the menu items. You can’t very well go to a bar or restaurant, though, and not breathe for the duration of your visit.
Bob Cos I have a question.
What is the target clientele? Is the target clientele only smokers? Are bars created solely and expressly for the purpose of attracting only smokers? No not generally nor does a simple declaration sufficient. Much more is needed before it can be said a bar narrow target clientele is smokers. If the establishment is a cigar bar, then you have a very strong argument but not every bar is a cigar bar. The target clientele is smokers and non-smokers. Since your target clientele is both smokers and non-smokers , which consequently makes the entire population over the age of 18 or 21 the target clientele, then why can’t reasonable impositions be made on the owners of the establishment to provide an atmosphere healthy to all its patrons?
The fact is Non-cigar bars and all their attractions are designed to target not only smokers but also non-smokers, to attract not only smokers but non-smokers.
It is similar to restaurants whose clientele is the entire population. The government imposes a variety of health codes to ensure establishments provide an atmosphere that is beneficial to its patrons. The law prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants, with cigar bars and other similarly situated establishments exempted, is nothing more than a health code.
Smoking cigarettes can potentially harm more than just the smoker and as a result, and since both smokers and non-smokers are the target clientele by Non-Cigar bar establishments, then espousing rules and regulations to provide for the health of all patrons seems reasonable.
I’ve discussed this at great lengths in Nassau County (where a judge has temporary injunction on the no smoking law), Suffolk County (where the law will never be enacted due to a State law that will take effect in late July) and New York City (where the local law is causing a bit of a fuss).
I smoke. Until the latest round of legislation passed, I used to refer to bars as the smoker’s last public refuge.
Perhaps there’s a little bit of beating up on the 33% minority going on in some quarters and perhaps there’s a genuine concern about non-smoking employees by others. What I find ironic is all the politicians ranting and raving about the evils of smoking when they themselves make something like 7x more profit on a pack (in the form of taxes) than the tobacco companies make. I also have to admit I’m enjoying the shit out of all the tavern owners turning off their Quickdraw Lottery machines and reducing that part of the State’s revenue stream.
I think the state & local laws that have recently passed in the NY metro area are troublesome.
Example: I have a partnership in a Restaurant / Tap that has an outdoor patio that we open in May and close in September. It has seating for 28 and a small outdoor bar that seats 5. According to my local county law, we can no longer allow smoking outdoors on the patio if the area we serve (or give the appearance of serving) customers food or drink. In other words, no one can smoke outside if there are tables, chairs, barstools, etc. I was dumbfounded, but that came directly out of the mouth of a county health official.
Here’s a compromise I know smokers would agree to, most non-smokers would consider and the anti-tobacco nazis would probably fight tooth and nail against:
Using round numbers. A NYS Liquor License for a tavern is $3,500 annually. $5,500 for a restaurant / bar.
As alluded to in several prior posts, let’s work off the principles of a free market and personal choice.
Why couldn’t the state offer licenses at a greatly discounted rate for non-smoking establishments. Let’s say 75%. Or even raise the license fee for smoking establishments.
If Jerry McGillicutty wants to have a non-smoking establishment, he’d pay $875 a year for his liquor license.
If Winston O’Boogie wants to allow smoking in his bar, he’d pay the full $3,500 license fee. That’s a $2,625 annual expense that he’d have to make up in the price of his drinks, etc.
If there is a market for non-smoking establishments, this little compromise would do something to help subsidize such businesses.
Who loses with such a deal? I can’t think of anyone.
Granted.
However, I believe it is possible to have a non-smoking section that meets whatever standards are set by a competent Board of Health.
I lose. JohnBckWLD. Because I want to be able to drop into O’Boogie’s for a couple of dogs and a beer, and not get a faceful of smoke in the bargain. Mmmm, pickled eggs, and no smoke.
I smoked for a long time, and I still can’t feature why anyone wants soo bad to smoke in a bar.
Step outside for 5 minutes, ok? Take a nice little stroll, have a smoke, then return to your nice, clean, smoke-free bar.
Bottom line is that smokers are the “Bad Guys”. They (we) bring something noxious into an otherwise pleasant environment.
This might be partially possible in a restaurant or bar with separate sections, although even with the best possible ventilation system, smoke tends to drift across to the non-smoking section.
However, how would you make this idea work in a concert venue? If sound can travel, so can smoke.
