Smoking in Bars

[Bad Brains]

I can't believe some of you people actually support a smoking ban. What is good about big government controlling our lives?

It should be up to the bar and restaurant owner if they want to ban smoking inside their business. Enough people seem to want a place that doesn't allow smoking, so owners are naturally going to put their interests where the money is, so everyone wins. It's called the free market.

I don't even smoke, but the only bars I go to are dive holes, and the thought of them not allowing smoking is laughable.

 

[Son of Sanford]

I don't know. I do not smoke and do not generally patronize bars that have a lot of smoke. I do sometimes wonder how it would have turned out if the market had been allowed to function freely. It seemed as though the nonsmoking trend was coming anyway so legislating it only served to add fuel to another debate. I am sure there are enough people that do not smoke in most communities that if someone had just taken the initiative to open a nonsmoking bar it would have taken off. As for this kind of thing:

Isn't the "" from our side of the fence what led to the ban in the first place? Acting like the nonsmokers were completely mature about this is not only adding salt to an understandable wound, it is flat wrong, especially considering how you seem to be handling it. Maybe you should think about that before mocking the losers in the debate.

 

[redfish]

It's banned over here, and now everyone seems to be used to it. I went to Lisbon last year just a few months after the ban and it felt strange to have smoking inside. You do get used to it and it's nice not to go home reeking.

It can make the evening disjointed if a few of you smoke because then the non smokers have to sit and guard the drinks and bags etc whilst the rest of you pop outside for a ciggy as a lot of bars that don't have beer gardens won't let you take your drinks outside. There also has been a reported increase in drink spiking and date rape here which has been attributed to the smoking ban...

 

[GregC]

As for this kind of thing: Isn't the "" from our side of the fence what led to the ban in the first place? Acting like the nonsmokers were completely mature about this is not only adding salt to an understandable wound, it is flat wrong, especially considering how you seem to be handling it. Maybe you should think about that before mocking the losers in the debate.

I see nothing immature about pointing out both the immediate and long-term effects of secondhand smoke. That's not "crying" at all. And I wasn't generally mocking the losers in the debate. I was quite specifically mocking someone who used the tiresome, lame tactic of slapping the "Nazi" tag on those on "our side of the fence".

 

[Son of Sanford]

I see nothing immature about pointing out both the immediate and long-term effects of secondhand smoke. That's not "crying" at all. And I wasn't generally mocking the losers in the debate. I was quite specifically mocking someone who used the tiresome, lame tactic of slapping the "Nazi" tag on those on "our side of the fence".

I am glad you put the "side of the fence" thing in quotes. I am starting to realize that the ability to see and respect both sides of an argument while holding my own opinions to it without being insulting is a rare commodity on the internet. I won't take the time to explain any further.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

It should be up to the bar and restaurant owner if they want to ban smoking inside their business.

Please explain in detail why one kind of business that is open to the public should be able to pick and choose which public health laws it wants to follow when every other type of business must follow them all regardless.

 

[gold_member_321]

In Maine, you cant smoke in any public establishment OR in a car with someone under the age of 18.

 

[Anthbass]

I worked in a blues bar for a few years, with a generally heavy smoking client base. I don't smoke cigarettes, but I do occasionally smoke a pipe or a cigar. The odd part to me was that the bar had a 'no pipe/cigar' policy. The rationale was that customers 'don't care' for the smell of either. When the public smoking ban came into effect, I literally breathed a sigh of relief, smoke hangovers aren't very enjoyable. I'm not anti-smoking in any way, but I do appreciate being able to go to a show and not smell like a forest fire afterwards.

 

[Visirale]

I worked in a blues bar for a few years, with a generally heavy smoking client base. I don't smoke cigarettes, but I do occasionally smoke a pipe or a cigar. The odd part to me was that the bar had a 'no pipe/cigar' policy. The rationale was that customers 'don't care' for the smell of either. When the public smoking ban came into effect, I literally breathed a sigh of relief, smoke hangovers aren't very enjoyable. I'm not anti-smoking in any way, but I do appreciate being able to go to a show and not smell like a forest fire afterwards.

I kind of like the smell of (good) cigs. Not a fan of cigar smell.

But I ABSOLUTELY love the smell of pipe tobacco. That's the only kind of smoking I think I'm gonna get back into. Not nearly as bad for you, and the hand made blends can be absolutely delicious tasting. Thanks for reminding me!

 

[Bad Brains]

Please explain in detail why one kind of business that is open to the public should be able to pick and choose which public health laws it wants to follow when every other type of business must follow them all regardless.

Right after you explain why Big Goverment should try and dictate what business owners can and can't allow instead of letting this wonderful thing called the "Free Market" sort out its own affairs.

I don't understand why you people want the government to run your lives. Aren't you capable of making your own decision to enter a bar that allows smoking? If a bar allows smoking, and smoking "offends" you, THEN WHY WOULD YOU ENTER? Use common sense and go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking. What a concept ehh?

 

[lowendmafia]

Wow, this is getting a little more heated than I expected. As far as "big government running our lives," that is a bit over-stated because it is not "big government" that controls ordinances at all, it is small, local governments. Therefore your Articles of Confederation argument does not really hold weight. If you want to smoke, I could care less. Smoke ten pack a day for all I care, that is your choice. I will spare you the "you are killing yourself" argument, because I simply do not care nor do I really feel that smoking is an automatic death sentence. I also believe that if a bar allows smoking and you do not like it, you should not patron that establishment. There are two bars here that allow indoor smoking, and if I can avoid them, I do. In this instance, I really did not have a choice.

