Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Surely you've all heard about the new laws banning smoking in bars. Granted, not everyone on these boards would have a strong interest in the situation with bars and such, or even be of the proper age to visit one. And certainly very few of you may want to own a bar. But this is rather big, and you'd have to be living under a rock not to know about it.

What are your thoughts? Do you smoke? Do you frequently go to bars? And does this affect you in any way?

Personally, I feel this is a ridiculous law. One born of the elitist and holier-than-thou "smokers are evil" mouvement that has been sweeping people in the past couple of years and not one made with real-world issues taken into consideration.

Let's start with a few real-world numbers. Since the introduction of the law, in Ontario alone 60 bars have had to close. Profits are down by 25%. This is quite a lot.

Now, who does this law seek to protect? Non-smokers. Ok, so logically profits should be going UP, as more non-smokers would be drawn into the bar scene now that smokers and their filthy cigarettes are out of the picture, right? So why are profits going DOWN? Because it's not drawing in anyone, just discouraging smokers from going to bars. And between you and me, if someone wants to smoke, but can't at bars, they're not going to give up smoking. They'll just go smoke elsewhere.

What about cigar bars? The law, in this case, is as ridiculous as if they passed a law that prohibits the renting of movies at a video store. Are they exempted from this law? Sorry, no dice.

In my opinion, bar owners should have the power to decide wether their bars prohibit or allow smoking, so long as it is clearly identified as such. Or at least be able to obtain a liscence - the government likes money, after all, doesn't it?

Truly, other than making people who feel it's their business to tell us who can and can't smoke good about themselves, what is this new law giving us? People still smoke just as much as before, bars are losing money and closing, and I've yet to see any new regulars at the places I go to on weekends. I do hear barmen complaining about having their salaries reduced since the law came into effect though, and patrons complaining that it's getting to damned cold to go smoke outside. Something tells me I won't see those people anymore this winter, and that the barman will keep talking about his degrading salary while mixing me a few old favorites...

(I don't smoke, by the way. And truly, it's never been an issue in any of the bars I go to, despite there being many smokers. Well, there were...)

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

As an ex-smoker who really really hates being around smoke, I think taking it out of bars is rediculous. I understand the restaurants, public places, etc. But bars is the last straw. People want to smoke at bars. Whatever happened to personal freedoms? If enough people didn't want to smoke at bars, non-smoking bars would crop up without a law being neccesary.

On the other hand...discouraging smoking is a good thing. If we could get everyone in the world to quit, we'd all live a bit healthier.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 21st November 2006 18:43

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

I'm all for the smoking ban introduced in Scotland, myself. It's not so much the right to the smoker to ruin their own lungs, its the right to the poor bastards who get thiers ruined from passive smoke I favour. In fact, it's had the opposite effect from your area: Takings are up in many bars and pubs and the legislation has mostly been a success.

It's even spreading to England and Wales next year.

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

You... do realize that the Government here is not overstepping its bounds and is actually doing this in order to regulate workplace safety, right?

In case you haven't noticed, these private establishments are the working place of people like bartenders and waitresses, and health conditions of workplaces is definitely in the domain of the government to regulate. This isn't some bullshit 'holier-than-thou' excuse, we're talking about people working in conditions that are scientifically demonstrated to be extremely hazardous.

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

I smoke cigars. Quite rarely, but I do enjoy them immensely. And that said, bars that rely on smoking (cigar bars, hookah bars, etc.) for a portion of their business usually are able to get exemptions from the laws I have seen. When you go to a cigar bar, you know the very nature of the bar exposes you to smoke. While I do enjoy cigars, I would never go to a bar for them anyway - I couldn't stand to be around that many at once.

That said, I think that banning smoking in all public places is the best thing ever. It was one of the first things I noticed when I moved to New York and probably the single thing I'll miss the most in my daily life when I finally leave here. Whatever happened to my personal freedoms indeed? What did happen to my freedom to go somewhere to have a bite to eat or get a drink with a friend without dealing with someone else's smoke - or more likely the smoke of forty others?

If you want to own a bar, Silverlance, take heart. In ten years this will be normal for everyone, and it won't cost you any business. And if your bar is in NY at least, there's nothing stopping your patrons from going outside to have a smoke and coming back in to your establishment. Your bar will remain cleaner, and you yourself won't die at the age of thirty-five from secondhand-smoke induced cancer. This is win-win if you ask me.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

My first instinct is that this is a prime example of the government meddling where it ought not to meddle.

