Refusing to play at places where smoking is allowed

[spade2you]

OK, so you are saying you would be OK with allowing business owners the choice to have smoking on their property, as long as the economy was strong enough that employees could easily find other jobs in non-smoking establishments?

Not quite feasible to have laws based on economic conditions.

 

[David Jayne]

As a guy who owns a business, and owns commercial property, it kind of irks me that that smoking is not permitted in MY OWN PROPERTY even though it is legal.

Trouble with your examples is that they won't kill you. But I understand your frustration.

 

[BassNeo]

I currently play bass and do most of the lead singing in a band. Our aspirations are small, we do it for fun and the occasional money we make. I’ve made it very clear that I don’t play at places where smoking is allowed and this doesn’t go over well with some bandmates. We get asked to play paying gigs where there is smoking and I tell them no way, doesn’t matter how much smoking there is, how good the ventilation is, or how much it pays, I just won’t do it. I’ve told them I will step aside if they find someone to replace me, we’ll all remain friends, but this rule is simply non-negotiable for me.

Here’s my question that I’m looking for opinions on. I may be moving to another area in the next year or two and would try to find a gig in another band. If I look to join a band, how much of a deal breaker would it be if I tell them this?

I’m a good bass player with a very good voice and tons of gigging experience, I’m extremely confident in what I do. I’m not looking for opinions or advise on how to change my ways or whether you think I’m being a jerk (I probably am). I’m looking for your opinion if I was auditioning for your band. What would you say?

Okay, so back on topic:

You would be welcomed in my band because (a) none of us smoke and (b) there are no venues that allow smoking so it's a non-issue.

Really, just do some homework before you move. It should be easy to find out if your state / county / city allows smoking by checking with the local Chamber of Commerce. If they do, then you will have to prepare yourself to be judged on your decision to steer clear of venues where smoking is permitted. You may end up doing a lot of woodshed time.

In the end, best of luck and good on you for sticking by your principles.

 

[SteveC]

Thanks for getting back on topic. Be upfront, find people who share your preferences and stick to them.

Fortunately, around here I don't have to worry about venues and I associate with people who have similar preferences.

Good luck.

 

[jive1]

I had to quit a good job because the person I sat next to, smoked like a chimney all day. Today I'd be much better off. Just because you own a business it doesn't give you the right to subject your employees or customers to a practice with well known life damaging consequences. There are many regulations that pertain to privately and commercially owned property and the smoking ban is one of the best, IMO.

I don't allow smoking in my business because I care about my customers and my inventory, not because of a law. I actually have a room with seperate ventilation system from the previous owner that would allow me to smoke inside legally. I still go outside, along with everyone else. I truly believe that anyone else in my line of business would suffer enough economically if they allowed smoking that it's not going to happen, regardless of whether there's a law or not.

 

[jive1]

I think the ban is a good thing for one simple reason: People are stupid. And by people, I mean martians. No one ever considers the kids. And yeah, you can argue that the non-smokers don't have to go in blah blah blah. This is the selfish stance of a smoker (I know, it used to be my stance). It is NOT your right to expose others, willing or not, to a toxic substance that is known to cause fatal disease. It is NOT your right to eat in a restaurant and a privilege for the non smokers to be in your company. I think a lot of smokers lose sight of everyone else in their quest to make their bad habit convenient. I wish they would just get it over with and put a $40 tax on a pack of smokes. Only the super rich can get lung disease! Yay! See, I'm ranting now. Having kids makes this a touchy subject. Especially when I have smokers telling me that my kids should do without compared to theirs because in their infinite wisdom they have decided that it is ok for them to be exposed to second hand smoke (one of them even buys chew for his 15-16 year old boys) and I do not feel that way.

I will agree as a smoker that I don't have a right to pollute others. I totally get that. But, if I had a place specifically created for pollution (i.e. cigar bar), why would someone enter that? It's like men complaining that they don't have urinals in the women's bathroom.

