Bar Owners May Turn Tables On Smoking Ban Lawmakers

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Dee this thread is making me laugh because some people obviously have no clue what this group is trying to do.

No, we actually get that.

They want bar owners to have a CHOICE to go smoke free or not. They want their customers to have a CHOICE if they want to go to a smoking or smoke free bar.

Yeah we get that too. But see technically bar owners have always had a "CHOICE" to do that and for the most part, haven't. Instead bars and restaurants had magical non-smoking sections where a high back on a booth somehow kept the smoke from wafting over it.

There are a few bars in the area where it would be stupid for them to allow smoking because they have gotten busier. Then there are the hole in the wall bars that have lost business (even closed) because the majority of their clientele are smokers.

And that's a result of any sort of legislation change. But is it actually the case that the bars closed due to smokers or due to the economy. People threatened doom and destruction in Illinois as well and while I know some bars shut down, many more have done well and new ones have opened. The hole in the walls still exist too, and they literally put a picnic table outside for the smokers.

The bar that I go to lost a TON of business after the ban. Once they decided to protest the ban, the bar is once again busy.

That's a shame. Their patrons won't ever get used to the change and won't come back after they're force to comply with the law.

And if we're going to talk about safety for employees, let's ban alcohol!

98% of the time, alcohol will not cause problems for an employee. There is no second hand vapors that will give her liver disease during the average course of her job.

How many times have I seen little waitresses get knocked around trying to break up a bar fight between drunken idiots?

That's assault and the police should have been called, there's already a law that protects against that.

Or how about strippers? I mean, they put themselves in danger because guys are groping them and they could be molested while giving a lap dance.

What. If they're molested during a lapdance that's illegal and again, there is a law that protects against that. This argument doesn't make sense.

There's danger in every job. I work at a company that does job recruiting (which has become huge in our area). How easily could an employee go ape shit when they've been laid off, fired, or an assignment finished?

There are laws and protections against that. But simply working there isn't giving you cancer.

Rick- you can't smoke in Windsor Casino either. And let's talk about the ventilation system at the casinos. I'm a smoker and have trouble breathing in there. I stink like an ash tray, WORSE than the smoking bars, when I leave.

Which is why Illinois didn't exempt casinos. There's no way to separate non-smoking from smoking because even special ventilation systems to crap. Private clubs, fraternal organizations, and home based businesses are all included. Because there's no effective way to prevent that. Hotels and nursing homes are about the only workplace that get to have "smoking rooms" and tobacco shops are exempt. That's it.


So in short: we do understand, we just disagree with you.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by 33girl

That must be some sort of secret thing to make you gamble more, because the brand spankin' new casino here in Pittsburgh is the same way. And I go to the smokiest, hole-in-the-walliest, dive bars in town.

I went to the Four Winds Casino in New Buffalo, Michigan, and I don't feel any smokier when I leave. Maybe they just have better ventilation? Their non-smoking area is teeny tiny, though, and all the good machines are in the smoking section. Live-in (non-smoker) has never complained, but maybe he's just used to it?

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The hole in the walls still exist too, and they literally put a picnic table outside for the smokers.

I can't lie, I love those picnic tables and decent smoking areas (with an ashtray) outside of bars here. I don't mind not being able to smoke in bars at all, even in the winter, even in negative 47 degrees (it's not likely I'd be at a bar in that weather anyway). I don't smoke in my house, either.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

I'm a smoker....

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Dee this thread is making me laugh because some people obviously have no clue what this group is trying to do.

Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we don't understand.

And if we're going to talk about safety for employees, let's ban alcohol! How many times have I seen little waitresses get knocked around trying to break up a bar fight between drunken idiots? Or how about strippers? I mean, they put themselves in danger because guys are groping them and they could be molested while giving a lap dance.

Again, apples and oranges. There is a difference between working in an environment where accidents (or stupid things) could happen and working in an environment where it is impossible to breathe uncontaminated air.

As for bars closing because people would rather go where they can smoke, how does that work if there aren't any bars where you can smoke, so there's nowhere else to go?

Again, while there was certainly some complaining, I don't remember a deluge of bar-closings when the ban went into effect here.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So in short: we do understand, we just disagree with you.

Yep.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

MA has been smoke-free for quite a long time now. CT has been for a while, too.

There are way more than two states who are smoke free.

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




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.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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




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.

[AGDLynn]

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

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Take their business elsewhere?

I find it interesting that North Carolina of all places is one of only two states (I think) that bans smoking in bars and restaurants, and it's been relatively uncontroversial. Many if not most municipalities had banned it a long time ago.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Oh, and that's definitely New Hampshire

LOL

(It's been a long day.)

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

No?

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Jinx, MysticCat!

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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




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.

Oh, and that's definitely New Hampshire