No smoking debate

[Cheesefood]

What's your take on the efforts to ban smoking in restaurants and bars?

 

[ScottT]

I think they should stay out of our business. It should be the proprietors choice and no others. If you don't like the smoke then visit those establishments that don't allow smoking. There will be places for both folks if the demand is there for both and it seems to me like it is.

BTW, I don't smoke except for the occasional cigar or pipe.

 

[rewster451]

Here's the deal. I'm a heavy smoker. I quit once for a year, and during that time I hated being around smokers. I just felt like it was pointless to stop smoking if I was going to be around people who smoked and then my clothes would smell like smoke, and I might as well smoke.

But I started again. And I realized that it's really annoying to be around people who don't smoke and want me to put my cigarette out for their convenience. Even when I was suffering my worst withdrawals I would not limit another person's ability to smoke. I was annoyed by it, but it was because I really wanted to be smoking.

Bottom line, some people are smokers, some aren't. Part of this is addiction, but I think a bigger part of it is the kind of person you are. Quitting wasn't hard for me, but I came back because I'm a smoker. Always have been, always will be. Just wish it wasn't deadly.

 

[Lounge Lizard]

In a free society, a person should be allowed to run his or her business any way they see fit. The government has no business whatsoever telling anyone how to run their privately owned business in regard to smoking, or about much else, for that matter. I wouldn't even have a problem with a bar or restaurant owner requiring that people smoke. I would either light up or leave. It's that simple. The free market and competition would take care of the rest. I'm afraid too many people rely on the nanny state for everything these days.

 

[kenmc]

Well for what it's worth, in Ireland about 2 or 3 years ago a ban was introduced on smoking in ALL workplaces - pubs, restauraunts, offices - everywhere. I think there were 3 exceptions: Prisons, Mental Hospitals and the (smoking-allocated) bedroom of a hotel (however if you want room service to come you cannot have smoked for 30 mins before or something like that).
It has without exception been the best thing to happen to the country in a long long time. You can now go out to a pub/club and when you wake up in the morning your pillow does not stink of smoke, and you don't have to disinfect your clothes. When ppl want to smoke they go outside, and I believe that the craic is mighty out there, apparently there's loads of couples have first met over a smoke outside a pub. The pubs were up in arms, saying that they'd lose so much business - the opposite happened in fact - they're doing better than ever. Smokers are happy too, cos they end up smoking less and spending less.
I absolutely hate going to bars abroad now, as you always end up covered in filthy sticky smelly smoke, and you hair and pillow reeks and you cannot wear the shirt/jumper whatever you have on last night, even if you only wore it for 2 hours, as it is now contaminated too.
Definitely the best thing to happen - I'd love to see it banned outright in fact.

 

[Truble]

I was a heavy smoker until last Feb, when I quit. I will say this: It should be up to the owner as to whether they will allow it or not. I live in MA, and they went to a full ban in all establishments. They reason that since they are work places, people who don't smoke are in danger, and also are 'disciminated against' by places that allow smoking, since they won't want to work there. I see it this way- a slaughterhouse is not disciminating against me because I won't work there because they smell foul, and have many sharp blades, saws, etc that can kill me. I choose not to work there. Personally, I think that if you want to have a smoking establishment, then fine. If you don't smoke, and don't want to go there, then don't. The owner loses your business. I won't go back to smoking, but I will not say that it should be banned outright everywhere. In indoor public places? Sure-fine. In non-entertainment based work places like office parks, hosptials, government buildings? absolutely (mostly for the lower insurance premiums ) Government should not be allowed to dictate this. Next, you will have them stating that you can't serve fries/chips because they are bad for you, and you can't serve veal because SPCA is offended by it.

 

[Dude]

I'm not a regular smoker, never have been. I have an occasional cigarette or cigar, but rarely.

I too, hate the next day after going to a bar. It is disgusting the way everything stinks. Further--going in a smoker's car or house is just gross. That said--the day the government gets involved in an issue like this, is the day I move to Canada. This should be 100% up to the proprietor of the business. They should be able to decide whether or not which customers they want to cater to.

I do like the fact that no smoking is enforced where I work, and I like that certain restaurants (not bars) are starting to disallow it, but I'm not one of those people that will get anal about it until someone is blowing smoke my way while I'm eating a good steak. that is just common courtesy, and nothing against the smokers in general.

