Last gig EVER before Chicago venues go SMOKE FREE!!!

[Lonnybass]

I can't WAIT!!! Only one more night of feeling like I need an iron lung!!!


Lonnybass

[Eric Cioe]

I'm bummed that I can't go to the parks downtown for a pipe or cigar in the spring anymore. But I feel you about the bars.

[doktorfeelgood]

Congrats.....All restaurants and bars have been smoke-free in the state that I live in as well as the next state North for 4 or 5 years now and it's super excellent. The only places that people can still smoke in are private clubs and the band I'm in has a gig in one every 5 weeks or so and it sucks so bad with the smoke that although it's a great paying gig and I always need the dough, I'm thinking of telling the band leader to get somebody to fill-in for me at that club. Just do not want to deal with that crap anymore. )-(

[Hawaii Islander]

I'm still on the fence about this "smoke free" everywhere deal. I can understand people not wanting to go to smoke filled bars and clubs. To them I say, don't go in them.

I think it should be up to the owner and employees to decide. Patrons can always go somewhere else (I do all the time for different reasons - food quality, service, etc), but the owner and employees are the ones that have to deal with second hand smoke on a regular basis. (Good ventilation would be the reasonable approach IMO).

If a bar or club or pub wanted to allow smoking (so long as the employees agreed), then they should be allowed to do so. Non-smokers can go to non-smoking establishments (same goes with nonsmoking musicians).

[wizman88]

I work as a bartender in australia and we recently went smoke free too.

It was a massive releif. Trust me, no matter how well ventilated an area is, you still went home stinking of smoke and coughing.

It wasnt a pleasant experience.

I understand the frustration of smokers, but all they have to do is step outside.

[Hawaii Islander]

Originally Posted by wizman88

I work as a bartender in australia and we recently went smoke free too.

It was a massive releif. Trust me, no matter how well ventilated an area is, you still went home stinking of smoke and coughing.

It wasnt a pleasant experience.

I understand the frustration of smokers, but all they have to do is step outside.

I used to do that long before smoking bans took effect. Of course, now I don't have to since I quit smoking almost nine months ago.

[BillyB_from_LZ]

Originally Posted by Lonnybass

I can't WAIT!!! Only one more night of feeling like I need an iron lung!!!


Lonnybass

On a related note...just imagine how empty Ye Olde Town Inn will be now!!!

[Jerry Ziarko]

Catch 22 on this. When my city went smoke free, there were immediate good changes. My clothes and my equipment no longer stunk. Also when setting up, the bar now only smelled like stale beer. Since I stopped smoking years before it didn't affect me.
And now the down side. I would say it cut the bar business in half, which in turn cut the band crowds in half. You may think I'm stretching this a bit, but I assure you I'm not. The way it seems to work is, people will go out and have a smoke, and come back in. The same thing goes for the second one. On the third, they keep walking to their cars and leave. I have seen this hundreds of times.
Now let me tell you I am not one of those holier than thou ex smokers. I don't care if people smoke around me one bit. Sure it's probably not good for me, but neither was the 25 years I smoked. I do understand the no smoking in restaurants. People should not have to deal with it while they eat. Bars, eh, not so much. Were not talking about health clubs here, they're bars! People go their to lightly poison themselves and kill a few brain cells in the process. Please don't get all crazy with me. It's just one man's opinion, and will have zero effect of ever getting that law changed. When the law was going to take effect, I heard SO many people say that the reason they never went to night clubs to hear music was because of the smoke. Well it's been YEARS here, and I'm still waiting for the rush of "new" faces.

[cb56]

Wow! Chicago wasn't already smoke free? They passed a smoking ban down here in Springfield a year ago. Can't tell you how many places that we played went belly up or quit hiring bands. We've had to gig outside the city more now, and now that the statewide ban will go into effect tomorrow, I expect business to get even worse.

[BassChuck]

Ohio has been smoke free for about a year now and the effect (from my POV) has been totally positive. The club where we play as the house band is seeing a fairly large upswing in attendance for all the bands playing there. Lots more food orders (interesting side affect) and they were able to build an outdoor deck for smokers.

Nationally I think the percentage of smokers is only about 17% but that may change radically as you look at different age demographics. I have heard of some clubs in the area having a loss of attendance, but they seem to be the ones that cater to 18-30 year olds.

[BillyB_from_LZ]

Originally Posted by Jerry Ziarko

...
And now the down side. I would say it cut the bar business in half, which in turn cut the band crowds in half. You may think I'm stretching this a bit, but I assure you I'm not. ...When the law was going to take effect, I heard SO many people say that the reason they never went to night clubs to hear music was because of the smoke. Well it's been YEARS here, and I'm still waiting for the rush of "new" faces.

None of this surprises me... I've never smoked and really can't stand it, but I realize that it's a long-standing part of the whole bar scene and when I do go out, I expect it.

