Smoking ban and your city

[Dampyre]

^If you want to smoke go outside.

[frank_pentangeli]

^If you don't want to smoke, go to another restaurant.

[Chi-town]

Originally Posted by Dampyre

^If you want to smoke go outside.

No. It's cold outside.


It should be up to the bar owner. If one decides that by making his or her bar smoke-free, and attracting people who want to get away from smoke, then they can do that. Smoking bars for people who want to smoke and non-smoking bars for people who don't.

The fact that more bars allow smoking than not sends a pretty clear message that more people either smoke or don't mind smoke than not. Otherwise, they'd be able to make more money by banning it.

[biguc]

winnipeg did a while ago and the province will soon, too.

[FLAplaya]

People keep complaining how smoking bans will hurt small businesses, bars and restaurants, well that is basically NOT TRUE. If it was then New York, LA, Florida and other cities and states would be in pretty bad shape right now and that is not the case. If a person wants to smoke then go ahead, JUST NOT AROUND ME OR MY FAMILY.

[Chi-town]

What the fuck is your family doing in a bar?


We're not talking about restaurants here, or any other places where people who lead a healthy lifestyle spend much time. We're talking about bars- places people go to get drunk.

Again- if there were as many people who can't stand smoking in bars as people who either a) smoke or b) don't mind it, then there would be more non-smoking bars than ones that allow smoking, because it would make bar owners more money. There should be bars that fill that niche, and there are. Perhaps there should be more. But handing down an order from above that no bar can allow smoking on its premises is ridiculous.

Personally, I don't like smoking when I'm not drinking. Hell, in the morning, the thought of a cigarette makes me ill. But some non-smokers are so fucking self-righteous, and like any other idealogues, it pisses me off.

[perss2000]

First of all, I am a smoker. That said, I am fine with the idea of not allowing smoking in restaurants and other typical family-friendly areas such as theatres, stadiums, malls, etc. But banning smoking in bars is a different point entirely. And the statement, "Don't smoke around me or my family" is rather pointless. Driving is a dangerous activity, so are you going to outlaw that as well?
That said, I consider myself a very considerate smoker. If I am in a line of people, or close to kids especially, I will certainly resist the urge to light up.

[TexasStar]

Thank GOD Dallas banned smoking in all restaurants last year. Now when I go out to eat I no longer have to choke on the stench of the demon weed.

I'm, of course, very happy. But the pathetic nicotine addicts benefit, too. Whether they know it or not.

[perss2000]

TexasStar, I hope you wouldn't include me in your definition of pathetic nicotine addicts. If you read my post above yours, I think I am rather considerate of others. I am not quite to sure of what to make of your last statement in your post. Please elaborate. Cheers.

why are we still arguing over smoking? and why are smokers accusing non-smokers of being self-righteous? the smokers are the ones inflicting damage on everyone else.

you could argue that bars are private establishments, thus they can be as unsafe as they want. or non-smokers can choose to not visit bars. but bars are also workplaces. thus workplace safety rules apply to them. if a bar allows smoking, then an automobile painting facility may choose to expose its workers to toxicity as well.

[Rail Claimore]

It should be up to the bar/property owners, PERIOD! It should be totally up to them to say "This is a smoking establishment." Then those who do not want to be around smokers can go elsewhere. I don't smoke regularly, but I hate it when other people bitch about smoking, ESPECIALLY when I'm drinking at a restaurant or bar at the same time. And who the FUCK brings their CHILDREN to a bar?!

As a compromise, I would have no problem if municipal governments enforce a rule that businesses who wish to make themselves smoking establishments pay some sort of a "health tax" for that privilage.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by Chi-town

No. It's cold outside.


It should be up to the bar owner. If one decides that by making his or her bar smoke-free, and attracting people who want to get away from smoke, then they can do that. Smoking bars for people who want to smoke and non-smoking bars for people who don't.

The fact that more bars allow smoking than not sends a pretty clear message that more people either smoke or don't mind smoke than not. Otherwise, they'd be able to make more money by banning it.

Not to mention smoking bans have been challenged in courts before. When the ban centers on establishments catering to adults, such as bars, courts often side with the establishments. When they involve children at all though, they usually uphold the ban. And that makes perfect sense.

[grasscat]

I'm glad to see this has become a debate and not an anti-tobacco rant.

[TexasStar]

TexasStar, I hope you wouldn't include me in your definition of pathetic nicotine addicts. If you read my post above yours, I think I am rather considerate of others. I am not quite to sure of what to make of your last statement in your post. Please elaborate. Cheers.

Sorry, the tone was way too harsh. I meant only that not being able to light up in restaurants is a not-too-subtle push that hopefully leads smokers toward kicking the habit once and for all.

I need to self edit more.

[grasscat]

^ Oh, yeah. Let's just call it "social engineering" then.

[TexasStar]

Cool, that'll work.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Originally Posted by governator

Chicago is an all-night party town where the dance clubs and many bars are open until 4am 365 days a year and smoking and drinking are 100% incorporated into the culture. It sucks but that is just the way it is.....

It's that way in lots of cities, REALLY.

Originally Posted by governator

....this will be the last big city to fall due to its late night culture.

That's what New Yorkers used to say, we thought our city would be among the last, if ever. But the culture has nothing to do with it, it is the government. No one in NY voted for a smoking ban.

[Chi-town]

Originally Posted by TexasStar

Thank GOD Dallas banned smoking in all restaurants last year. Now when I go out to eat I no longer have to choke on the stench of the demon weed.

I'm, of course, very happy. But the pathetic nicotine addicts benefit, too. Whether they know it or not.

Banning smoking in restaurants and banning smoking in bars are two completely and utterly different things.

The workplace argument doesn't carry any weight either. There are plenty of the same jobs (bartender, barback, dishwasher, server) available at restaurants.

Bars are smoky places filled with loud, drunk people. They're the one place where that's the case, and it's acceptable. There's no reason why it needs to change.

[Jared]

the province of British Columbia has a complete public smoking ban, but the "forward thinking" BC Liberals (dont let their name fool you, they're a very conservative party) decided to repeal it

[perss2000]

When all is said and done of course, I don't know of to many smokers who don't want to quit. I certainly want to quit, and this is why I have no problem with restaurants and virtually every place banning smoking. I am just not convinced about the whole bar scene however. Some jobs are more inherently dangerous than others, and it is your choice to work in such an environment. Take mining, construction, police officers, etc. All are rather dangerous occupations. Being a bartender, etc. could be a comparable situation, healthwise.