Smoking in Bars

[Bryan R. Tyler]

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

Then why are you speaking about the free market needing to be government-free as it takes care of itself when this has never been the case?

.....huh?

It is not the job of the public to have to expect different codes of health and levels of safety from public venues.

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

Name one fast food restaurant that forces a burger down your throat when you walk in the door. They are not allowed to force burgers down your throat, and it is not the job of the consumer to either eat the burger they force at you or find a different restaurant that doesn't do that. Aside from that bad attempt, it most certainly is the government's job to dictate what food fast food restaurants can serve to the willing public as well.

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

No, but they are forced, as they should be, to serve a product that is not dangerous to the public. Read "The Jungle." This is why they're cracking down on restaurants that use trans fats to save money rather than using oils that are far healthier and have the same resulting flavor.

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

I never said they would.

 

[Bad Brains]

Name one fast food restaurant that forces a burger down your throat when you walk in the door. They are not allowed to force burgers down your throat, and it is not the job of the consumer to either eat the burger they force at you or find a different restaurant that doesn't do that.

Ehh.

Name one bar/restaurant that forces someone to sit inside their business and breath in smoke from others. They are not allowed to force you to stay inside their business, and it is not the job of the business to ensure that your safety and moral standards are applied, or from preventing you from going to a different establishmen that doesn't do that.

In other words, if you don't want to be inside a business that allows smoking, don't go to one.

 

[EmmSee]

I hear ya. I'm glad MA bars/clubs are 100% smoke-free.
I can't stand smoke...

 

[mothmonsterman]

Granted i have been cutting down (1-2 smokes a day atm)
And the bar scene with all the smoke is starting to get to me.

But come on man, put the purse down and put on your man pants please.
you could buy a respirator.... if your in a metal band it might just work.

 

[Visirale]

No offense Brian Tyler, but I think Bad Brains has you beat... I'm not gonna play the big government card, but I do tend to agree a lot with libertarians. If I open a privately-owned bar, I should be able to allow smoking in it if I want, as long as I don't serve food. If I am legally allowed to smoke in my privately-owned house, I should be able to do it in my privately-owned bar. As long as I advertise that it's a "smoking permitted" bar, I don't see the big problem. In fact, those are the laws here in FL, and I think it's a happy medium. I can't smoke inside of any establishment that serves food (a good law IMO) but as long as its strictly a bar, and the owners permit it (haven't been to a bar here yet that doesn't), it's ok. Not allowing a business owner to do something they can do perfectly legally at their own home at their own business is pretty stupid, IMO.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Ehh.
Name one bar/restaurant that forces someone to sit inside their business and breath in smoke from others. They are not allowed to force you to stay inside their business, and it is not the job of the business to ensure that your safety and moral standards are applied, or from preventing you from going to a different establishmen that doesn't do that.

In other words, if you don't want to be inside a business that allows smoking, don't go to one.

Actually, it IS the job of the bar to ensure your safety. It IS the job of the bar to ensure an environment that does not pick and choose which health codes which were deemed appropriate for other publicly-used businesses they want to follow. These bans should have been enforced a LONG time ago. Saying "if you don't like it then just leave" is really a terrible thing. Seriously- if they put up a sign that says "gays not allowed- you will be beaten if you enter this bar," you think that they're entitled to do so?

No offense Brian Tyler, but I think Bad Brains has you beat...

I'm curious how you think he has me beat when a large amount of the world has now instituted indoor public smoking bans It's obviously not just me that thinks this way. If his way of thinking is that there should be no indoor public smoking bans, then he most definitely has lost.

I'm not gonna play the big government card, but I do tend to agree a lot with libertarians. If I open a privately-owned bar, I should be able to allow smoking in it if I want, as long as I don't serve food. If I am legally allowed to smoke in my privately-owned house, I should be able to do it in my privately-owned bar.

Not if you are open to public business. Most businesses are privately-owned. Offices, doctors, colleges, hospitals, etc. They should all be able to choose which health codes they want to follow? They can all serve rotting meat for lunches? Or is that just an excuse to allowing smoking where people had gotten used to smoking? Why should serving food make the difference? Public health is public health. That just seems like a cop-out to allow bars to have smoking and be an island unto themselves. If your doors are open to the public, you have to follow the health laws for the public.