**No, just as a bar with a pool table isn’t only for those who like to play pool. But both a pool table and allowing smoking are features that some bar owners believe is a combination that will maximize their profits. His target clientele are those who will enjoy the combination of features his bar offers, which may include the ability to light up a Marlboro if the patron so desires.
**Because it’s a privately owned establishment, where the owner has the latitude (IMO) to establish certain rules. This is a bar, remember, among the more trivial establishments one will encounter in his travels. It’s not a hospital or a subway car or a courthouse. You don’t have to go to a bar.
The owner should get to decide if he’ll allow smoking (he can decide not to), and you can decide whether or not you’ll frequent his place as a result of his policies. I believe you have the right to a smoke-free environment. I don’t believe that leads us logically to conclude that all environments must then be smoke-free. If I smoke in my house, you can decide you won’t visit my house as a result. The need to visit a bar is just that compelling.
You don’t like smoky bars? In a just world, you’d just have to hope someone opened a smoke-free one. Nobody owes you a friggin’ bar that meets your specifications, especially not when there are throngs of people who prefer the opposite. Let the market decide. If enough people stay away because of smoking, bar owners will change pronto. Just my opinion, of course.
Not to me, not when it literally abolishes the option for any other type of environment, regardless of the owner’s wishes, regardless of the wishes of a significant percentage of the population. No one denies that smoking creates an environment that some people would like to avoid. If that’s the case, don’t go to bars that permit it.
Not quite an apples to apples comparison. “Sound” is the micro movement of air, smoke will travel in the direction of airflow. Airflow is easily controllable. You design a room to flow air from the non smoking area to the smoking area. The idea is to create positive pressure in the non-smoking area.
Keep in mind, I’m not arguing whether a government agency has the right to dictate every action of its citizens. IMO, this is not the function of government in a free society. Any establishment that is privately owned should have the greatest latitude possible to cater to the market they wish to cater to.
Air standards are measurable. Measurable standards are enforceable. Enforceable standards can be legislated in a reasoned manner.
You don’t lose. You’re free to go to McGillicutty’s, where the prices are 75% lower and you won’t have to put up with smoke.
This summarizes the arrogance behind this movement: even if there are smoke-free options, that’s not good enough. I have to be able to go anywhere I want and have it smoke-free, regardless of the availability of smoke-free options, regardless of others’ wishes. No, no, no, I have to be able to go into that bar there and find it smoke-free. Why? Because that’s what I want.
ONE person’s stated opinion summarizes the whole movement? Hardly.
This ignores the fact that smoke-free options are by-and-large unavailable in the absence of legislation. “I insist on x even though I can have y” is not a valid argument if y does not exist.
Why do I get the feeling you were just waiting for someone to say something like that so you could latch onto it and assume it’s the opinion of every non-smoker? Contrary to your belief, we don’t live to deprive you. We just want to be able to breathe, that’s all.
**No. Who said it did? But to the extent that arrogance drives this movement (which is to some extent, IMO), this was a nice little summary. Feel free to disagree.
**Um, yes, it did indeed. Mainly because the hypothetical under discussion was about having non-smoking alternatives. This was the hypothetical that the mangeorge was reacting to. You do understand that, correct?
** I don’t believe it’s the opinion of every non-smoker. I’m a non-smoker, a fact I have already told you, so your assertion is ridiculous. Why you have the feelings you have is something you’ll have to ask yourself.
**No one’s depriving me of anything; I have already told you I don’t smoke. Try not to create strawmen motives for people who disagree with you.
No, saying “We lose” would have been arrogant. I simply want a couple dogs, and a few beers. I work in the Macy’s a few blocks over, and my flat’s upstairs in the same building as O’boogie’s. No worries about driving after drinking, or catching a taxi. Besides, they have the best hot dogs in town. I like O’boogie’s. If I have too many beers and decide I must have a smoke, I’ll just step outside. I’m not arrogant enough to believe others want to breathe my smoke. Even when they’re too polite to bitch at me about it.
And that’s what it is, friend. Most people are (were) just too damn polite to bitch at us.
And JohnBckWLD’s hypothetical, which I was responding to, discussed having an alternative to being a (legislated) non-smoking bar.
I don’t know how to respond because I have no idea what your point is. A hypothetical compromise was suggested that would allow a favorite place of yours to permit smoking. Do you oppose such a compromise on the grounds that you want any bar you walk into to be smoke-free, even if a bar down the street were smoke-free?