One other note on the subject--I started off my military career on the wrong foot by getting an LOR (Letter of Reprimand) for refusing to pick up cigarette butts outside our workplace. I felt as a non-smoker I wasn't responsible for that. My boss thought otherwise. I held my ground and ended up getting that LOR. "Disobeying a direct order" was what they called it. I firmly believe that one incident has affected my career ever since. Long story I won't get into.......

 

[kornkob]

In Madison they've recently passed a 'no smoking in any bar' law and it has put some serious hurt on small corner bars. Apparently their customers are opting to stay at home instead of going out. Larger establishments appear to be less affected.

Nowseveral years ago they passed a 'no smoking in resturants' law. That one irritated me because at the time resturants were startign to go down that road all on their own because their customers were telling them that's what they wanted. It irritated me that our city council saw fit to legislate what market forces were making happen on their own.

Incidentally, both these laws have been a boon to the suburbs, where resturants and bars that allow smoking, often right across the street from their non-smoking bretheren, have been able to target the ex-patriated smokers.

Me-- I'm all for market forces making the changes and if I dont' like the way I smell after a night out someplace, I vote with my wallet.

 

[Darth Konvel]

Tough question. I don't smoke except for a cigar every so often. Since I'm not a frequent smoker, and dislike being in a building with smokers, I can't say I'm apposed to the ban, even if I'd prefer that the choice was left to business owners.

I must say that going out to the local joint my buddies and I frequent right after the smoking ban hit here, and not having to deal with the usual cloud of smog, was a welcome change.

 

[El Pistolero]

That said--the day the government gets involved in an issue like this, is the day I move to Canada.

I assume you mean the federal government, since you apparently haven't left yet?

 

[Truble]

in MA, the towns that are near the borders are hard hit. People are just choosing to go to RI or NH instead. I know of some bar owners that have lost a ton of business due to this state legislation. The state refuses to acknowledge it, even though, when it was beer/liquor, shops in MA that were near the borders were allowed to open on Sunday (before the blue law was repealed) to keep up with the shops over the border. Like KornKob said, it should be a market decision, not a government one. This hurts the sole proprietor businesses most- the big chains will always survive, and in many cases, flourish, since choice will be limited as smaller shops cannot stay open.

 

[david_42]

Oregon has a fairly sane law: any public building where children are allowed is no smoking. So, resturants & stores are no smoking, bars with resturants NS, bars without - smoking. You can have separate smoking areas in bars and resturants. Since about 85% of adults here don't smoke, nobody is suffering. If I open the door to a bar & it stinks, I go some place else. If a bar does a poor job of isolating the smoking area, I go some place else.

Several pubs in the area have chosen to be smoking bars. They still serve food, but enforce over-21 so the whole place can be smoking. Far more common is a bar that could be smoking that chooses to be non-smoking. 85/15 is a strong argument.

Businesses: if a company owns the whole building AND makes it clear that they are a smoking company AND has another building where non-smoking customers can meet with their employees AND put said employees through de-contamination before entering the smoke-free building: let them eat smoke! I suspect their health insurance rates would suffer.

 

[drengel]

i'm a smoker, but i think smoking should be banned, or at least real isolated in bars, but i do feel as though its the proprietors right to make that decision and no one elses...i just wish more owners would do that. i personally don't mind, actually i prefer to step outsside for a smoke. smoking inside is just gross. in durango there is no law but quite a few of the bars are voluntarily going non-smoking. they are so much more pleasant to be in to. ive been in bars before that were so choked with smoke i had to leave. you can say leave the market to decide, but whatever i'm selfish and i get pissed if i can't enjoy sitting in my favorite bar having a beer because everyone else is choking the place with smoke. its also a public health issue, people die from second hand smoke, ive known people to get lung cancer who never smoked. not to say its al;l cigarettes doing that, air pollution is a significant problem as well, but sitting in a smoky bar is not healthy. i feel bad for non-smokers who have to suffer for other peoples choices. this issue hit me a couple weeks ago when i was in santa fe at a brewery sampling beers. the bar was smoking, and as i went to sample each beer and give it its first whiff there was nothing but the putrid smell of cigarettes there. it ruined the tasting session i had been looking forward to for a couple weeks. as for restaurants...smoking should be fully banned in them. luckily i've never lived anywhere recently where smoking was allowed in restaurants, but i would go ballistic if someone lit a cigarette around me while i was trying to eat a good meal.