As long as I advertise that it's a "smoking permitted" bar, I don't see the big problem. In fact, those are the laws here in FL, and I think it's a happy medium. I can't smoke inside of any establishment that serves food (a good law IMO) but as long as its strictly a bar, and the owners permit it (haven't been to a bar here yet that doesn't), it's ok. Not allowing a business owner to do something they can do perfectly legally at their own home at their own business is pretty stupid, IMO.

You haven't even bothered to think that last sentence through. Let's look at all you can do in your home. You can have sex on the table. Pee in the sink. Eat rotting food. Fill it with carbon monoxide. You think that any privately-owned business that's open to the public should be able to do these things? So long as there's a sign posted about it that is

 

[Visirale]

I'm curious how you think he has me beat when a large amount of the world has now instituted indoor public smoking bans It's obviously not just me that thinks this way. If his way of thinking is that there should be no indoor public smoking bans, then he most definitely has lost.



Not if you are open to public business. Most businesses are privately-owned. Offices, doctors, colleges, hospitals, etc. They should all be able to choose which health codes they want to follow? They can all serve rotting meat for lunches? Or is that just an excuse to allowing smoking where people had gotten used to smoking? Why should serving food make the difference? Public health is public health. That just seems like a cop-out to allow bars to have smoking and be an island unto themselves. If your doors are open to the public, you have to follow the health laws for the public.



You haven't even bothered to think that last sentence through. Let's look at all you can do in your home. You can have sex on the table. Pee in the sink. Eat rotting food. Fill it with carbon monoxide. You think that any privately-owned business that's open to the public should be able to do these things? So long as there's a sign posted about it that is

Hah, I knew that last statement would come back to me.

Look, all sorts of different business offer certain things that you can't do anywhere else. Would you take a gun to your local department store and start doing target practice? No... that'd be detrimental to the public health . When you want to shoot a gun, you go to the shooting range. Do you try and put cash down a woman's thong in the grocery store? No, that behavior is better left for strip clubs. Smoking is similar to these things... bad in a lot of different situations, but as long as the bar doesn't serve food, I see no problems.

I think the Florida Government might have a little more insight into allowing smoking into bars than you might have. A bar is all about letting the clientèle relax. Whether they pursue that through drinks, watching the band, or lighting up a smoke. I know you're going to say "But what if their means of relaxation is sodomizing little boys on the table," but there is a big difference between smoking and sodomizing little boys. You may not think so, but I'll go ahead and assure you that there is. Smoking is bad for you. So is drinking. So is eating unhealthy food. So is listening to loud music. "BUT SMOKING CAUSES CANCER!!!" Yes, so be it. People know this. If you want to go to a bar that doesn't allow it, then that's your choice. But if a bar so chooses to allow smoking, I don't see what the damn problem is.

 

[tZer]

1) Bring a large fan with you to the gig.

That's exactly what I used to do when I was gigging in the smoke-choked bars of middle Missouri. I'd set up my fan behind me blowing out toward the room. In a closed bar, you are not going to get rid of the smoke but you can at least try to push it out into the area where the smokers are smoking. Having the air moving around you helps make it at least feel less stagnant and caustic even if it isn't removing the smoke itself.

Between sets I'd head straight outside and get a nice 15 minute fresh air break before venturing back in for more. During the set I'd just stay in the jet wash of my fan and it helped a little. There's really no escaping it if the bar permits smoking. You're in an box, the box is filled with smoke, you have to breathe...

 

[tZer]

...Whether they pursue that through drinks, watching the band, or lighting up a smoke. I know you're going to say "But what if their means of relaxation is sodomizing little boys on the table," but there is a big difference between smoking and sodomizing little boys...

I was trying to resist the urge to join the "Smoking's OK - No it's not" can of worms, but this little phrase pulled me in...

For the sake of discussion, remove the very vivid descriptors and restate your assertion and see if it still makes sense.

