In American law, such an establishment is a public accommodation and this category is relevant to civil rights law. While you are perfectly welcome to be a bigoted bastard in your private life and refuse to allow people to enter your home or other private property based on racial or other suspect classifications, if you operate a public accommodation, you are subject to anti-discrimination law. A public accommodation is a place (whether or not it is privately owned) where the public is free to enter and engage in commerce or other activities.
As a frequenter of pubs, bartender and a wandering minstrel paid to play in such places, I’d like to throw my hat into the ring for a moment. I live, work & play in New York, which instituted it’s smoking ban last year. The only instance of legal, indoor, public smoking is in cigar shops.
Although, in theory I agree with SentientMeat’s comments about allowing a separate smoking room, the reality is that many pub/bars simply don’t have the resources for such a thing. First of all, many smaller pubs have low ceilings…even with the best ventilation system, you would be hard pressed to eliminate levels of smoke that would be considered hazardous. So this leaves the bigger places. Bars that have the resources to build a separate area would, those that didn’t would go out of business.
If bar A on the north side of the street allows smoking, and Bar B does not. Bar A will win. I worked in a bar that lost virtually all of its customers after the ban. The reason? The bar down the block was ignoring the law. Everybody simply went there. My bar was too small to construct a separate room, or install better air-conditioning systems to do any good (we had a pretty powerful system as it was). My customers did come back though…when the scoundrels down the block got raided (I know…the smoke police!) and were closed for a period of time, fined, and ultimately forced to comply with the law.
I guess it’s worth mentioning that methods of cleaning the air indoor cannot be as effective as simply removing indoor smoking altogether.
I don’t understand why this attitude is okay to defend smoking…but I’ll play. *Take the friggin *cancer sticks outside! **
If it were up to the bars here in New York, I’d say not a single bar owner would choose to be smoke-free. If you leave the option to those who can possibly build a “smoking section” you will effectively be putting those who can’t out of business. If you affect a state-wide ban, the smokers are inconvenienced, but the establishments continue about their business. The ban has only been in effect here for a short time & I already see the difference in attitudes with the younger patrons. It simply doesn’t occur to them that they should be able to smoke inside. The same thing happened in malls & airplanes years ago.
I think my older customers will never accept the ban. Other than that, give it another 5 years and I don’t it will even occur to people that you used to be allowed to smoke inside.
On a personal note, as a non-smoker & a singer, I don’t know what side of the law I stand on, but I love the fact that I can now play a gig without the added strain of singing through smoke that I would never otherwise chosen to inhale.
So when you daughter goes to work at the fast-food restraunt that makes 16 year olds use the meat slicers and doesn’t shell out for oven mits, you’ll be cool with that right?
As an avid anti-smoker, I’m still of mixed opinion. I gotta say that on Sunday morning when I go to breakfast, I sure wish the jerk next to me wouldn’t ruin my breakfast by lighting up.
But I believe that if there was a market for non-smoke bars/restaurants, then they would exist.
This has been mentioned and explained several times already. The market caters for the unhealthiest common denominator. A non-smoker insisting that their friends go to a non-smoking place is considered a control freak, a party-pooper, or just plain arrogant. A smoker who insists their friends should passive-smoke to allow them to indulge their addiction is considered ‘part of pub tradition’. It’s not an even playing field, due to substance addiction as part of these interactions, so ordinary market forces are not relevant.
Aren’t you thinking about “Cut Resistant Gloves”? And yes, I would be fine with that. I would be even more fine if I or her bought some cut resistant gloves.
Would you be happy to pay slightly less for your pizza, in the knowledge that the employees aren’t being provided with the protection required elsewhere?
I wouldn’t be mad.
Ah, I see. We, the great majority of people who do not smoke, should accommodate you and your drug-addicted minority in your endless quest to damage not only your own health but that of anybody who wants to go out with their friends for a drink or work as a waiter. We should not dare complain about going home reeking of your foul-smelling exhalations or contracting a range of ailments from emphysema to cancer due to breathing the toxins you believe it is your right to spew into the air, because we can always choose to restrict our lives and let you go on doing whatever the hell you want. Well, fuck you and every tar-blackened word that spills from your mouth, because your opinions stink even worse than your breath.
Smokers used to have courtesy. They didn’t smoke in their home; they went to clubs where only smokers would go to do it. They even wore different clothes to those clubs, so the stench of stale tobacco fumes wouldn’t cling to them and offend non-smokers. They didn’t do these things because smoking was looked down upon or considered a vice. Quite the reverse, in fact - smoking was a pastime of gentlemen. They did it because it was the polite thing to do.
I might ask what happened to those days, but Machetero has already made it quite clear.
Just because I choose to not act a little Hitler and persecute a segment of the population that I don’t like, attack civil liberties, and remove intelligent choice with moronic government intervention, doesn’t mean that I’m a smoker.
Having to step outside for a smoke is “persecution”? Wow.
I think meat slicer and the lack of oven mitts were posited as two separate risks…
Well as a Brit non smoker now living in the smoke free state of California (no smoking in bars, restaurants, clubs) I can say that such places are much more plesant than in UK especially when food is being consumed. In most bars and clubs here, smoking is allowed outside, so smokers will just pop out every 10 mins or so for a quick fag. These places keep much cleaner due to the lack of smoking, and you don’t come home smelling of an ashtray. With such a comprehensive law, owners don’t lose much trade since there is nowhere public to go that allows smoking and drinking together.
Smoking bans are ridiculous. We had one enforced with heavy hand by edict in Toledo, Ohio. It put many bar owners out of business and drove bar and restaurant business from the city. Those that could afford it built expensive ventilated smoking sections but most small bar owners just couldn’t afford the investment. The bar owners and other opponents of the ban got together a petition and a revised much laxer version of the smoking ban law went on the ballots last November. It was voted in successfully (overwhelmingly). Smoking is now allowed again in bars that meet the requirements (most do).
I can say that clubs and bars that I would have otherwise frequented in Toledo lost my business for the year or so that the ban was in full effect. I know several others that avoided Toledo for the same reason. I do not like to be treated as a second class citizen. A small victory for personal liberty…
There haven’t been smoking zones in airports in California for several years now, and I haven’t heard any complaints from the airlines.
Ed
No, but saying it the way you do does mean that you’re a cretinous asshole.
Evil Death
[Moderator Hat ON]
Evil Death, this is NOT appropriate in this forum. Cool it. Machetero, ixnay on the itlerhay.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
You’re blithering man, now pull yourself together…
… seriously what on earth does that mean?
(ixnay itlerhay would be a Googlewhack if they are actually words)
And what if cut-resistant gloves were banned because they cut down on productivity (just like I’m sure a bartender would get fired if they insisted on wearing a protective mask)?
…and so this makes you…???