I hate this particular argument. It’s so disingenuous- it makes for a condescending soundbite which isn’t actually a good argument.
Bars are in competition with each other. If one bar doesn’t allow smoking, they’re turning away smokers who will just go to another bar- they’re basically giving those customers to the bar which allows smoking. As a result, they aren’t as competitive as the smoking bars.
This doesn’t work the other way, however. Nonsmokers will go to a smoking bar, especially if their smoking friends are going there. As much as I hate smoking, many was the night in my youth (before the bans) that I had to air out my clothes when I came back from a night of debauchery.
Doubt it? How many bars can you remember which didn’t allow smoking before the bans hit? I, personally, can’t remember a single one. They all allowed smoking- because otherwise, they’d be losing money to the other bars.
Getting rid of the smoking bans will just ensure that all bars go back to allowing smoking. Good luck trying to go to a nonsmoking bar, then- they won’t exist.
How is that phrase meaningless? That’s the part of the report which set my teeth on edge and raised the hairs on the back of my neck. There are tons of things which could be harmful to human health in quantity but are harmless in small amounts over time. Alcohol is probably the best known one. Caffiene a close second. The SG is explicitly saying that no amount of smoke is safe. That scares the crap out of me.
Actually, I knew of three different non-smoking bars in two pretty small markets. Of course they’re all out of business now. Two other bars were considering doing it until they found out about the bill in the Assembly.
And for everyone who is weping over the poor opressed workers, you do realize what happens at closing time, when the doorman has chased the last asshat out of the bar? The staff all breathe a sigh of relief, break out the ashtrays and smoke and drink like civilized humans do.
What was it that somesaid earlier in this thread about “if it infringes on others, well that’s just too bad.” And they were talking about non-smokers.
I think that person spoke incorrectly.
How about, you don’t go to the bar. Or, how about you go to bar and just not smoke for the X amount of hours you are there, which would allow others the freedom to also choose to go there and not share in your dangerous habit?
Damn, you got me. Obviously that one bar… which is also a restaurant… and a hotel… and a theater… and a historical location… which doesn’t allow smoking while all of the bars which compete against it (without restaurant, hotel, theater, or any sort of historical significance), completely invalidates my post.
There are none in the state of Illinois, leastwise that I’ve seen. I can imagine, in states without a ban, they are few and far between; if they exist at all.
However, there is good news a-comin’, for me at least, two-fold.
Previously, individual bar owners were allowed to decide smoking policy. Now, the decision is county policy. Some counties assuredly will reject the ban; but some, and hopefully many, will institute it, since this came out before the latest SG report.
That’s the funny part about it, Der Trihs. The smokers, a minority, are demanding the majority suffer and claim it’s minority rights. It’s not a right to inflict harm on others.
I’m kinda busy at work right now so I’m not going to check the town of every pub, but I know for a fact they’re not all in the same town, as I’ve been to several of them. They go at least as far north at Centralia, Washington, at least as far south as Salem, OR, at least as far east as Troutdale, OR, and at least as far west as Cornelius or Forest Grove, OR. That’s not the same town - or even the same county, or even the same state - by any means.
Just did a quick check of the clickable map - make that from north of Seattle south to Roseburg, OR, and from the Pacific Coast to Bend, OR. That covers a lot of ground.
And they’re always on the lookout for more locations; who knows how much more territory they’ll eventually cover? And they’re not the only smoke-free pubs by owner’s choice in the area, either.
So - what’s your next argument that “invalidates” my point?
What do you mean? My point was that there are a lot of nonsmoking (by owner’s choice) pubs available in Oregon & Washington, which was in rebuttal to **Lightnin’**s assertion that if there were no law against smoking in bars, there’d be no nonsmoking bars for nonsmokers to go to. (Incidentally, Lightnin’s location says “Oregon”, which I thought relevant to my mentioning this particular “chain” of establishments.)
How does the data I’ve posted defeat the point I was “apparently” trying to make? If you can show me that, I will eat my words. Otherwise, you, in all fairness, ought to admit that you were full of shit.
It appeared to me you were trying to make the point that poster had realistic options. Travelling to a distant city doesn’t strike me as all that realistic.
And your last posting shows that you are, without any doubt at all, a complete jerk.
Sorry, but I don’t buy that for a second. What kind of people work at a bar that can’t get a job anywhere else? My brother works in the service industry (as did I for a while) and anyone who works there can get a job at any one of dozens of non-smoking restaurants. Nevermind the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who work at bars smoke. When I worked at a bar and we had our staff meetings, I was one of two people who weren’t lighting up. Just one example, and it obviously doesn’t represent everyone, but I think it makes a valid point.
I’m too lazy to go backwards in this thread and find it, but there was one poster who mentioned that in his/her home state, the free market found that there was a demand for non-smoking restaurants and the demand was filled. Now he/she can go drink without having to breathe in smoke.
What do you mean? My point was that there are a lot of nonsmoking (by owner’s choice) pubs available in Oregon & Washington, which was in rebuttal to **Lightnin’**s assertion that if there were no law against smoking in bars, there’d be no nonsmoking bars for nonsmokers to go to. (Incidentally, Lightnin’s location says “Oregon”, which I thought relevant to my mentioning this particular “chain” of establishments.)