If I own a bar (or a restaurant, or whatever), and I want to allow a legal behaviour to take place inside (smoking, square-dancing, sauerkraut-eating), that should be my business, right? If you don't like smoking/square-dancing/sauerkraut-eating, you don't have to come to my bar, and if I want you to come to my bar, I'll take your smoking/square-dancing/sauerkraut-eating preference into consideration. For the government to decide what's best for people and then ban me from allowing a legal behaviour that they've decided is undesirable is just asinine.

My husband, who is usually extremely libertarian but hates smoking with a passion, points out the other side of the issue. This isn't about other customers who want to come into a bar without inhaling smoke (or watching square-dancing, or smelling sauerkraut), but about the employees of my fine establishment who have a right to safe workplace conditions...and the presence of secondhand smoke might be enough to infringe on their rights.

So, really, I'm torn on this issue. Up until you consider the employees, I'm all for the bar owner deciding whether or not smokers can light up. But I do believe in employee rights, and I don't buy into that "oh, well if they don't like their job they can quit" mentality--no one should have to choose between earning enough to eat and being free of workplace hazards. So I really don't know where I stand.


--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

I can sympathise with both sides. I like the idea of a smoke free environment, but I think a business ought to be able to decide something like that for itself.

If I was made to decide... I think I would favor the ban.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (karasuman @ 21st November 2006 15:03)

So, really, I'm torn on this issue.  Up until you consider the employees, I'm all for the bar owner deciding whether or not smokers can light up.  But I do believe in employee rights, and I don't buy into that "oh, well if they don't like their job they can quit" mentality--no one should have to choose between earning enough to eat and being free of workplace hazards.  So I really don't know where I stand.

This is one of the worst mentalities out there. I swear that anyone who has had to struggle to find a job would understand the difficulty involved in quitting and finding another. The economy is fluid and not everyone has a savings account that could support them through the really rough times; even when there are no dependants. And hell, pretty much every bar would allow smoking if the government didn't do something about it, so this means in addition to finding another job, we're talking about retraining in a new career.

If it was the customer's choice, then yes, let the market sort it out. But this is about workplace saftey.

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

I live in North Carolina (the last state to pass any smoking bans whatsoever) and banning smoking in bars is becoming quite the topic in the legislature is especially as many of the officials are newly elected. I must say that most people I know are polarized on this issue. I wouldn't see a problem if the bar in question offered some sort of patio or smoking balcony etc. but most bars cannot. I have also conversed with my friendly neighborhood bartenders and they are concerned that this will hurt their business. And, most of the bartenders and waitresses that I know smoke. Again, tobacco country.

I smoke and frequent bars. And, no, banning smoking in bars would not keep me from smoking, only a bloodied piece of my lung on my pillow would serve that purpose (or enough nagging from my wife, which she is working on).

When I attend a bar with non-smokers (which many of my friends are) I usually do not smoke around them or if I do make sure that I am at a polite distance when I do so. Sure, maybe it is not going to keep them from the majority of the damage from second-hand smoke but it is, at least somewhat considerate.

I think it should be up to the owners and proprietors of each bar to decide. Honestly if smoke is such an issue than you shouldn't work in a bar. Don't quit and find a new job (I know and I'm sure we all know how difficult it is to find a job these days), just don't work in a bar in the first place. Work in a coffee shop or something.

--------------------

"You broke my f***ing sitar, mother f***er."
-Anton A. Newcombe

"Yet another 'use your sword to magically deliver death from above' character comes in somewhere between the Living Cabbage and Milkmaid character options." -red_beard_neo

I loathe cigarettes. The smoke gives me headaches and makes me feel all kinds of awful, and it stinks.

That aside, this is a touchy situation. I would love for all cigarettes to be gone from the world (or, at least, Canada), but that would be taking away the rights of people who actually like the stuff, despite that cigarettes are really harmful.

I think establishments should have the right to say whether or not they want to have smoking in their bars.

--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

No, I'm sorry, that employee stuff is just a smokescreen. Smoking has been present at bars for a very long time, this isn't some unforseen hazard that has just been discovered with waiting and bartending. It'd be one thing to require that bars be sufficiently ventilated as a workplace requirement to reduce the amount of smoke in the air, but being around smoke is part of your job as a bartender because a lot of people at bars smoke. It's part of the job, you knew that going into it.

R51 said something that I think was a pretty good idea. The requirement for a license to have smoking in an establishment. I would take it a step further and allow any bars to apply for such a license. This way you set the message that non-smoking is the accepted norm, but places can establish themselves as haunts for the drinkers/smokers who are looking for such a place.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 21st November 2006 21:00

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 17:00)

No, I'm sorry, that employee stuff is just a smokescreen. Smoking has been present at bars for a very long time, this isn't some unforseen hazard that has just been discovered with waiting and bartending.

