So non-smokers and smokers do not pal around? Really?
It might be worth noting that Michigan has a much higher percentage of smokers than California does, and as such the ban might affect bars and nightclubs differently.
Okay, so maybe it’s not the smoking ban.
Just kidding - that’s good stuff!
One thing that bugs me about Iowa’s ban was that it doesn’t apply to casinos. There are no-smoking sections (the food sections) but you can still smoke and gamble. Why the exception? If smoking is so harmful, why allow it in casinos?
Well I don’t know about Iowa but in Oregon, and I think in Washington too, all the casinos are run by native americans and are part of the reservation and exempt from several state laws.
Har har.
Thanks!
Outside of parts of Texas and dry counties, I find it hard to believe a 30 mile circle has just one bar. I travel a lot and I drink and even in the remotest parts of Indiana and Montana I’ve never had much problem finding a choice of watering holes. As for jobs — growing up my family moved three times so my Dad could change jobs. I’ve moved twice myself for the same reason. Not more money, per se, but what we saw as better conditions. So I still say, you don’t like the bar or don’t like the job, take a hike. I know too many people who lost their jobs over these smoking bans to have a lot of sympathy for any employee or customer who thinks they have more of a right to run the business than the owner does.
“If you eat badly, and get diabetes, you do not give it to bystanders. You do not cause others to get sick. You are not forcing waitresses and bar tenders to adopt your life style. But smoking is different”
But I am forcing you to pay for it; probably at a higher cost to you than smokers. Health Care just hasn’t figured out how to add that high yet. And the poor employees lured with discount meals when clerking at Micky D’s! Think of the humanity, for God’s sake! Plus the grease fires and spatters and the pure absorbtion of grease through their pores, clogging their lungs with its noxious fumes! No exhaust system can compensate for that killer, I tell you! :rolleyes:
Sorry Gonzo ------ no difference. Just the same tired rhetoric in our need to micromanage everything around us.
Same in PA. At the one out near Wilkes-Barre, the smoking is downstairs. Which leaves this grand stairway with a cloud rising like something out of “The Fog”.
The exception is there because smokers work hard and spend hard. Non-smokers may work just as hard but they don’t spend. Our local casino did the math and kept the records; as a result their smoking area is going to be expanded and the non-smoking area reduced. And what goes for the casinos goes for a lot of food joints and bars as well.
Gonzo is close to something I can agree with. Owners often don’t care about the health of their employees. They do however care about their corporate image and bottom line profits. Some, like family dining choices, fought going non-smoking but were forced to ban smoking well before the governmental bans to protect their image.
Some businesses that went non-smoking found out that it cost them money. They appeased the non-smokers (especially those with children) and bolstered their image but non-smokers just aren’t as free spending and rarely become the same kind of “regulars” smokers do. Its 5-20 years down the line for some (those that survived - around here Perkins and some others didn’t) and they see the places that developed as smoker friendly doing fine. Pretty much as well as they ever did.
How do we deal with competition these days? Get Uncle Sugar and his 50 nephews to ban it for you. Easiest darn thing in the world! The non-smoking places can survive the change-over; they already have their niche and their clientele. And maybe 10% of the money spent in smoker friendly places will filter their way once all the closures and resettlement winds down. For them its a big win. For the places that developed to serve a different clientele --------- who cares? But we got our way and stopped those evil cigarettes (or insert your own pet peeve here) and that’s all that counts.
Of course not. Smokers don’t exactly have a reputation for consideration of others. A pretty selfish group of people.
As has been pointed out, you have a false equivalency going on here.
But throw all the tantrums you want. Your battle is lost.
I don’t think that DrDeth realizes that most people aren’t as, erm… peculiarly adamant that smokers are bad people as he is.
Of course, he’s free to hang out with Yookeroo. Partaaaayyyy!!! 
What the hell are you talking about?
I think you misread my post. I was talking about a bar with an owner-operator who had ZERO employees. Nobody working there = nobody being exposed to second hand smoke except customers who voluntarily choose to go in.
Cigar parlors are exempted.