I guess where you live makes a difference, and I think that's the main issue for the OP. In the cities that I have lived in, non-smoking is the norm. It's not like there aren't any options to non-smokers. Pretty much every option is available to a non-smoker. No business owner in their right mind would allow smoking, because it's not that kind of climate anymore. IMO, if you catered to smokers, you would be catering to a small portion of your market while turning off a large portion. But, it's a free market and it's your choice (or at least it should be). It's not the 70s anymore where every bar, casino, restaurant, etc. allows smoking. It's 2012, and most of them don't. Around here, you can gig pretty steadily without having to deal with any second-hand smoke indoors. I don't think you could say that 20-30 years ago.

 

[spade2you]

Thanks for getting back on topic. Be upfront, find people who share your preferences and stick to them.

Fortunately, around here I don't have to worry about venues and I associate with people who have similar preferences.

Good luck.

10 years ago: no way. Good day.

Today: possibly, but the holdouts are a little angry.

In 10 years: what's smoking?

I will agree as a smoker that I don't have a right to pollute others. I totally get that. But, if I had a place specifically created for pollution (i.e. cigar bar), why would someone enter that? It's like men complaining that they don't have urinals in women's bathroom.

I guess where you live makes a difference, and I think that's the main issue for the OP. In the cities that I have lived in, non-smoking is the norm. It's not like there aren't any options to non-smokers. Pretty much every option is available to a non-smoker. No business owner in their right mind would allow smoking, because it's not that kind of climate anymore. IMO, if you catered to smokers, you would be catering to a small portion of your market while turning off a large portion. But, it's a free market and it's your choice (or at least it should be). It's not the 70s anymore where every bar, casino, restaurant, etc. allows smoking. It's 2012, and most of them don't. Around here, you can gig pretty steadily without having to deal with any second-hand smoke indoors. I don't think you could say that 20-30 years ago.

Smoking is typically allowed outdoors. I wonder if there are permits for designated rooms that might be allowed for smoking if the rooms aren't essential to all employees.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I posted previous about a gig i done in Belgium, here are some pictures. As i said what you see is the smoke from the crowd, no smoke machines, no effects, this is just the from the audience smoking.
Because of the stage height and the fact smoke rises, these shots show what we had to contend with all night....and everyone in the band smokes.

 

[nortonrider]

If I was made King of the America today,
I would ban ALL use of cellphones while driving.

I don't do it, so therefore you shouldn't either!

 

[Oneirogenic]

What a thread...looks like the OP was well addressed. As for all the off topics...I happen to live on the state line between Idaho and Washington. They have very different smoking laws. Idaho handles it better IMO. In Idaho any establishment that serves food cannot have smoking indoors. This works well for bars because it gives bars a clear choice of whether they wish to cater to smokers or not. The only disadvantage I see with this is that the bars that allow smoking are so saturated with nasty smoke that they definitely loose attendance over it. The non smoking places do way better. Funny how that works. For what's it worth my band won't play smoke bars anymore because of not only the smoke but these bars pay the least. Simple economic and health choices. I don't smoke as a habit(meaning I very rarely indulge) but my Singer smokes and he dislikes smoking bars too.

The way Washington(Spokane I guess, not sure if its statewide) handles smoking is just ridiculous. No smoking indoors period and no smoking within 100 feet of the door of a public building. The biggest non stadium venue in Spokane used to have a balcony you could walk out on to smoke but because of the 100 feet rule they had to close off the balcony. Making this even worse they don't allow reentry into the venue for most shows so you can't just walk out, go smoke and come back in. This surely hurts their business.

Businesses should at least be allowed to make accommodations for smokers that won't infringe upon non-smokers clean air.