So has abestos in fireproofing material. That didn't stop the Government getting rid of the moment scientific studies were conclusive enough.

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 17:00)

It'd be one thing to require that bars be sufficiently ventilated as a workplace requirement to reduce the amount of smoke in the air, but being around smoke is part of your job as a bartender because a lot of people at bars smoke. It's part of the job, you knew that going into it.

What bullshit; this is what a real smokescreen looks like.

Aside from the asinine appeals to tradition, you're basically saying that these people have no right to health and safety in the workplace because you said so. There is nothing, nothing about bartending or waitress work that implies having to suck down second-hand smoke. The only thing you are arguing is that 'in the past, you had to deal with smoke, so you will always have to deal with it'.

Like it or not, regulations advance. Mine safety has gotten better, factory standards raised. In the early 1900's, construction workers knew going in that they could die from falling from skyscrapers. You think that kind of crap is acceptable today?

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

Quote (Elessar @ 21st November 2006 16:16)

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 17:00)

No, I'm sorry, that employee stuff is just a smokescreen. Smoking has been present at bars for a very long time, this isn't some unforseen hazard that has just been discovered with waiting and bartending.

So has abestos in fireproofing material. That didn't stop the Government getting rid of the moment scientific studies were conclusive enough.

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 17:00)

It'd be one thing to require that bars be sufficiently ventilated as a workplace requirement to reduce the amount of smoke in the air, but being around smoke is part of your job as a bartender because a lot of people at bars smoke. It's part of the job, you knew that going into it.

What bullshit; this is what a real smokescreen looks like.

Aside from the asinine appeals to tradition, you're basically saying that these people have no right to health and safety in the workplace because you said so. There is nothing, nothing about bartending or waitress work that implies having to suck down second-hand smoke. The only thing you are arguing is that 'in the past, you had to deal with smoke, so you will always have to deal with it'.

Like it or not, regulations advance. Mine safety has gotten better, factory standards raised. In the early 1900's, construction workers knew going in that they could die from falling from skyscrapers. You think that kind of crap is acceptable today?

As much as I'd like to just "me too" this whole post and not get into it further...

Secondhand smoke can cause serious health problems. It isn't just an annoyance like the smell of sauerkraut or the sight of square-dancing; it's something that can cause real complications. What if the waitress has asthma? Should she just...not be a waitress? Why not?

We have labor laws that are built around the idea that everyone is entitled to a safe work environment and that disabilities which don't directly prohibit the performance of a certain job can't exclude one from employment. A bartender with asthma or an allergy to cigarette smoke is no less entitled to be a bartender than is anyone else, and a bartender is no less entitled to a safe work environment than is a construction worker.

If "they knew about it before they took the job" were a legitimate excuse for exposing workers to health hazards, black lung disease would never have been a legal liability, asbestos would never have popped up on anyone's radar, and companies wouldn't have to pay to shield employees from radiation if they decided that training new hires was less expensive than keeping current employees alive.


--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

I'm all for the ban in public places. As somewhat of a smoker, I've probably got reason to be outraged at the bar ban, but, I see where they're coming from. Sure, I won't be able to sit down in a warm, indoorsy place and have a cigarette and a chat with a friend, but I can see a lot of bars here erecting some sort of gazebo or outdoor shelter with benches and whatnot for smokers - the barmaid at my local pub is already thinking of doing such a thing.
It's a nuisance, but I think in everyday bars, non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer a risk of smoking-related illnesses and sore eyes and throats just so I can be a little more comfortable. Ideally, I'd like to see a designated smoking area at a bar, a well-ventilated place some distance from the non-smoking area, or the lisencing ideas others have put forward, but, whatever.

This post has been edited by Mimic on 21st November 2006 21:25

Smoking is a legal activity. Working at a place where smoking is allowed is a known health risk. We can go in circles and circles around it but bars are smoke filled environments and if you work there you know that. If you are saying smoking is inherently wrong and doesn't belong in bars that is one thing, but you can't say it doens't belong in bars because it's bad for employees because that's part of being a bar employee.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 16:38)

Smoking is a legal activity. Working at a place where smoking is allowed is a known health risk. We can go in circles and circles around it but bars are smoke filled environments and if you work there you know that. If you are saying smoking is inherently wrong and doesn't belong in bars that is one thing, but you can't say it doens't belong in bars because it's bad for employees because that's part of being a bar employee.