A cab driver is vastly more likely to die in the course of his employment than a bartender. Why don’t we ban cabs?
That’s not what he asked. Also, I don’t know about where you are, but here cigar bars have plenty of employees. Why are we to assume that they’re so special that they could work anywhere they want, unlike all the other poor oppressed waitstaff and bartenders in the state?
Because nobody really gives a shit about the cab drivers. Of, nobody really gives a shit about the bartenders either, so maybe they’ll get around to it.
Not in this state - especially if food or beverages are involved. The cigar club I belong to had to apply for an exemption even though no food or drink was involved.
And you are still ducking the question -------- I own a small bar; 12 seats and 2 booths. I am the only employee there ever will be and I smoke. It’s a neighborhood place in the city and all my regulars smoke. There is one of those mega-chain non-smoking bars right across the street from me.
Why do I need to go non-smoking other than to make some sanctimonious bastards happy?
FWIW, the Florida ban exempts free-standing establishments which derive less than 10% of their income from food sales. This includes cigar bars and plain ol’ bars, although pretty much any establishment with a kitchen tends to go over the 10% cap.
Actually he made a fantasy example. I provided a real one.
He says a place with zero employees. The owner operator would have to work 365 days a year and day and night shifts.
Florida is the only place I have been with no smoking in public places. Once Michiganders get used to it, they will love it.
The Casinos got exempted in Michigan. That is too bad. I hope they have a no smoking floor . Their claim was the Indian owned casinos would not have to follow the rules. They might have found that cutting smoking would increase customers.
Hey, stop using logic! That’s not welcome here! Get out!
They will love it about as much as you love being in a smoke-filled bar. And THAT is the truth; plain and with the hair off.
The example I gave was no fantasy - it was my favorite stop when I was out by Goffstown (sic?) Mass. It’s closed now ------ another nice business killed by government intervention. No reason for it other than we can do it.
<<They might have found that cutting smoking would increase customers.>>
a) the Indian casinos are no more exempt in PA than any other casino.
b) the Meadows Casino (non-Native owned) found just the opposite; smokers are the best customers and anti’s are, as I said before, basically cheapskates. From the Post Gazette:
Smoking now allowed on half of Meadows’ casino floor
Thursday, January 15, 2009
By Gary Rotstein, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Meadows Racetrack & Casino joined Pennsylvania’s other slots parlors yesterday by winning permission to double its space where smoking is allowed, taking up half of the casino.
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board accepted a plan from The Meadows to allow smoking throughout the gaming floor of one of the two synthetic-fabric, tent-like structures in its temporary casino. The smoking area is the section of the casino patrons enter first.
Smoking will be prohibited in the casino’s second room, which is in the rear of the facility in a separate structure connected by passageways.
The changeover was to be completed by today, Meadows spokesman David LaTorre said.
Because of the amount of smoking typically seen in casinos and the state’s reliance on revenue from them, the slots operators won an exemption in Pennsylvania’s Clean Indoor Air Act, which took effect in September. Initially, they were allowed to keep 25 percent of their slots area open to smokers.
The law enabled casinos to apply after 90 days to expand their smoking areas to as much as 50 percent if their smoking-permitted slot machines were generating more revenue on a daily basis than the smoking-prohibited slots.
Pennsylvania Revenue Department figures by December showed a significant difference in revenue between the smoking and nonsmoking areas in all seven of the casinos, and all of them applied for expansion to 50 percent. The machines in the one-quarter of The Meadows where smoking was allowed generated more than twice as much revenue, about $544 daily compared with $269 for slots in nonsmoking sections.
The Meadows has 1,825 slot machines, and somewhat more than half of them will actually be available to smokers because the smoking-allowed room has more machines than the casino’s rear section. The law permits smoking on 50 percent of the gaming floor, which, depending on the layout, can actually include more than half of the machines.
No decision has been made on how smokers and nonsmokers will be separated in the permanent casino of The Meadows to open in the spring, Mr. LaTorre said. It will have one large room with space for nearly 4,000 slot machines. Most of the casinos have designated one large section of the floor for smoking and banned it on the other half, a gaming board spokesman said.
Erm…