 

[45gham]

Personally I don’t smoke cigarettes but occasional cigar and as long as no one is blowing in my face will I am trying to eat it don’t bother me. I believe we have taken this Anti-Smoking thing way to dam far! I will play a gig smoking or none smoking. I have played in bars that would be packed out and after they put in the no smoking LAW they went to no people and no bands so there went my gigs. So if you don’t like it then get out of the bar seen and go play at a Church on Sunday. Thanks

 

[Marial]

It's state-wide. No smoking anywhere, basically. In Seattle it's 25 feet from entrances and ventilation. Enforcement varies from venue to venue as far outside goes, but there is definitely no smoking anywhere indoors.

 

[jive1]

Idaho handles it better IMO. In Idaho any establishment that serves food cannot have smoking indoors. This works well for bars because it gives bars a clear choice of whether they wish to cater to smokers or not. The only disadvantage I see with this is that the bars that allow smoking are so saturated with nasty smoke that they definitely loose attendance over it. The non smoking places do way better. Funny how that works. For what's it worth my band won't play smoke bars anymore because of not only the smoke but these bars pay the least. Simple economic and health choices. I don't smoke as a habit(meaning I very rarely indulge) but my Singer smokes and he dislikes smoking bars too.

I think that's pretty sane because it puts the choice on the owners and lets the market handle it. Near where I live, there are 2 clubs on the strip that allow smoking. They are not the most popular places on the strip, and they are not always packed. They also don't pay well either. But, they have their niche and clientele that they serve. Lots of folks won't go there because they allow smoking, and will go somewhere else on the strip.

I have played both those places, and during set breaks, I prefer to go outside to get some fresh air before re-polluting my lungs. As a smoker, I prefer non-smoking bars because they tend to have better crowds thus better pay. But, if the VFW came calling, I'd have no problem playing it and hanging out with the vets in the smoking lounge for a little while. But, even then I like to step outside and get some fresh air.

 

[spade2you]

If I was made King of the America today,
I would ban ALL use of cellphones while driving.

I don't do it, so therefore you shouldn't either!

Good idea, but you're only using it as a diversion to take the heat off smoking.

 

[MatticusMania]

If I was made King of the America today,
I would ban ALL use of cellphones while driving.

I don't do it, so therefore you shouldn't either!

So long as roadhead is still permitted...

 

[Smallmouth_Bass]

Back to the original question; I don't think putting a non-smoking limitation as part of your gigging criteria would be any less harmful than saying that you would not play out for less that $100 a night. Some bands might not like that at all and others will respect and agree with and accept that. It's just a matter of finding the right people.

Plus, if you are a singer, playing smokey bars is actually doing harm to one of your instruments: your voice. Imagine playing a two or three night stint (3-4 sets per night) at a smoke heavy venue. You're putting yourself at risk of sounding like crap as the night and nights go on through no fault of your own.

 

[Smallmouth_Bass]

Good idea, but you're only using it as a diversion to take the heat off smoking.

There's not a day that goes by that I don't see someone texting and driving. :scowl: It infuriates me.

 

[spade2you]

There's not a day that goes by that I don't see someone texting and driving. :scowl: It infuriates me.

I agree 100%, just pointing out the diversion.

I'm very surprised that nobody has had the balls to do something to effectively put an end to texting while driving. It's about as dangerous as drunk driving, give or take a few percentage points. Therefore, should be punished as such.

 

[lfmn16]

Imagine playing a two or three night stint (3-4 sets per night) at a smoke heavy venue.

I can imagine playing 6 nights a week 5 sets Monday through Thursday and 6 set Saturday and Sunday. I'm 54 and in the 70's we called it "playing full-time." Our singer managed to sing, we all managed to play and the world didn't end.

This younger generation has gotten soft.

 

[SteveC]

I can imagine playing 6 nights a week 5 sets Monday through Thursday and 6 set Saturday and Sunday. I'm 54 and in the 70's we called it "playing full-time." Our singer managed to sing, we all managed to play and the world didn't end.

This younger generation has gotten soft.

I would say we've gotten smart. Lots of things are different than in the 70's - for better or worse.