I love going to eat in Madison and the malls. I stay away from some of the Dells restaurants, because of the horrid smoke filled rooms. In a number of towns I’ve seen restaurants go from smoking to non-smoking because of the loss of business. You’d go in and there were long waits in line. The smoking section might have 25% occupied at the most. They made a monetary judgment to go 100% non-smoking. they still fill up so you have to wait, but they now use 100% of their seating, during the peak meal times.
You go to a seedy bar for breakfast? 
I’ve had Bloody Mary’s for breakfast after a late night out clubbing, but I didn’t really *call *it breakfast. 
When smoking was allowed in bars, on the rare occasion I went to bars, I’d come home with my hair full of smoke and my clothes full of smoke. It was unpleasant - but hey, I could avoid it by just not going.
But at work…I can’t avoid work. So having to come home every day and wash out all of my clothing or have everything dry cleaned after every time you wear it (which becomes a bit expensive and wasteful) and having to wash my hair every day (which will not be good for my hair. Or my mood). That would be really annoying. And I’m not even one of the people who gets sick from smoke. Thinking that it’s totally ok to smoke in the office…that’s very different.
I was surprised to see from the link that some places apparently ban smoking in bars, but not restaurants. That makes no kind of sense to me at all.
No, that would be blue. There aren’t any blue states on that map.
I grew up in NC, and when I was a kid you could smoke EVERYWHERE. Teachers smoked in the teacher’s lounge with the door open (it was right next to the office), people smoked in the grocery store while shopping. Even in high school (mid/late-90s) I smoked inside gas stations. I’m glad it’s not like that anymore, but some of the bans are getting a little ridiculous in the other direction. I wasn’t even aware of the ban here until more than a year after it took effect, because I don’t smoke anymore, but someone was telling me it’s illegal to smoke within 150 feet of any entrance to any building, or somesuch pish posh. That’s absurd.
A bit off topic, but why do so many smokers get so defensive about their right to smoke, then complain about how hard is it to quit, and how horrible it is to puff in the cold and rain? Do cigarettes cause lung cancer AND hypocrisy?
not referring to anyone in this thread
Wouldn’t fly in California. the smoking ban in restaurants/bars was enacted as a workplace safety measure due to increased lung cancer deaths among restaurant and bar workers.
Cal OSHA would make such an idea an non-starter.
“I can’t stand cigarette smoke, but no one seems to care down at the Drink & Smoke & Drink & Smoke Tavern.” – Tom Epstein
Seriously though, just on principle I’m not a fan of smoking bans applying to private businesses, but I can see where the other side is coming from on that issue.
This type of attitude, on the other hand, drives me up a damn wall:
Ew, ew, ewww. I want to buy a cigar, and that guy wants to sell me one. You don’t get a say in the matter, and if you insist on obtaining one then you forfeit the right to complain when I start crossing items off of your shopping list.
So I gather that you won’t mind me scattering some asbestos fibers in your general direction while you’re smoking in my presence?
Passive Smoking (in closed quarters) is detrimental to health. It makes sense to me that laws **can **and **should **regulate one’s activities that impact negatively on uninvolved bystanders, and smoking in closed areas is such a case.
I went to a wedding in PA in 2001. The cigarette smoke in the lobby of the place where they had the reception was horrendous. I was definitely not used to it–smoking had already long been banned in most indoor places except bars and restaurants in MN at that time (from that link, looks like it’s been since 1975!) Nobody went outside to smoke because it was raining and, of course, they didn’t have to. Really turned me off and I was glad to get back home. I don’t think I’d get used to smoky bars and restaurants in places that still have those, either.
I am a smoker but I support the bans. It’s not about the patrons, it’s about the staff. Patrons can vote with their feet; staff not so much. People who work in catering and hospitality are often the lowest paid and most vulnerable members of society, with less chance for them to move jobs, and the chance for coercion into an unhealthy working environment is great. They shouldn’t have to breathe it in.
Sure it sucks on a personal basis to have to go outside, but if I have the chance to smoke in bars or restaurants (like whenever I go to Asia) I do, and I love it. Someone needs to protect the workers from my selfishness.
But this part makes sense to me. There’s nothing like leaving a non-smoking business and having to ‘run the gauntlet’ of smokers by the entrance. Yes, it may only be for a few brisk seconds, but tell that to my hair which is fairly long and thick and will grab the scent of cigarette smoke seemingly instantly.