When I lived in Oahu a smoking ban went into effect and my favorite bar on the island resisted it. They continued to allow smoking in protest of the new law. I had no problem with it. If I wanted to see a band there, I would go, knowing full well what I was getting into. That being said, I do not feel that non-smokers that want to go to a bar should be subjected to smoking either. Allowing smoking is probably offensive to more people than a smoking ban. Smokers can pop outside for a couple of minutes for a cigarette, non-smokers can not go outside and get the smell out of their clothes, keep their eyes from watering, or avoid the second-hand smoke hangover the next morning.

 

[Bad Brains]

As far as "big government running our lives," that is a bit over-stated because it is not "big government" that controls ordinances at all, it is small, local governments.

That's not true. Most of these are on state level, (granted it's better than federal level).

Smoking bans should only be enforced in public places funded by public money, even the smoking crowd agreed with that.

It should have no juristiction over private business, as people are free to decide for themselves what environment they wish to enter. The free market will easily solve the issue and both sides would be happy.

 

[HollowBassman]

Here's a little cartoon that I think fits the whole "no smoking in bars" theme:

 

[lowendmafia]

Bad Brains, I know there are some states that mandate that policy, but most smoking bans are county or city decisions. Take Eugene, Oregon for example. You cannot smoke in a bar in the city limits of Eugene, you can however smoke in bars in Lane County that fall outside the city limits. Oregon has no smoking ban, or didn't when I lived there. Most state bans are in very "blue" states, thus voters tend to side with "big government," if you catch my drift.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Right after you explain why Big Goverment should try and dictate what business owners can and can't allow instead of letting this wonderful thing called the "Free Market" sort out its own affairs.

If you need me to explain why the government has to dictate public health codes to businesses that serve the public, then you need to retake some very basic history classes. You also need to do some business studies if you think the free market sorts out its own affairs well without heavy governmental intervention.

I don't understand why you people want the government to run your lives. Aren't you capable of making your own decision to enter a bar that allows smoking? If a bar allows smoking, and smoking "offends" you, THEN WHY WOULD YOU ENTER? Use common sense and go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking. What a concept ehh?

It is not the job of the public to avoid things that may harm them when those things are forbidden in other areas. You might get your ass beaten in if you walk into the wrong bar. Does that make it your own fault? No, of course not. The next time you get a burger and the cook has dropped a deuce on your bun in place of the burger, is it your job to avoid the place or the cook's job to not do it? The cook is to be held responsible, of course. The government isn't running everyone's life. It's disallowing people to knowingly harm the public.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

It should have no juristiction over private business, as people are free to decide for themselves what environment they wish to enter. The free market will easily solve the issue and both sides would be happy.

If the doors are open to the public, then it is not a private business. Privately owned does not mean private business. It's also a load of horse manure to think that the government should not have jurisdiction over businesses open to the public. Bars could enforce "No Gays" policies or "Food Poisoning May Occur" policies without fear of governmental intervention. Allowing a free market without governmental intervention only aids in businesses finding whichever route is most profitable to them and taking it without concern for fairness or safety. The "free market" allowed for the vast majority of blacks to not be allowed entrance up until the mid/late 60s when the government stepped in. Also, both sides were obviously NOT happy with the way things were before the smoking bans- if they were, then the smoking bans would have never happened.

You should really stop mentioning the free market- you really don't know what you're talking about here.

 

[bebop1]

Smoking is banned in public buildings (including all clubs, restaurants, and bars) in all Canadian provinces. And non-smokers don't tend to spend much money in bars, so clubs are closing down like crazy. I can't reconcile the issue to myself - smokers tend to bring great energy, but I didn't like all the smoke. Still, I'd rather smoking was allowed in venues (bar, clubs) where kids aren't allowed. But the "puritan" nazis seem to be winning the battle...

 

[Bad Brains]

If the doors are open to the public, then it is not a private business. Privately owned does not mean private business. It's also a load of horse manure to think that the government should not have jurisdiction over businesses open to the public. Bars could enforce "No Gays" policies or "Food Poisoning May Occur" policies without fear of governmental intervention. Allowing a free market without governmental intervention only aids in businesses finding whichever route is most profitable to them and taking it without concern for fairness or safety. The "free market" allowed for the vast majority of blacks to not be allowed entrance up until the mid/late 60s when the government stepped in. Also, both sides were obviously NOT happy with the way things were before the smoking bans- if they were, then the smoking bans would have never happened.

You should really stop mentioning the free market- you really don't know what you're talking about here.

Yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

And just like everything else, bars that allow smoking should clearly post that they allow smoking. That way all the whiney people won't have any excuses and can choose not to enter.

 

[Bad Brains]

It is not the job of the public to avoid things that may harm them

.....huh?

 

[Bad Brains]

If you need me to explain why the government has to dictate public health codes to businesses that serve the public, then you need to retake some very basic history classes. You also need to do some business studies if you think the free market sorts out its own affairs well without heavy governmental intervention.

1) Do you think the government should dictate public health by shutting down every fast-food restaurant that serves unhealthy food?

2) Do you think fast-food restaurants should be forced by law to serve health food as well?

3) If someone wanted to eat health food, why would they go to McDonalds?