Most of the DFW cities have had smoking bans for years. Smokers will generally go to the establishments that still allow smoking or step outside when they need to. A few of the cities have started forcing patrons farther away from the door, though (went from "step outside" to "10 feet from the door" to "25 feet from the door," etc).

When we got a drink tax here in Allegheny County, many of the bars refused to serve the county council, put up their photos so if you saw them on the street you could tell them what dicks they were, and put a note at the end of their computer receipts that said "thank your County Council for this stupid tax" and a few things that were even ruder.

As far as the smoking ban is concerned, PA has one, but there are TONS of ways to get a waiver, which pretty much shoots a hole in their "we did this so the workers would be protected" argument. They did it under pressure from anti-smoking interest groups, who (of course) now seem to have forgotten all about the workers who are working in bars that are still smoker friendly.

The only absolute is that if you have smoking in your establishment, children under 18 are not allowed in the smoking area. EVER.

There are all sorts of bars and all I can say is if you don't want to work in a smoking bar, don't apply there. If you had a perfume allergy you wouldn't work at Ulta, and if you had a peanut allergy you wouldn't sell them at the ballpark. Around here, what I've seen is the bartenders who work in smoking bars are for the most part, people who've been doing this a LONG time, have a following and could go to another job in a non-smoking bar if they wanted to. The places with the horrible working conditions, misogyny and constant turnover are the corporate-owned or catering-to-college-kids non-smoking bars.

Colorado moved to smoke free restaurants/bars while I was there for my nephew's wedding. Was really funny watching everyone smoke as much as they could before midnight as if it would hold them over forever. Living in CA, I love the fact I can go into a restaurant and not have to smell the smoke. When my son was little he had major problems with respiratory distress and could not be around smoke at all. We were free to take him out to eat with us without having to stress over the situation.

DaffyKD

Tiki Ti
 

California has a very strict smoking ban, but we were in a tiny (12-seat) bar called the Tiki Ti, and they allowed smoking. Why? Because they had no employees; the 3 people that work there are the owner and his two sons. It felt so retro!

My SO smokes, and even he appreciates Pennsylvania's smoking ban, which has cut his smoking down significantly. Plus there's also a ban on indoor smoking at our house, which also helps.

I want to say most of TX is smoke free now (at least EP, HOU, DFW). AFAIK TX left it up to Counties/cities to ban it instead of making a state wide law banning it. It's not bad smoking outside here since the coldest it ever gets here is 40 degrees in the dead of winter. I want to say there are more non-smoking states than smoking states these days anyway.

Thanks to you and everyone else. FWIW, I was looking at this chart from The Wiki:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...g_bans.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ng_ban_key.svg

I read too quickly and just focused on the two pink states -- NC and Vermont. I didn't catch that the white (which is what lots of states are) is in the center of the Venn diagram.

But I still say that if NC of all places -- Tobacco Road, the State that Tobacco Built -- can go tobacco-free in bars, restaurants and public buildings without much controversy, any place ought to be able to.

Though not statewide in Idaho, in my town there is no smoking in bars. Which is great except the smokers stand right outside the door so if you want to go in or walk on the street you have to walk through their cloud. I have crossed to the other side to avoid them, no one enforces the 25 foot rule, not even on campus. However the Boise State campus has gone smoke free, which is kind of interesting as Idaho is kind of a Libertarian "I do what I want" state.

I doubt many lawmakers wear huge buttons that say "LAWMAKER", and most are relatively unknown outside (and maybe inside) their districts.

I'm not a smoker and I don't like being around it, but I actually like the way that PA does it..

Restaurants and bars are exempt from the No Smoking law where 80% or more of the sales comes from alcohol, and where anyone under 18 isn't allowed. In other words, you're allowed to smoke in bars that are only open at night.

I don't really have an issue with this. After attending many college parties where people were smoking, I got used to it. Don't get me wrong.. I'd much prefer to not be around it at all, but I also think establishments where people are drinking and will be staying for hours and hours on end should allow it. The only time that I'm truly bothered by people smoking around me is when I'm eating. And if you can't get through a 45 minute meal without a cigarette, it might be time to pick up some of that special gum they sell at the pharmacy.

Oh, and that's definitely New Hampshire :)

Michigan's has been in effect for well over a year. The only place it is allowed is in the casinos. This is what the bars and restaurants are upset about. They've lost a lot of business to the casinos.

If the concern is for the workers, then why would casinos be exempt? If we really care about workers, then we wouldn't allow mining or steel mills or a lot of the other extremely dangerous jobs out there. It is all about who is in the back pockets of the politicians. Shoot, I worked as a counter girl at the dry cleaner and the chemicals I was exposed to were downright scary.

I think the market should dictate things like this. Yes, there is a market for smoke free restaurants and bars. There is also a market for those that allow smoking. Smokers can choose to work in the places that allow smoking. Given that 22% of the population smokes, it would follow that 20% of the bars and restaurants could allow smoking.

LOL :o

(It's been a long day.)

Apples and oranges. In mills or mines, the danger is inherent in the job. There is nothing about serving people food or drink that requires breathing smoke.

I think concern for workers is part of the equation (and I agree with those who say finding other jobs is often easier said than done), but I think there are other concerns as well.

And I wouldn't exempt casinos . . . if we had them here.

While I agree with you (in terms of the casinos), I think this argument falls short. There's a difference between on-the-job dangers, and those that are brought on by employees. If I'm looking for a part-time job, I could work at Subway, McDonald's, the ice cream shop down the street, I could babysit my neighbor's kids, or work at a dry cleaners. I might look at all of those and think, "Which will cause me the most harm?" and eliminate the dry cleaners from the list. I'm still left with 80% of my original options.

However, let's say smoking is allowed in all of those places. Now my possibility of getting a job has gone from 100% down to 0.

I'm not arguing that smoking should definitely not be allowed anywhere, I'm just making a point that you're really comparing apples and oranges.

Jinx, MysticCat! :)

I think there would be less backlash if they banned it in the casinos also though.

There is a county here that has also banned transfats from being used in restaurants, which I also think is B.S. I just think that should be the business owner's decision, not something that should be regulated. I also think that should be the choice of the person who goes to a restaurant. If someone wants to eat transfats, they should be allowed to.