So, could you actually address what your detractors said, maybe?

For instance,

Quote

If "they knew about it before they took the job" were a legitimate excuse for exposing workers to health hazards, black lung disease would never have been a legal liability, asbestos would never have popped up on anyone's radar, and companies wouldn't have to pay to shield employees from radiation if they decided that training new hires was less expensive than keeping current employees alive.

Being exposed to radiation used to be an integral part to working with radioactive substances. Being exposed to asbestos used to be part of working in construction. When the dangers were exposed, did they fire the workers who didn't like it? No. They altered the situation to accomodate the workers' reasonable demands for safe working conditions.

Smoking is not an integral part of a bar. Bars sell drinks. That's their primary purpose. After that, I guess, they provide a place for people to hang out. Smoking is, at best, a peripheral part of going to a bar, even if it currently happens to be ubiquitous. Eliminating smoking from the bar scene doesn't remove their primary function--they can still sell drinks, people can still hang out. (Clearly, this is true--bars did not shut down and cease to exist when smoking bans went into effect!) We all know how important it is to smokers that they be allowed to have a cigarette when and where they want because they might explode otherwise, but does that really outweigh the right of a bartender to not die of lung cancer?

This post has been edited by karasuman on 21st November 2006 21:51

--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

I LOVE the smoking ban in Chicago. I don't know how it works in some of the places you guys have been talking about, but in Chicago through June of next year, smoking is legal in bars within 15 feet of the bar itself, or if your bar has a special ventilation system. In June it will be outlawed outright (I think they're making an exception for the cigar bars with ventilation systems.) As someone who is allergic to cigarette smoke, this has greatly increased my business as bars (I don't know how much it helps them, as I don't drink either, but I bet there are a lot more people like me in Chicago.) I also noticed there are more smoking bars popping up in Chicago near the bar scenes, so smokers will have someplace to go. We'll see the effects of our ban a lot more next summer, but personally, I'm all for it.

--------------------

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

Quote (karasuman @ 21st November 2006 16:44)

Smoking is not an integral part of a bar.

We can dance around the other stuff but this is our core disagreement. I've already admitted I had no problem with requirements for things like ventilation to reduce risk of developing health problems while working at a place where smoking is allowed. I've already acknowledged that I was ok with a solution that placed a general ban on smoking at bars but allowed places to acquire a license to allow it.

I think there are a number of people who go to bars to drink and smoke. Because these are both legal activities an establishment should be allowed to say you can do both of these things at my establishment. Since the establishment is setting up that smoking is a reason that people come there, you don't immediately get protection from smoking when you choose to work there.

Asbestos isn't used in new construction anymore because it is not integral.

Unfortunately we still need coal miners, so people still develop black lung. Measures are taken to reduce the chance of this, but it still happens.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Well in parts of Canada we already have this type of law in place. I'm a smoker, but I cna't say that I mind it so much. I'd rather have to stand outside than sit inside a smokey bar and breathe it in more than necessary (not that smoking is necessary at all ). I don't even smoke inside my own home cause I don't like the smell.

--------------------

Quote

Do you think we're forever?

I think all these anti-smoking laws are terrible. It is just the first step towards more laws like setting a number people could drink at a bar, etc. I have one friend that smokes and that is bull that we cannot go to a bar or resturant cause he smokes. The law passed in Ohio, but the bar we still go to, still allows it which I like. Of course its not one of those fancy dance clubs, it is more of what you call a dive bar which is what I like since it is a place to not put up with idiots and loud music and they really do not pay attention to that stupid law.

--------------------

War is for the participants a test of character; it makes bad men worse and good men better. - Joshua Chamberlain

U sir R a n00b >:-( - Cactuar

Quote

I have one friend that smokes and that is bull that we cannot go to a bar or resturant cause he smokes

There's a big difference between cannot and will not. You guys can't go to certain bars because you choose not to.

If your friend could accept one hour of his life not having a cigarette in it, then you could go to a nice restaurant. If your friend could accept one evening of drinking without smoking, then he could go out to a dance club/bar type setting with you.

I'm sorry.... I don't know your friend or anything about him, but if he limits the places you two can go hang out solely because he won't go anywhere that he can't smoke, then he sounds pretty damn selfish to me.

This post has been edited by Hamedo on 22nd November 2006 13:24

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Nicotine addiction is no joke. It's less of a choice than you think.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (The Ancient @ 22nd November 2006 08:06)

Nicotine addiction is no joke. It's less of a choice than you think.

If someone can't go one hour, with the majority of that hour being taken up anyway by food and drink, without sucking down a cancer stick.... then God help em'.

