Question for people who support smoking bans....

If smoking bans in fact increases business instead of hurting them, why don't restaurant and bar owners simply go to a total no-smoking policy without government intervention?

By the sake of owning a business?

They can't keep one a float.

If there wasn't a ban on smoking I don't know how a public business could ban it on its own. Might have resulted in lawsuits and a hassle that wasn't worth it.

is what I was thinking of.

Heely's, those rollerskate sneakers, aren't illegal. But they are banned from nearly every store in town. It should be up to the business owners.

"No shoes. No service" policy.

But your on the right track.

Arkansas when I left there for smoke-free paradise, California. Eleven years ago, two restaurants had gone no smoking. They were the only two I went to. Now Arkansas does not allow smoking in public places.

Why was it necessary if the restaurants were doing well?

experience that businesses rarely change unless they have to. Maybe it is better for business but the other way was the way it always was done and change doesn't come easy.

My absolutely worst smoking experience was years ago on Christmas Eve. Mr Pip and I went to a nice restaurant for an early dinner. There was a guy in the middle of the restaurant who lit up a big fat cigar that was foul beyond belief. This one person pretty much ruined our dinner.

Smoking bans really don't inconvenience the smoker that much and give everyone else the opportunity for a pleasant evening.

IF I could have thrown up in that guy's lap, I might have done so. He polluted the entire restaurant and we ended up leaving as quickly as we could.

that businesses change when they see an economic opportunity.

they need a little push. I think it was of the general opinion that "No Smoking" would be bad for business. It wasn't until there were actual no smoking bans in place that businesses noticed that those bans didn't hurt them.

I'd rather they came to that conclusion on their own. But they didn't.

Why the need to have an outright ban?

of legality. It's hard to ban something unless it's already illegal.

They seem to have come out of the increasing indicators that second had smoke was hazardous to your health. I think if that was not the case they wouldn't have happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

Requiring everyone to follow the same licensing, building codes, health regulations, ordinances, and other regulations puts everyone on an even keel.

If every restaurant and bar owners is required to prohibit smokers then the only ones that suffer will be the ones that aren't good business managers.

their business might suffer a great deal, and you know what I would make a conscious choice to avoid places that are that smoky.

for awhile the bars suffered, but people adjusted. They have regained their business. I love singing karaoke, and it's great to be able to go and not come home with clothes that need to be burned and hair that stinks.

I like going somewhere and not smelling like an ashtray later, but just because i like something a certain way, doesn't necessarily give me the right to enforce my preference on a business owner.

Why not let people who own the crops spray whatever they want on them, and let the people decide. After all, just because I like to have pesticide-free food doesn't give me the right to enforce my preference on a business owner.

Well....

The type of chemicals that a person sprays on their crops can affect a lot more than the people who eat the crops, it can affect the ground water, species that might be killed by the bad chemicals, it could be put in the public air, etc....

Deciding to allow people engage in a perfectly legal activity(smoking) in our own business establishment is dealing with a group of people who have decided to be around it. What I dislike is that the nanny staters (it's on both sides of the political aisle) feel that there own personal preference has to be made a law.

It affects everyone else in the bar as well.

Let me ask, do you support allowing smoking on airplanes and in the workplace?

airplanes...It's not like I can step outside and get away from the smoke, not to mention the enormous fire hazard it would cause.

Having a smoker's lounge is perfectly fine and allowing smoking breaks is a compromise. Again..not banning it all together.

I might have to fly if I need to go home for example. It would take a long time to drive. I can avoid getting a drink at a bar if I don't want to be around smoke.

Interesting fact....In my hometown, which has recently passed a smoking ban, there are two comedy clubs, one allows smoking, the other doesn't. I always make a point to go to the one that doesn't. You know why? Cause I am an adult who makes an economic choice based on which place is more appealing to me.

I drink, I like me some beer :) But that means I will have more health issues than those that don't (well, not always, I have known many non-drinkers and non-smokers that had way more health issues).

When does my life end and yours begin? In a public place we are (or were...) both free to go to? It is not like anyone is FORCING someone to go to a bar (where we have beer) where people smoke. And second hand drinking DOES affect me (I am sure I can find ways to prove that - like health stats, drunking driving, etc and so on).

