City of Dallas just passed an ordinance banning smoking in restaurants and bars effective last Saturday (March 1). The bar and restaurant owners are up in arms over it, claiming they'll lose business to restaurants and clubs in cities that do allow it.

Smoking goes part and parcel with bars. That's part of the ambiance, that's part of the culture. You drink, you smoke, you induldge every vice that one can in a public place legally, and then you leave.

I grew up in MD, where there are strict no-smoking laws for resturants and such. But the bars were untouched. And while I do understand it for resturants, and when I'm having bad patches with my lungs, I appreciate it as well, you can't touch bars in that regard. You'd loose buisness horrifically. In PA, where I'm at college, you don't tell a pack of guys who've come to the bar to drink in -20 weather to take the cigarettes outside, especially when the alcohol can't leave the premises open. It's too cold for the porches for most of the year. Our fav bar in town works it fairly well, in my opinion. There's a smoking section with the bar downstairs as well as seating to eat, and the non-smoking section is upstairs. You can still order drinks from the bar, but you don't sit at it. It works.

The point is, if you don't like smokers in bars, then don't go to bars. Go to a non-smoking club or resturant instead.

~Emma

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the Florida law does not apply to bars. It only applies to restaraunts. Businesses that want to allow smoking must have a certain percentage of their profits (I forget how much) from the sale of alcohol.

So, you can still go have a drink and smoke. You just can't go out to dinner, order a drink and blow your smoke all over the place.

Personally, the best analogy to smoking and non-smoking sections in a resteraunt is to have a peeing and non-peeing side of a pool. It makes just as much sense.

In California the law is part of the labor code and you cannot have people smoke in the workplace, including restaurants and bars that are enclosed by four walls. In the beginning a lot of restuarants tried to make themselves into clubs where the employees were owners and the patrons paid a membership fee and were allowed to smoke but the state cracked down on them. Now there are a lot of bars that won't tell people to stop most of the time, but for the most part people are pretty good about not smoking as much. I can't wait for it to apply outside as well. It's revolting to be waiting in line for a movie and have the person in front of you in line light up. There isn't anywhere you can go to get away. Or when you are at an outdoor mall or want to eat lunch on the patio. Basically, the law has made it so that non-smokers don't get to dine on the patio anymore b/c that's where all the smokers are.

In Boston they're just getting along to passing a law banning smoking in bars, and surrounding towns have the law already.

I'm not a big fan of it - I'm not a smoker, but I still think those who do should have the right.

there was some talk about banning smoking in bars and clubs but i dont really included in the current law

Actually, the bars here haven't. A lot of people use this response to stop a number of laws that are actually good for us.

On another note, the idea of restricting free will and action is a good one to discuss. However, your right to swing your hand stops when my face is in the way. The same with smoking. Second hand smoke is really harmful and hard to get away from (don't tell me to go to another restaraunt, b/c most all of them will have smokers). That's why this law is justified.
-M

you can't be serious. :mad:

you're going to tell me that because YOU want to smoke and put smoke in the air for other people to breathe that I should have to go somewhere else?

smokers are unbelievably selfish in my opinion.

give me a break.:rolleyes:

that is the best analogy i have heard!!!

very well said!:D

I think it's a great idea.

I don't see how not allowing people to smoke in restaurants infringes on somebody's rights but doing something that negatively affects the health of others doesn't infringe on their rights. Smoke allergies are increasingly common these days. I have a friend who has asthma attacks if he's exposed to too much smoke, so whenever we go out to eat we have to avoid the restaurants with smoking sections. Honestly, when it's your "right" to do something you enjoy vs. somebody else's right to not have their health compromised, I think the smokers are going to lose out here. I wouldn't be surprised if laws like this are passed pretty much everywhere in the next 10-15 years.

The line about bars losing customers if they outlaw smoking is totally ridiculous, too. It's true that a bar that forbids smoking often loses business, but that's because the smokers just take their business to another bar. If all the bars in one city (or state!) are smoke-free, they're not going to drive outside city (or state) limits just to get a couple drinks. I can picture the smokers bitching about it for a while, boycotting the bars for about two weeks and then eventually coming back. Face it, people are not going to stay out of the bars just because they're not allowed to smoke there. They'll get used to it and take it outside.

I definitely think this law should be passed in all restaurants . . . I'm still undecided about the bars, though.

no, i'm not

yes.

As Winterbloom said, not only does it get frightfully cold here, but we have open container laws. And there are enough zealots around here who think getting rid of open container would be the slippery slope to orgies on the streets...that open container isn't going away anytime soon. Betweem the 2 evils, people will definitely say "smoke em if you got em!"

The bars that would really get screwed here are the little hometown places with the retired steelworkers and such...those guys have smoked all their lives and at this late date I'm not about to tell them they can't, nor would most bar owners enforce such a law. We have enough laws that aren't being followed, we really don't need another.

I do agree that some of the smoking/non-smoking sections are pretty lame, and if you're over a certain capacity you should have a real division, with walls and separate ventilation. Don't penalize the small business owners though, by making them follow a law that most of their clientele thinks is ridiculous.

Oh, and explain to me the people who are virulently non-smoking but drive gas-guzzling SUVs...what am I missing here? :p

Originally posted by Winterbloom

And while I do understand it for resturants, and when I'm having bad patches with my lungs, I appreciate it as well, you can't touch bars in that regard. You'd loose buisness horrifically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ogiginally posted by XOMichelle

Actually, the bars here haven't. A lot of people use this response to stop a number of laws that are actually good for us.


That has not been the experience in Colorado either, although the bar owners feared the same thing and used the same arguments.

None has closed, and the controversy is no longer heard. Guess there are enough non-smokers to support the establishments, or the smokers have developed enough self-control to wait until they leave to light up.

exactly...and cold weather doesn't seem to stop ppl from smoking outside. Christ if you live in that kind of climate, what's another two minutes outside?

On sunday it was -41 with the wind chill and ppl were smoking. I think it's great, more incentive to quit.