"But what if their means of relaxation is [doing something that inflicts harm on others] on the table," but there is a big difference between [doing something that inflicts harm on others] and [doing something that inflicts harm on others]..."

 

[Visirale]

I was trying to resist the urge to join the "Smoking's OK - No it's not" can of worms, but this little phrase pulled me in...

For the sake of discussion, remove the very vivid descriptors and restate your assertion and see if it still makes sense.

"But what if their means of relaxation is [doing something that inflicts harm on others] on the table," but there is a big difference between [doing something that inflicts harm on others] and [doing something that inflicts harm on others]..."

But we're getting into "degrees" of wrong. We allow drinking in bars, but how many people go out, drink and drive and end up killing people? I'd venture to say A LOT more than second hand smoke has killed.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Hah, I knew that last statement would come back to me.

Look, all sorts of different business offer certain things that you can't do anywhere else. Would you take a gun to your local department store and start doing target practice? No... that'd be detrimental to the public health . When you want to shoot a gun, you go to the shooting range.

Shooting ranges are actually private servers. You can't come in off the street and shoot guns. You have to sign up.

Do you try and put cash down a woman's thong in the grocery store? No, that behavior is better left for strip clubs. Smoking is similar to these things... bad in a lot of different situations, but as long as the bar doesn't serve food, I see no problems.

Paying strippers is an integral part of a strip club operation. That is why there aren't smoking bans in tobacco bars/smoke shops- it is an integral part of what they do.

I think the Florida Government might have a little more insight into allowing smoking into bars than you might have.

As half of the country has no smoking in bars at this point, with that number growing, I'd have to disagree

A bar is all about letting the clientèle relax. Whether they pursue that through drinks, watching the band, or lighting up a smoke.

It's funny to hear someone who isn't old enough to go to a bar try to tell me what a bar is all about. I've been going to them since you were 10

I know you're going to say "But what if their means of relaxation is sodomizing little boys on the table," but there is a big difference between smoking and sodomizing little boys. You may not think so, but I'll go ahead and assure you that there is. Smoking is bad for you. So is drinking. So is eating unhealthy food. So is listening to loud music. "BUT SMOKING CAUSES CANCER!!!" Yes, so be it. People know this. If you want to go to a bar that doesn't allow it, then that's your choice. But if a bar so chooses to allow smoking, I don't see what the damn problem is.

Again, this is simply ignoring public health concerns for the sake of making an excuse to allow smokers to smoke where they want to. I may relax by huffing toxic chemicals at home. Doesn't mean I should be able to do it in public and demand that it is the job of other people to not go where I am.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

But we're getting into "degrees" of wrong. We allow drinking in bars, but how many people go out, drink and drive and end up killing people? I'd venture to say A LOT more than second hand smoke has killed.

Apparently no one informed you that driving under the influence is illegal They also didn't inform you that it is a bar's responsibility to not allow a person to get drunk and then drive. The bar is liable for that.

 

[Visirale]

It's funny to hear someone who isn't old enough to go to a bar try to tell me what a bar is all about. I've been going to them since you were 10

I've spent some good time in Europe. I think I understand the points of a bar.

Again, this is simply ignoring public health concerns for the sake of making an excuse to allow smokers to smoke where they want to. I may relax by huffing toxic chemicals at home. Doesn't mean I should be able to do it in public and demand that it is the job of other people to not go where I am.

But smoking is so much more socially accepted. Don't act like it's not. I can go light up in the middle of a congested walk way. It might annoy some people, but no one's going to tell me to put it out. If they do, I'll curse at them, and probably 5 or 6 others will tell them to mind their own business.

I'm just saying let a bar dictate whether or not it will allow smoking. I'm not even supporting it either way. If a non-smoking bar gets more business than one that allows smoking, then perhaps more will become non-smoking. Don't deny these people of how they've made their livelihood just because you're uncomfortable with smoke. I never minded the smell of smoke even before I ever did it. I don't smoke now, but will never find the smell offensive. When I did smoke, I had friends who didn't who would always comment that they loved the smell. I know people who don't like it at all, and they wouldn't go to a bar that did. The fancier bars around here are restaurants too so you can't smoke there. But GOD FORBID if someone wants to go smoke in a little hole in the wall bar that doesn't serve food. Damn them!