I would not dream of forcing someone who did not smoke to go to a bar. I CAN see regulations on places people NEED to go - like a courthouse, hospital, etc and so on.

But a fucking bar???? Or a place to eat when you could eat at home? A supermarket? Sure. I am down with that, we all need to go there.

But places people CHOOSE to go to?

That is where some of us draw the line.

indeed.

:-)

Drinking does not equal drunken driving. It is not a sine qua non of drinking that you a)overindulge and b)drive afterwards.

Smoking on the other hand DOES equal ETS. There is no way to avoid smoke when smoking (although there is some new battery powered nicotine inhaler I saw a week or so ago which might change that - and which absolutely should be allowed in public places if so). Smoking has to, always and every time, impact those around the smoker in a public accommodation. Drinking very very rarely does. Even if we buy the ridiculously inflated "alcohol related" "druink driving" figures those numbers are tiny compared to the number of drinkers. ETS kills three times the number of people that "drunk driving" does, and yet drinkers outnumber smokers three to one.

That said, such calculus concerning aftereffects is not the main point. the main point is that smoking always and every time affects anyone around the smoker. To be equivalent, each drinker would have to force backwash down the throats of every person in the room. Sound disgusting? What else are smokers doing where it's not banned?

DEAD

I'm 76. I've been smoking cigarettes and marijuana for well over half a century. In 12 more years it will be 3/4 of a century. My heart and lungs are fine for a person of my age. Hell my heart and lungs are fine for a 50 year old. I attribute this good health to stress free living. That's what's really bad for you. Stress will kill you quicker than cigarettes. I just don't stress out over anything. Some people never learned how to inhale and I never learned how to stress out. Just like smoking. It's a learned behavior. I never learned how to do it. If politicians were really concerned about peoples health they would outlaw stress.

People still smoke in those bars. I was in CA when the ban passed, and people were still smoking in the bars.

nbc4i recently did some reporting on the smoking ban in Ohio and found that most bars still had people smoking in them, they just did not have ashtrays.

I was in a bar in Ohio when the police came in because some guy stole a woman's purse. The guy checking ID's was smoking as were many patrons and waitresses. The cops did not care a wit.

The reason the bans are not having an affect is that most people ignore them :)

You'll get thrown out of any place if you light up anywhere.

Cause we all like to have things taken away for our own good :)

EVEN IF it worked 'well' for a business does not make it 'right' (okay, maybe it makes it 'right' wing).

Like the ban on smoking in airplanes and the workplace. People were just as outraged when that was banned as they are now.

Maybe we should let people put asbestos in their houses as well. After all, the government should not take things away.

i am FINE with banning in places people NEED to go. Cool with me.

But places people CHOOSE to go?

Uh, no.

karaoke host, cocktail server, bartender, bouncer, etc etc. Should people have to make their choice of profession revolve around whether the state is willing to protect the health of all workers or just some workers?

I went into it, knowing I was going to be around smoke, I was one of the few non-smokers who worked there. I didn't stay one for that same reason.

Holy shit. What country were you in again? ;)

I didn't want to get shot either for something as stupid as a drunken argument.

we don't NEED bars. You can drink at home.

Bars mean more electricity used, more people on the roads, and hell - karaoke hosts? They are using even more electricity.

And that means more pollution in our atmosphere.

Plus, most those people have to drive to bars (which as I noted we don't need), and that is forcing me to breathe your car exhaust.

It keeps going and going....

A few bars tried letting regulars smoke late at night, but they're taking a risk of someone filing a complaint.

Why do we desire to limit the freedoms of others and tell them how to live - like the person who owns a bar, the people who choose to work there, and the people who choose to go there?

There is a real simple solution if one wants to involve the govt and laws: for every one bar/food joint opened in a town that allows smoking, then the next license goes to one that does not.

But some people fear choice and people being able to control their own bodies and with whom they do business with.

It is all about control of others for the good of all - and making sure you exist to serve the greater good.

