rightwingnut said:In NYC, they've banned smoking in all public places (indoors). Bar owners fought the ordinance, but lost. They say it's for the health of the workers. I say if you fear for your health, don't work where there's smoke. It is definately way out of the government's role...it IS the right of the owners to decide...just another one of those "you're not smart enough, so we'll decide for you" oppresive goverment regulations. Fear what's next.
Today's the first day of the No Smoking Ban in RI.....news is that a lot of local bar owners (somewhere slightly over 100 I think) are trying to fight it. I just don't see it happening. I used to smoke, but quit about 6 months ago. Still, I don't get all twisted if someone's smoking in a bar...some vices just go better together. What does bother me are places that put smoking sections RIGHT next to non-smoking ones....where's the point in [email protected][email protected]TxBrew said:Here in Austin they are trying to ban smoking in bars. They already did it in restaurants but I mean come on bars that should be up to the bar owner.
That's great if you live in a place like CA. where you can step out for a smoke pretty much any time of the year and not freeze your A*S off! Try stepping out for a smoke in Idaho in January, the only community you find is a bunch of people huddling together wishing they could be inside. Probably similar in NYC in the winter -- not exactly a balmy climate. I think a smoking ordinance is a nice idea, but there should be some allowances for proprieters who want to design adequately ventelated smoking areas -- surely the technology exists to create an smoking bar environment that is not any more adverse to your health than sitting on the freeway at rush hour! Just have enforcement officers with air quality monitoring devices randomly check a given bar, and if it is out of some reasonable range of air polution, slap them with a fine.Janx said:I gotta say I *love* the smoke-free bar rule in California.
It did create a community on the street out front of every bar where the smokers have to go to have a smoke.
Janx said:I'm a member of several other forums on topics like scuba diving or music and in those forums political posts are outright banned. As in, a mod would delete any political posts. I honestly think that should be a rule on this site as well.
Get used to it, the antismoking nazis are on a roll. They passed a similar law here in MT a year or 2 ago. I don't even smoke, but I feel for the smokers standing outside to smoke when it's below zero. Biz has dropped off a bit for many bars/pubs since the smoking ban went into effect. Hell, you can't even smoke OUTSIDE on the sidewalk in Mesa, AZ anymore. It's always something. Regards, GF.Here in Austin they are trying to ban smoking in bars. They already did it in restaurants but I mean come on bars that should be up to the bar owner.
Shortly after it passed here, there was an article in the paper talking about the loss to businesses. They claimed that it was because the smokers were spending far less time at the bar when they went there. Instead of staying for a couple of hours or more, they would stay for a half hour or so, and leave. There were more reasons, but that was the one that I remembered the most.Not sure if the "bars will lose business" argument holds water -
22% of Americans smoke - that means 78% do not. And some percentage of THAT population doesn't frequent bars because of the smoke. So they're likely to GAIN some patrons...maybe as many as they lose or more.
my 2 cents.
and yes, nice zombie resurrection, dzlater, intentional or not!
(mental note: look into moving to Amsterdam!!!)It's been the rule in quite a few European countries for a couple of years now. Here in the Holland, the rule only applies to tobacco: you can still go to a coffee shop and buy and smoke a joint (legally), so long as it doesn't have any tobacco it!
Wouldn't a good compromise to be allow bar owners to chose to be smoke free or not?