Apparently no one informed you that driving under the influence is illegal They also didn't inform you that it is a bar's responsibility to not allow a person to get drunk and then drive. The bar is liable for that.

It is illegal. Doesn't stop them from doing it. If the bar can be held liable for their customers being drunk and driving, don't you think they should have enough responsibility and freedom to choose to allow smoking? Regardless of the legality, drunk driving kills a lot of people. I refuse to believe the number of people killed by second hand smoke alone is even close.

I swear anti-smoking agenda people are so militant. I don't even smoke anymore but it's people like you who make me want to exercise my freedom to do so (And since I'm in FL, I'll go do it in a bar if I so chose ).

 

[tZer]

But we're getting into "degrees" of wrong. We allow drinking in bars, but how many people go out, drink and drive and end up killing people? I'd venture to say A LOT more than second hand smoke has killed.

Convenient and flimsy in the area of "strength in argument" - sorry.

You see, when I drink a beer the actual act of drinking that beer (unless I do it really badly) has no immediate impact on anyone around me. It does not cause someone else to become intoxicated or do anything else to cause their relaxation to become less relaxing.

If I were to light up something that puts off lots of smoke like maybe a cigarette, that action does have an immediate impact on the ability of those around me to relax.

Your rebuttal citing drunk drivers as being a valid comparison is specious - comparing apples to manslaughter. Not relevant in this comparison.

We allow drinking in bars because as long as the drinker is taking responsibility for their drinking and not causing problems for those around them, they are doing nothing that causes problems for those around them. If that persons starts getting belligerent (the drinking equivalent to smoke invading my breathing space) they are having a negative impact and are usually asked to leave.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

I've spent some good time in Europe. I think I understand the points of a bar.

But smoking is so much more socially accepted. Don't act like it's not.

And what about that makes it okay? If it's socially accepted to discriminate against blacks, should bars be allowed to refuse to serve them?

Don't deny these people of how they've made their livelihood just because you're uncomfortable with smoke.

Don't deny them the ability to profit from the public while needlessly harming them? Please. You can buy rotting meat for pennies compared to good beef- we should be able to deny a restaurant the ability to serve that, right? If a bar makes most of its livelihood from selling cigarettes, then they can simply turn themselves into a smoke shop or a private establishment. Otherwise, they will be no better or worse off than any other bar, as a smoking ban levels the playing field.

It is illegal. Doesn't stop them from doing it. If the bar can be held liable for their customers being drunk and driving, don't you think they should have enough responsibility and freedom to choose to allow smoking?

It's not that the bar is simply held accountable for it- they are NOT allowed to let it happen. Just because someone is required to take the blame for something if it goes wrong doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it in the first place. Should they be allowed to fill their bars will carbon monoxide if they agree to deal with the consequences later? Should they be allowed to serve rotting food if they're willing to pay the hospital bills?

Regardless of the legality, drunk driving kills a lot of people. I refuse to believe the number of people killed by second hand smoke alone is even close.

It doesn't have to be. People don't even have to be killed by it. I can piss in your face at the bar and it won't kill you. Doesn't mean it should be allowed.

I swear anti-smoking agenda people are so militant. I don't even smoke anymore but it's people like you who make me want to exercise my freedom to do so (And since I'm in FL, I'll go do it in a bar if I so chose ).

What's militant about wanting long-existing public health laws exteneded to places they should have been long ago? I'm against kicking dogs too- I guess now you must really want to go out and put a boot to old Fido then.....

 

[Kosko]

As a Buffalonian (read: cold) who was a smoker when it was allowed indoors and not a smoker anymore after its been banned; I like the ban. Places you can smoke almost give me a panic attack these days, or at least make me weezy; which blows. Like if its really hot and smokey, that really sucks, its the worst.

Smoking indoors is punishing yourself and others.