 

[2nd Street Brewery]

I'm a non smoker with a wife who does. I think the law is assinine even as I try to get my wife to quit. In NY smoking is prohibited pretty much everywhere public. They are even trying to pass a bill making it illegal to smoke in your car if you have a young kid in with you. This country and my state in particular over legistrate everything. Can't do this can't do that because it might bother someone. The whole PC thing is way overboard if you ask me.

 

[God Emporer BillyBrew]

I think they should stay out of our business. It should be the proprietors choice and no others. If you don't like the smoke then visit those establishments that don't allow smoking. There will be places for both folks if the demand is there for both and it seems to me like it is.

BTW, I don't smoke except for the occasional cigar or pipe.

I agree with you on a philosophical level, but I've got to say it sure is nice to be able to go to any public restaurant that I like and not have to breath cigarette smoke.

My in-laws are all smokers and we all have to go out to dinner on everybody's birthday. They'll rush through their meal and start smoking when I'm only about half done. I love it when we happen to pick a place that doesn't allow any smoking at all.

Personal problem and selfish yeah, but if it ever came to a vote of the public, I'd let my personal comfort win out over my philosophical ideas to keep the Government out of my life as much as possible.

 

[drengel]

Can't do this can't do that because it might bother someone. The whole PC thing is way overboard if you ask me.

i don't think its really a PC issue. its weighing the rights of two separate and divergent groups against each other. weighing civil liberties against each other and legislating it is bound to piss one group off. im ny opinion you can liken it to drunk driving. just because it is someones 'right' to operate a vehicle while intoxicated and endanger everyone elses safety on the road doesn't mean that its right and shouldnt be legislated against--and it has been legislated against because its a serious public health issue. in my opinion smoking in a public place is the same type of issue. whose rights are worth more? the smoker to smoke inside because they are to lazy to walk outside and do it, or the non-smokers health which is compromised by second-hand smoke. i put my money on the non-smokers rights as being more important. and remember i am a smoker.

 

[kornkob]

Those 2 things are wildly different issues. There is a huge difference between legislating behavior on a public roadway and legistalting behavior in a privately operated business.

 

[drengel]

businesses are still considered public places though. i see your point, perhaps my analogy wasn't the best, but both are civil liberty issues involving public spaces. if they were completely private, like a home is, they wouldnt be able to legislate an otherwise legal action like smoking.

 

[Lounge Lizard]

Those 2 things are wildly different issues. There is a huge difference between legislating behavior on a public roadway and legistalting behavior in a privately operated business.

That's very true. As we all learned in Drivers Ed, driving a car is a privilege and not a right. People have to get on the roadways to drive. They don't have to go into any particular brew pub or bar.

 

[drengel]

That's very true. As we all learned in Drivers Ed, driving a car is a privilege and not a right. People have to get on the roadways to drive. They don't have to go into any particular brew pub or bar.

they do if they wanna have a drink.

 

[kornkob]

Not any particular bar----

And while a bar might be 'public' in the sense that it is open to the public, it is not publicly owned and operated, as a roadway is.

 

[homebrewer_99]

I quit smoking over 15 years ago because I was just tired of it and the fact that all my clothes stunk, etc.

I lived overseas. I've been the those smoke-free pubs all over Ireland as well as the smoke-full rooms of Germany. Smoking really doesn't bother me, other than the hair and clothes part of it.

As far as banning it from restaurants, etc. I think someone should establish a smoking ONLY restaurant or one where it is optional. It'll surely catch on.

If they really want to ban smoking everywhere then the Gov't should make it illegal. That's what they did for everything else...but it'll never happen as long as they are getting $$$ from the manufacturers as well as the consumers.