It is a little bit telling that a bar opened up in Durham in a place where three or four drinking holes had failed. This bar wasn’t particularly different from any of the bars before it, other than the proprietor made it a non-smoking bar. It’s been hugely successful here for pretty much no reason other than that. Even as an occasional smoker, I enjoy going out to a bar where I don’t come home smelling like an ashtray.
It’s a wonderful option. And there’s great reasons to ban smoking in public buildings and hospitals. I wouldn’t go to eat in a restaurant that didn’t have a non-smoking section where I couldn’t smell cigarette smoke.
But banning smoking? Where the hell do people get the idea that the few venues that do allow smoking are the only source of jobs for people? And more importantly, where do they get the idea that it’s a good idea to give the government the power to regulate the consumption of a legal item on private property?
Why do drivers complain about traffic and yet continue to drive in it?
Smokers don’t want other people, more specifically governments, telling them what to do with regard to smoking. They want control over whether they smoke or not.
I’m with Always Brings Pie. I shouldn’t have to go through a cloud of poison gas to get from my office to my car.
There was a report on the radio this morning that mentioned one of the more vociferous opponents of the recently-enacted smoking ban in Fitchburg (next door to Madison). She feared that she would lose all of her business if the ban were enacted. Instead, she’s seeing increased profits from food sales.
If other people smoking didn’t effect me at all I wouldn’t care what they did. I don’t mind people drinking or chewing tobacco around me. I don’t do either of those things and I think that chewing tobacco is gross but they aren’t forcing me to do it so I couldn’t care less. Smokers, however, are forcing me to inhale all the toxins and carcinogens in their cigarettes if I am with them in an enclosed space. I don’t mind you stepping outside for a smoke if you step away from the front door a few feet. 150 feet is a bit much, but stepping back to provide 3 feet of space on either side of the door prevents the smoke from wafting back inside when the door opens and stops people from feeling like they are “running the gauntlet” to get in and out.
Find me a spot that is 150 feet from any building entrance in a city of 4 million. It’s like Dennis Leary said: eventually people will only be able to smoke in their bedroom, under the covers, with the lights off.
Very good point that I didn’t think of. I depise cigarette smoke and in general I’m for smoking bans, (My parents smoke and I grew up around it–and their denials that it was harmful or even smelled bad. :rolleyes: riiiight.) but stilll…I can’t help but try to think of it from the other side here. We allow all kinds of other vices to have their place in public society. But smoking is kind of in a class by itself. Even all employees being smokers wouldn’t work, because they’re still exposed to very high levels of smoke, plus if they quit they’d have to find another job…say it’s a very small business? What if the owner is the only worker there and they don’t care? Guess not.
Also, re: entrances. I don’t want to walk through a cloud of smoke when I’m leaving a business any more than I want to step in some drunk’s vomit. I can definitely see banning smoking in certain public places like banning public drinking in certain places. But then you’ve got to take into account all the other disgusting and/or potentially harmful things people do in public that aren’t against the law…
I’m torn. On one hand, I can see the reasoning behind searching for a compromise, but on the other hand I think “Ew, go away!”
I guess that’s a very long post to say what **pbbth ** said:
Personally, I hate the idea. The last thing we need is more local bureaucracy screwing with the ability of people to enjoy their vices in peace. If such licenses were unlimited, then it just amounts to a cash grab from local businesses. If they’re limited, then you end up with yet another way that established interests and petty bureaucrats can set up barriers to entry and screw with newcomers.
I’ve seen first-hand evidence of this in Santa Barbara, where, in order to cut down on drunken disorderliness down town, they limited the number of dancing licenses. Dance in a bar that doesn’t have one, and they get a fine. There are still lots of bars down town, but now the new ones are at a disadvantage, and there’s endless small town politics involved in obtaining a permit for something that should never have required one anyway.
Of course, I’m also a non-smoker who thinks that the smoking bans are a bad idea. Bars and restaurants were always able to choose to “cater to smokers” before, and they all did. It’s unfortunate if you like a smoke-free experience, but I don’t see why, if there really are that many people who feel that way, then we could just let the restaurant owners decide to cater to them. If we want to discourage smoking in general (a fine public policy objective), then hike up the sin tax on cigarettes.