At one point we had the freedom to choose things, then people who did not like those choices came to power. And they weren't all religious fundies wanting to save the flock from sin. Some were on the left and wanting to save us from our sinful ways as well.

Between the two sides of the fundie isle I think we are less free now than before. We are either living to serve some god, or living to serve someone else's idea of being sin free and a god we know little about (but who is invoked with the same idea of us being saved from our sinful selves).

I wish people would quit trying to save me and my friends and leave us the hell alone.

But then, some people get off on telling me how to live.

whats best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.

Rush-Witch Hunt.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/witchhunt.html

Cause they were gonna kill me dead :) We banned their ass something good...

See what happens when you extrapolate it all out? We can find many things that will harm us and then eliminate those things.

Someday people will see that we humans threaten other humans (those in power) and they will wipe many of us out to protect themselves and the planet.

I won't be one of those lining up at the firing squad to protect those folks who see me as a drain on resources and a threat to the well being of 'all'. Because all too often 'all' is an elite group who wants to tell others how bad I am for living my one life on this planet freely.

They peddle fear instead of choice and freedom.

If serving wholesome food and following proper food handling procedures increases a restaurant's business instead of hurting it, why don't restaurant and bar owners simply forego government food handler licensing and health department interventions? If people want to be poisoned by improperly prepared food, then that's their right, and the government has no right to interfere. Surely after the first half dozen or so deaths, the free market would put the offending restaurant out of business. It would kind of suck to be one of those killed, but isn't the magic of free markets worth a few people getting ptomaine poisoning to avoid government interference?

Hmmm. Sounds kind of stupid to me. Maybe I need to read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. Or would a lobotomy be cheaper?

How about this....let's ban every possible thing that could be harmful in some way to us. Let's ban alcohol, cause it causes people to drive drunk and it worked so well last time. Let's ban fatty food because it is causing the obesity epidemic and contributing diseases. Let's ban not just ban smoking in bars, but practically every possible place that you might come into contact with other people.

I mean seriously, are you honestly going to equate a smoking ban with proper handling of food?

Not at all. Just presenting it in black and white, which seems to be the default mode of thinking for so many people nowadays, even some folks here at DU. So I'm not surprised it flew right over some pointy little noggins.

posting on the internet is using up electricity, which is harming the environment, and thus people like me.

it causes pollution, it adds to green house gases (your monitor and computer both), it creates more work for techies who have to drive cars from place to place (which pollutes a lot, and adds emissions to the air *I* breathe).

Please stop posting and having open discussions with others as it is killing me.

And science is on my side on this issue. So shut down your computer now, turn off your TV, and for god's sake turn in your car (and don't go to the grocery store either as they use a lot of electricity, grow your own foods).

Why do governments not ban smoking altogether? Answer: they want the tax revenue.

Where I live, smoking in restaurants is legal. Yet hardly anyone does it, and I know of only one restaurant with a smoking section and several that have no smoking policies because there just weren't enough people wanting to light up to make it worthwhile to irritate all the families that make a point of not exposing children to tobacco smoke.

Bars may be a different situation. I wouldn't know, because respiratory allergy kept me from ever forming a habit of going to clubs for entertainment, what with asthma attacks not being my idea of fun.

Do you have some elaborate theory that people who drink and eat more because smoking cause a better overall labor market than if those same dollars were spent on other goods or services?


A dollar spent on a movie rental or car wash is still paying somebody's wage in the local economy.

that since California restaurants went non-smoking you can't get a decent meal anywhere.

Oh. You can?

Never mind.

I did recently read that restaurants tend to do better when non-smoking because the tables turn over faster. I do not know if that's true or not, but if it is, it certainly makes a lie out of the claim that a non-smoking policy or law is bad for business. Plus, about three-quarters of people don't smoke, and as expensive as cigarettes are, it's the non-smokers who have more money to spend on other things.

That way, nobody's feelings will get hurt and nobody will take it personally, if you can blame it on the law.

Businesses don't want to insult their loyal customers.

Everybody does it at the same time for the same reason. Risks and rewards are shared equally.

the tobacco companies feed them a line of bull, and it works.

If they looked at research, instead of media tripe, they'd get the picture real quick.

You should try it too!