Note: For the record, I am a non-smoker. I even appreciate being able to stop off at a bar after work without smelling like an ashtray. My boyfriend, who has asthma, appreciated it even more.
I am still opposed to state imposed non-smoking bans in places that people have reasonable alternatives to going to, like bars and restaurants.
Did other types of bars actually exist? Because, I never noticed one.
There was a bar in my town with adequate ventilation, hardly any tobacco smell at all, even on the busiest weekends. It’s all moot now, what with the oppressive anti-smoking laws in Oregon.
So, were you FORCED to have a drink in a smoking bar?
You are absolutely right-we had the “freedom” not to go to bars, restaurants, grocery stores, nightclubs, most music venues, town hall meetings. What the hell do you mean by “smoking” bar, btw? In a lot of areas all bars were smoking bars.
All but two of your examples, there is a reasonable alternative.
[Eddie Izzard] No smoking in bars, and pretty soon, no drinking and no talking. [/EI]
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
You are absolutely right-we had the “freedom” not to go to bars, restaurants, grocery stores, nightclubs, most music venues, town hall meetings. What the hell do you mean by “smoking” bar, btw? In a lot of areas all bars were smoking bars.
[/QUOTE]
Which suggests that patrons didn’t care.
Actually, it doesn’t indicate that they didn’t care at all, just that they didn’t care enough to not go to bars. Just like how we still go to bars, even though we can’t smoke there.
Of course the reasonable, sensible solution would be to let property owners decide whether they’ll allow smoking or not. Of course many people are not only not interested in, but emphatically opposed to a reasonable, sensible solution.
That is the thing. Some people like Siam Sam don’t want reasonable or alternate. Period.
Come to California. They’re working on it - in addition to the "slippery slope gradual abolition of smoking there have been moves toward the banning of fireplaces and barbecue grills. Then of course there are also the anti alcohol and the “food police” guys.
See, this is why I get so wound up about this garbage… It never stops. There is always some other no good, stinking busybody do-gooder wanting to control or ban something else.
Back to Siam Sam, I saw your “handle” and location. So I figured that was that. Tell you what… if you don’t like the way things are here, then just don’t come back.
It shows that they didn’t care enough to patronize non-smoking bars instead. Surely, if people did care at all, smoke-free bars would have made a killing.
I don’t know how it was in other places, but in Boston there really weren’t any non-smoking bars until they were ALL non-smoking bars. Thing is, now that it’s abundantly evident that there is in fact a market for both, why not let property owners decide?
Sure, just like we allow owners to decide for themselves whether they want to run a joint with or without barbecue sandwiches, sports on TV, blues music, or naked girls dancing–and folks to decide to patronize these places, or not, depending on whether they want those things.
Cause not allowing smoking is way worse than Jim Crow, red-lining, requiring women to have their husbands signatures on loans, police beating up gays, McCarthy, and Japanese internment.
Well, they were allowed to do that before. So “letting property owners decide” just means “going back to the way things were”.
I disagree. Bar owners’ argument before smoking bans was that going smoke-free would cost them money, and I’m certain that actually believed it. But it hasn’t. There is very clearly a market for non-smoking bars, so there’s no reason to believe that all bar owners would revert to allowing smoking.
ETA that I just realized that what you meant by “going back to the way things were” wasn’t “all bars would be smoking” but simply “they used to have the option”. In which case, “going back to the way things were” would be a good thing, I think we agree.
Well, that’s settled, then. 
Well, in Ohio, at least, there WAS a state-wide referendum on the issue of smoking in bars and restaurants. And the ban passed. So here, at least, the smoking ban really was passed by a democratic majority of Ohio’s voting population.
Not only that, there was a simultaneous referendum on the statewide ballot (pushed by pro-smoking factions) designed to confuse matters - it would instead have implemented much weaker smoking restrictions. Voters saw through that one and voted it down.
Democracy in action can be a beautiful thing.
I don’t smoke cigarettes, and I don’t even much care for them, but this is bullshit. I really hope the smokers of NYC organize a big smoke rally in Central Park.
So, anything that a majority votes to ban should be banned?