 

[Kosko]

In Buffalo they mandated that if restaraunts want a smoking section then they have to build a ventilated (quarentiened area). After forcing every Denny's in the state to build one of these boxes they then outlawed it altogether.

I do not agree with that. They really screwed businesses with that one.

 

[Visirale]

This is a hopeless argument. The fact is that both of you don't like smoking! And that's absolutely ok! You have every choice to go to a bar that doesn't allow it. If a bar has allowed smoking forever, and their customers are OK with that, you probably shouldn't go to that bar. If girls in promiscuous clothing make me uncomfortable, but I really want some wings, I'm probably not going to go to Hooters, but another restaurant that serves them without the hot teens in short shorts. This argument isn't about smoking, if you ask me.

The fact of the matter is that smoking IS legal (and I'd like to see them try to make it not...). Smoking in bars is legal (here) as long as food isn't served. What gives you the right to push your agenda on business owners allowing a legal practice? I'd like to see you try to come to a bar here and tell the bar owner that you want him to tell someone to put out a cigarette. Someone will probably put out a cigarette on you.

Is it really that hard for you to go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking as opposed to one that does? I mean I'm not even that patriotic, but for ****'s sake, this is America! Smoking is not like serving rotten meat. That's just a stupid analogy. The people in bars that allow smoking generally don't care about second hand smoke (and by generally, I mean all the time unless they're idiots). If all you're going to do is whine and complain about how you don't like the second hand smoke, and you refuse to find a different establishment then you're just an *******. Do you know why smoking really isn't allowed in states where you can't smoke inside at bars? Because the lobbyists for banning it finally got more money than the proponents for allowing it. Does that make it right? This isn't a moral argument or a health argument at the state level, it's a "who's going to pay us more money" one.

I'll let you guys have fun with your anti-smoking cool kids club, but I gotta go get some stuff done. I'll be back later... and I'm sure this will not have gotten anywhere.

 

[acubass]

+1
I'm another non smoker that believes the bar owner should decide if smoking is acceptable in his or her own bar. If you don't like smoke go to a smoke free bar. I do it all the time. If I own a business and I pay taxes on that business, then I should decide if smoking is allowed in MY bar. Isn't the point of a bar to drink, smoke and relax?
Hopefully bars in my home town will find a way to find a loophole to skirt the law. I have already seen and ad for a Private bar with free memberships. Kinda funny

I would also like to add that I am a Liberal, so please don't blame all of us on the smoking ban.

 

[tZer]

I swear anti-smoking agenda people are so militant. I don't even smoke anymore but it's people like you who make me want to exercise my freedom to do so (And since I'm in FL, I'll go do it in a bar if I so chose ).

I am always struck by how people believe their personal decision to smoke in my face is somehow part of some sort of "freedom" or right. Do what you want to yourself, it's the nasty, harmful byproduct of your behavior that we "militant" anti-smokers are not so keen on.

And for the record, I am not militant, nor am I anti-smoker/smoking. I believe anyone should be able to do TO THEMSELVES just about anything they want as long as it does not infringe on my ability do, uh breathe.

If you could smoke without polluting your immediate area with the exhaust there'd be no debate. But the thing about smoking is that it causes the area around the smoker to become noxious. Sorry - facts are facts. So all this chest thumping about "freedoms" and such is just the rantings of someone who enjoys an activity that unfortunately also causes problems for others.

How about if I were to decide I love the sound of a really loud air-horn and brought one with me to your next gig and sat in the crowd blasting it at will? Just because a LOT of people LIKE to smoke does not make the harmful byproduct negligible.


Further - the REASON smoking is so common and accepted is due to our historic ignorance of the harmfulness - then furthered by a little bit of deception on the part of the tobacco people. When smoking first became fashionable, it was even considered to be good for you. We've become a world filled with people who took up a habit under false pretenses, laws were made (or not made) for the same reasons.

Consider asbestos - at one point we were ignorant of it's harmfulness and tons of buildings were constructed using it. We know better now and have taken appropriate actions to remedy this. The smoking subject is not all that different. When our laws and policies were originally conceived, we were not given the benefit of the truth or the facts.