Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Even when I was a smoker, I really had no objection to banning smoking in restaurants or most public places. Bars, even though I don't drink, I thought was a bit much. They are already destroying their livers and kidneys why not add lungs to the picture. I understand that it is bad for the employee's because bars do create a cloud atmosphere when people are smoking, but I really thought that it would ruin a lot of businesses basically because people would opt to drink at home instead of any establishment. I was wrong. Bars are still doing well, I guess that when you combine the addictions to alcohol with the addictions to nicotine, there is no way that you can stop it...just adjust it. In Vermont, in sub zero weather, there would be a group of people just outside the bar entrance shivering and puffing away. Humans are such silly creatures.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Could a zoning law help - essentially creating smoking and non-smoking areas of neighborhoods. (Of course, then you're into even more government reach and government telling apartment owners they can or cannot allow smokers in.) --- also give the insurance companies red line areas to charge higher insurance rates
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Oh give me a break, are you next going to tell parents they can't give their children soft drinks in parks because its not good for them, or fat people they cant eat certain foods etc etc. ---- oh but it does happen - the deomcratic leadership here under Mayor Richie Daley -- fast food joints banned from using trans fat oils in their businesses in Chicago and also Mayor Daley had banned Foie gras from menu's in city restaurants. And to show we're obsessed with food- brown bag lunches are banned in some Chicago Public Schools- the kids must eat the meals selected for them... ( and not just at Orwell Elementary) In Chi town intrusive is a way of life...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 and I only called it out as Democratic leadership here because of sentiments here like: were the usual crowd: squawky conservative politicians; academics who are under pressure to keep high profiles; public health officials who need to DO SOMETHING to justify their jobs. Big government intrusion knows no party lines my friends
Originally Posted By RoadTrip as they move smoking out of bars locally, they find something that I think is absolutely hilarious... you get rid of the smoke smell and the places reek of stale beer and sweat. Welcome tobacco abolitionists... hope you enjoy the smell!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 you knew when the Irish banned smoking in their pubs- it was doomed everywhere
Originally Posted By Mr X You can still smoke in bars and many restaurants in Japan. I don't think Asia has changed all that much (granted, Ireland was a surprise to say the least!).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm not sure the voters understood that smoking had already been VOLUNTARILY banned by ownership in almost ALL restaurants and 'upscale' bars. You are talking about banning smoking in small neighborhood bars with a maximum capacity of somewhere between 25 and 50 people. They attract a largely 45+ crowd and generally have been owned by an individual or someone in his/her family for many years. All the owners hope to do is eek out a middle class living until they are old enough to retire. Most of the customers there are just looking for a cheap place to drink or are lonely and looking for someone to talk too. And nine times out of ten they smoke, and the 10th one doesn't care. These are the people who will have their living taken away from them, these are the customers who will have nowhere else to go. Ann and I like going to places like this sometimes on weekends when they will have local entertainment that is free and really quite good.
Originally Posted By mele I go to a lot of shows that happen to be in bars...I'm glad I don't have to breathe the smoke. I would definitely skip a lot of shows if they were in smoky bars...and I don't even mind the smell of the smoke occasionally. Enclosed smoke seems to be worse than smoke in the open air. My friend is in a couple of bands and they play a lot of casinos which do not have to follow local smoking laws. She doesn't like working there but likes paying her mortgage more. It's nice that venues allow you to go outside and smoke and then re-enter. That helps a lot...no one has to suffer (although, the weather here is crap most of the time so you're smoking in the rain.) You want to talk STUPID laws...how about the law in Washington state that people on stage cannot drink alcohol. They can jump off the stage and drink during a performance; they just can't drink on stage. It makes it a lot harder to buy the lead singer a drink (and harder to score with them later. Ahem.) ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I guess I just feel that the individual owners should be able to make that decision based on what is best for their business. As I said, the great majority of restaurants and bars in Springfield have already gone smoke-free without anyone forcing them to. Those that have not clearly know their clientele and feel that would lose more business by going smoke free than they would gain. This won't hurt the "big guys", most of them have already gone smoke free. It is the mom and pop places that basically have just two things to offer that the other places don't... cheap liquor and a place to smoke. Take half of that away and their business will be hurting. If this has to be done, do it on a statewide basis. What will happen is instead of people going to a bar close to home they will be driving 10-15 miles to a neighboring suburb or small town that still allows it. So we eliminate second-hand smoke in a place where currently everyone KNOWS there is smoking and can make a decision on whether or not to enter. In exchange we put drunk drivers on the road for more miles and at higher speeds where the other motorists have absolutely no choice in whether or not they want to share the road with those people. You tell me... what is the greater hazard to the public health?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I understand what your saying RT but I don't really agree with what will happen. I don't think that the regular bar customers will drive extra miles to get the opportunity to smoke in the bar. They will just go outside or not go at all. They will drink closer to home. JMHO As for Casino's...the air circulating equipment installed in those places is nothing short of extremely powerful. I have gone to casino's with hundreds of people all around me and not even been able to smell smoke unless I am standing over their shoulder. The air in there is cleaner then the outside air.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I understand what your saying RT but I don't really agree with what will happen. I don't think that the regular bar customers will drive extra miles to get the opportunity to smoke in the bar. They will just go outside or not go at all. They will drink closer to home. JMHO>> Not sure. I know there used to be a steady stream of traffic from the Twin Cities to Hudson, Wisconsin on weekends when Minnesota's drinking age increased to 21 while Wisconsin's remained at 18. I guess that is a slightly different situation though.
Originally Posted By mele I have never been in a casino and not been able to smell smoke. I don't smell any smoke very often, however, so maybe I'm hypersensitive to it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think it depends on the casino. Some of the newer ones, maybe. Most of Atlantic City's casinos were built in old buildings/hotels with old filtration/circulation systems, and the smoke in there can be horrible.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I was just at a Casino in Green Bay a few weeks back. I was in there about 20 minutes before I gave up and headed back to the smoke free hotel bar.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The Luxor in Vegas is really good. I suppose part of it is that high ceiling over the casino that goes all the way to the top of the building.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I've only been to about three casino's...two in Vegas (don't remember which ones, but I think Ballargio is one of them) and Foxwoods in Conn. Don't remember noticing the smell of smoke, but they sure were puffing away.
Originally Posted By Labuda "I understand what your saying RT but I don't really agree with what will happen. I don't think that the regular bar customers will drive extra miles to get the opportunity to smoke in the bar. They will just go outside or not go at all. They will drink closer to home. JMHO" Well, that's not always the case. For some, sure... and there are TONS of bars here in the Austin city limits that have patios where folks can smoke. But I know quite a few folks who DO drive in order to drink. Some as many as 20 miles... and the REALLY dumb thing is, one buddy of mine will drive up to Round Rock just so he can smoke while playing Golden Tee. *shaking my head*
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost You have to remember that my experience is based on Vermont. Chances are in Texas that the weather is good enough year round to warrant bars investing in outside patio's. In Vermont the season is very short so they don't do that. Instead, if you drive by a bar you will see 5 or 10 people outside, in the cold, smoking. Then they go back inside, reinforce with a little more alcohol and then it's back outside. On the plus side, it might keep people a little more sober longer.