 

[drengel]

i don't think they should ban smoking everywhere. ive seen laws try to be passed not allowing smoking outside, i dont remember where it was, but thats ludicrous. if they wanted to do that they would have to make it illegal, which as you said will never happen. just look at phillip mooris's campaign contribuutions. all the bars that have gone non-smoking here have all done it within the last year, not by a vote, just the decision of the owners, and in my experience just about everyone is happy with it, smokers like myself realized that its not all that hard to step outside to light up. with the exception of one friend, i havent heard any opposition to it. i sincerely believe that the right of the non-smoker to visit a public establishment and not have their health unvoluntarily compromised is more important than the right of the smoker to have a cigarette inside. in the end though it can only be decided by poular vote-we live in a democracy, whoever loses has to deal with it until they can get it on the ballot again.

 

[kornkob]

What about cigar bars--- businesses specifically designed to sell tobacco products? Should a person's 'right' (a misuse of the term, imo) to not be exposed to smoking apply to a business who's primary purpose is to sell tobacco products?

 

[drengel]

of course not. i don't know why a non-smoker would go into a business designed to sell tobacco though. bars are designed to sell alcohol though, restaurants are for food. they're completely different operations designed to sell different things. and restaurants/bars with 'cigar bars' are usually in a different closed off room, which i have no problem with. as far as the semantics go, i dont see the difference between one persons 'right' to destroy their own and others health in a public place and anothers 'right' to not have their health compromised in a public space.

 

[Genghis77]

I am a non smoker, but I think things have become a bit too extreme in places. I think they should allow smoking in a section of a bar, have a smoking compartment on planes etc. One thing I find funny about casinos is there is such a tiny non-smoking section. So, I am assuming they make the accomodations according to their cliental. But, the bottom line is courtesy by smokers to avoid ridiculously harsh and probably unenforcable laws.

 

[Rhoobarb]

I'm all for a total ban in bars and restaurants. I had one cigarette once in my life to ‘see what I was missing’. Couldn’t see the appeal.

Anyway, I’ve been in places where I was having a good time, but had to leave because my eyes couldn’t take the haze. And when I used to sing and play in bar bands many moons ago, I felt like had had contracted black lung myself some mornings following a gig. And I was only doing a couple of gigs two or three weekends a month. I can’t imagine working a few days in a row like that! No worker should have to be subjected to that kind of working condition.

The city of Chicago just passed a half-assed ‘compromise’ smoking ban - restaurants and other indoor establishments have to go smoke-free immediately, bars and "walled-off bars" have 2-3 years to comply. A lot of places have those ‘semi-walled-off’ areas or, more often than not, ‘there's some kind of low partition, but the smoke still gets through’. Which ones get to remain smoke-free? What is gonna happen to dramatically change things 2-3 years from now? Is some study going to suddenly reverse what we already know?

The only smoke I want to smell is hickory or mesquite in a BBQ joint. Otherwise, keep it the hell outside. Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox now.

 

[TxBrew]

I don't need the government to hold my hand. They already do that enough. If I want to go shoot some pool, have a beer and smoke my cigarette then I should be allowed to. Prior to a couple months ago this was legal.

I don't like to be around smoke while I eat. Therefore I don't eat at resturants that don't have a very seperated smoking area.

If you don't want to be around smoke then find businesses that don't allow smoking. Pretty simple.

 

[kornkob]

of course not. i don't know why a non-smoker would go into a business designed to sell tobacco though. bars are designed to sell alcohol though, restaurants are for food. they're completely different operations designed to sell different things. and restaurants/bars with 'cigar bars' are usually in a different closed off room, which i have no problem with. .

The thing is the laws getting passed are not differentiating between a cigar bar (which generally are bars with high end booze/wine as the other part of their attraction) and your average club or tavern.

There are at least 2 places in madison that were effectively forced to close or change their busienss model (and shuck the time and money they spent trying to build their tobacco contacts) because of the 'black and white' nature of the law. Just across the invisible city lines it's business as usual.

 

[sudsmonkey]

Why not just put a ban on bars and restuarants ? I once went into a bar while waiting for my wife to complete a real- estate class. Ordered my Mega-Lite. Got redy to light up a smoke and noticed the no smoking sign. Kinda struck me as un- American. Not being political, or anything. In the Good 'Ol US of A, don't we have the right to smoke ? Don't we have the right to kill the nonsmokers with the same efficiency as we kill ourselves ?
I'm a heavy smoker, and like to smoke when I drink. During the times that I quit, cigarette smoke was the most offensive thing in the world.
Maybe smoking bars could install industrial exhaust systems so that the smoking and non- smoking clientele could drink together in peace.