Young folks (the 21+ somethings) who frequent bars before the ban will probably continue to go to bars after as that's part of their social life. Older folks who go out to have a drink and smoke will probably go out less. Older folks like me probably aren't going to go out more because what we ordinarily do hasn't changed at all...

It will be interesting to see what happens!

[BillyB_from_LZ]

Originally Posted by BassChuck

...
Nationally I think the percentage of smokers is only about 17% but that may change radically as you look at different age demographics. I have heard of some clubs in the area having a loss of attendance, but they seem to be the ones that cater to 18-30 year olds.

I wonder what the percentage of smokers is in the segment of the population that regularly visit bars. Probably much, much higher.

[IanStephenson]

Originally Posted by Hawaii Islander

If a bar or club or pub wanted to allow smoking (so long as the employees agreed), then they should be allowed to do so.

I've made that argument myself - who's to tell a bar owner what he can do in his bar, but having made the argument I really can't make it hold water.

The problem is how do the employees agree? As a band member playing those venues, I'd rather play smoke free, so does that mean the venue will go smoke free the nights I play just because i say so? I guess not - looks like my "consent" is either put up with the smoking, or look for work elsewhere.

Personally I'm in the fortunate position that i don't need to work in a bar to pay my rent, but for many bar staff walking away isn't an option, so they would have to just suck it up (the smoke that is).

While a democratic/libertarian opt in scheme would be ideologically better, it simply wouldn't protect the people that the ban is designed to protect - the staff (which includes us).

We've had a ban here for about six months. Only one venue has told us of any reduction in business, and they've always been packed when we play there.

Ian

[cb56]

How about people that work in bars that don't drink and don't want to be around people that do? Could they force the bar not to serve alchohol? How about a vegitarian working in a steakhouse? etc.... Where does it end?

[BillyB_from_LZ]

Originally Posted by cb56

How about people that work in bars that don't drink and don't want to be around people that do? Could they force the bar not to serve alchohol? How about a vegitarian working in a steakhouse? etc.... Where does it end?

Well, those are quite different situations, don't you think?

Bars serve alcoholic beverages, the smoking thing is a complimentary behavior. One who objects to alcohol use wouldn't chose to work in a bar. Same with a Vegetarian working in a steakhouse. I'm sure that there are plenty of nondrinkers working in bars and Vegetarians working in restaurants that serve animal proteins but doing so won't give them respiratory diseases.

[BassChuck]

Originally Posted by BillyB_from_LZ

I wonder what the percentage of smokers is in the segment of the population that regularly visit bars. Probably much, much higher.

Yea, I'd guess you are right on that point. But the smoking law is, at least in Ohio, for public buildings, not just bars..... although it is a no brainer that bars stand tol lose, if there is a loss, more than department stores.

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Originally Posted by Hawaii Islander

If a bar or club or pub wanted to allow smoking (so long as the employees agreed), then they should be allowed to do so. Non-smokers can go to non-smoking establishments (same goes with nonsmoking musicians).

Why should a bar be able to pick and choose what health codes it chooses to follow? Simply being a bar does not put it at a higher level than other businesses to where they don't have to follow the same health codes as everyone else. If their doors are open to the public, then they must follow public health guidelines.

Originally Posted by cb56

How about people that work in bars that don't drink and don't want to be around people that do? Could they force the bar not to serve alchohol? How about a vegitarian working in a steakhouse? etc.... Where does it end?

If those people who worked in bars and didn't want to drink were force-fed alcohol, or a vegetarian force-fed meat, then the situations would be equal. As it is, neither of those situations compare as neither are forced to take those things internally while smoke by nature forces itself on people.

[GregC]

Originally Posted by cb56

Wow! Chicago wasn't already smoke free? They passed a smoking ban down here in Springfield a year ago. Can't tell you how many places that we played went belly up or quit hiring bands. We've had to gig outside the city more now, and now that the statewide ban will go into effect tomorrow, I expect business to get even worse.

Once the statewide ban takes effect, though, the smokers won't have bars outside Springfield to go to, right? I just don't believe the majority are going to simply stay home.

[cb56]

maybe true for springfield but of course there are also the towns close to the state border. Bottom line is, goverment coming in and telling people what they can do with their private property is not good.

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Originally Posted by cb56

maybe true for springfield but of course there are also the towns close to the state border. Bottom line is, goverment coming in and telling people what they can do with their private property is not good.

It's not simply private property if the property is open to public business. If it expects to profit from public commerce, then it must follow public health guidelines.

Also, all one has to do is look at the states that already have the ban in progress. If all the bars were going to shut down due to a smoking ban, it would have happened in New York- there's more smokers there per capita than most places in the US. Didn't happen. The bar scene is still great there, in fact.