I say the same thing to nicotine addicts that I do alcoholics. If you want to quit, then man up, Nancy, and just do it. Don't whine about how hard it is. Get in a treatment program. Get on the patch. Buy that nasty tasting gum. Find Jesus. DO SOMETHING. Don't sit there and whine about your addiction, though, and how it inconveniences you when places don't allow it.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Hamedo @ 22nd November 2006 08:27)

I say the same thing to nicotine addicts that I do alcoholics. If you want to quit, then man up, Nancy, and just do it.

Nicotine addiction is not the same as alcoholicism. You have to work to become an alcoholic, cigerrettes do all the work for you with Nicotine addiction. It's really not something you are qualified to comment on unless you've gone through it yourself. Most smokers who try to quit fail and most who succeed admit it's the one of the toughest things they've ever had to do in their lives.

That being said, to get to the point where you can't go an hour without smoking takes a long, long time. But it doesn't take that long for it to become difficult to do a whole night of drinking without a cigerrette.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

My father smoked more than a pack a day for over 15 years. When I was 5, I was diagnosed with severe asthma, with no family history. The doctor basically told my father there was a 99% chance he was the cause.

Guess what? He never smoked again.

Point is, nicotine addiction can be beaten the same as any other addiction with a little willpower. Most people just can't accept that.

This post has been edited by A_True_Stigma on 22nd November 2006 14:32

--------------------

With the lights out
It's less dangerous

With all the crackheads in my town that go to the bar, regular nicotine smoking is hardly the worst thing in the world. I don't smoke (anything) but I do drink occasionally and though I don't like being a "victim" of second-hand smoke, I've been exposed to second-hand smoking almost all my life that it wouldn't make a damn bit difference to me one way or the other.
Soon, they'll probably look to take away the little smoking sections in other places.

--------------------

"Thought I was dead, eh? Not until I fulfill my dream!"
Seifer Almasy


"The most important part of the story is the ending."
Secret Window


"Peace is but a shadow of death."
Kuja

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 19:00)

We can dance around the other stuff but this is our core disagreement. I've already admitted I had no problem with requirements for things like ventilation to reduce risk of developing health problems while working at a place where smoking is allowed. I've already acknowledged that I was ok with a solution that placed a general ban on smoking at bars but allowed places to acquire a license to allow it.

The core disagreement has nothing to do with smoking being part of a bar or not. In fact, the disagreement is in that very statement, but it blows by your head at supersonic speeds because you're so dead-set in your argument that you just assume it's factual.

Explain why smoking 'being integral' overrides the health and safety of workers.

And don't try to weasel out by saying you never said such things. You implied it here and it fits the context perfectly:

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 19:00)

Since the establishment is setting up that smoking is a reason that people come there, you don't immediately get protection from smoking when you choose to work there.

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 19:00)

Asbestos isn't used in new construction anymore because it is not integral.

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

The ban in Scotland, as Del says, has been a total success. It's amazing how the whole situation changed literally overnight. I used to smoke when I drank, so I was a smoker. After the laws I obviously couldn't smoke in the clubs I go to; and I've stopped smoking! So not only has the law made passive smoking less of a problem but people like me have given up the cigs altogether. I'm not sure why I smoked in the first place. It was probably because a smoke and a pint go so well together

If the businesses had their way and continued to allow smokers in their premises... I would still be a smoker, many more people would die, and the already declining health of our countries would be exacerbated. Sometimes the government should have the final word.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote

Sometimes the government should have the final word

Agreed, but only on a select few number of things. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't trust the government to change a lightbulb correctly and cost-efficiently.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Elessar @ 22nd November 2006 13:07)

Explain why smoking 'being integral' overrides the health and safety of workers.

And don't try to weasel out by saying you never said such things. You implied it here and it fits the context perfectly:

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 19:00)

Since the establishment is setting up that smoking is a reason that people come there, you don't immediately get protection from smoking when you choose to work there.

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st November 2006 19:00)

Asbestos isn't used in new construction anymore because it is not integral.

I'm only responding because you are so deadset to argue against me directly but here you go since you missed the connection:

I'm saying that in an establishment that sells itself as a place where you can go to smoke, smoking is an integral part of said establishment.

Did I lose you? Continuing on....

Construction can occur without asbestos. You lose some fire resistance, but I'm living in a home built without asbestos so it looks like it's possible to make a building without it. Therefore Asbestos is not an integral part of a construction project.

Next time you wanna hurl insults my way make sure you actually understand what I'm saying before you do it.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 22nd November 2006 20:13

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"