Smoking in bars and restaurants.

from JoeUser Forums

The recent debate in local newspapers and radio in the Twin Cities has to do with a smoking ban in bars and restaurants.  Hennepin County (where Minneapolis is located) currently has a ban on smoking in all bars and restaurants.

Bar owners and pulltab-dependent charities have cried foul, as bar patrons have given up Hennepin County bars and restaurants in favor of those in neighboring counties without such restrictions.  (Bars in cities bordering other counties are claiming more severe difficulties.)  Bar owners have pushed for making a ban state-wide if there has to be one at all.

(Of course a state-wide ban would drive potential smoker-drinkers to Wisconsin, the Dakotas, and possibly Ontario, thus hurting other border cities...)

I suppose that younger drinkers and grizzled bar veterans enjoy going out to bars to drink and to socialize, and to smoke if they want.  This may be an opportunity for some disgruntled bar patrons to take up drinking at home.  Drinking at home offers: cheaper drinks, no smoking ban, far less risk of getting caught driving while drunk, and no necessity to tip anyone. 

I suppose that the lesson that we learn from all of this is that people like to stack up their compulsive activities: smoking, drinking, gambling, stuff like that.  It is hard to make new laws regulating them

5,631 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, if the smoking police here in Wisconsin have any say, Minnesotans won't be able to come to Wisconsin to smoke in bars either. The Fox Valley has passed similar stupidity, with the same results. So, like in MInnesota and other states, the smoking police want to make it a state law.

Who are those blowhards to tell a bar or restaurant owner what he or she can and cannot allow in their establishments? To me these idiots are no different than the jurors who award huge sums of stupidity money to people who sew McDonalds because somehow they missed the memo that eating 20 hamburgers a week would make them fat.

Guess what folks, in America we have the right to make unhealthy choices. Among those unhealthy choices is the right of restaurant and bar owners to allow their patrons to take part in legal activities (such as smoking, drinking and eating vast quantities of fatty foods).

I'm not a smoker, and I hate the smell of smoke. I make choices about what business I prefer to spend my money based on my biased against smoke... I don't know why on earth someone with an opposite bias shouldn't have the same choices.

I'm also all for community standards dictating local public policy and if enough people are travelling to bars and restaurants in other cities, counties and states that it is effecting local business... I'd say the standards of the community are evident.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Believe it or not;

I live in the heart of Tobbaco country, the local mall is named "Golden East Crossing" and has a tobbaco leaf in its logo, and yes, the out of town management just banned smoking in the mall.

Downtown merchants are ecstatic ! There only problem is dealing with failing infrastructure and crime, but you can smoke til yer hearts content.

Cosmopolitan Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Durham and surrounding enclaves of "Damned Yankees" have all passed ordinances limiting the ability to light up in public, while local farmers drive tractors to Washington in protest....

Damn, my ash fell in my lap.............
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Smoking in public places was banned here a couple of years ago. Of course, people were up in arms about it at first, but now, things seem to have calmed down. Several places have tried to make accomodations to their smoking customers by making smoking patios, and having heat lamps outside for them when it gets cold and such.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Many places near D.C., and even D.C. itself have banned smoking in the workplace, including bars and restaurants.

As a non-smoker I really appreciate being able to taste my food and not the smokey flavor added by the smoke of patrons in the establishment. It doesn't get rid of the nicotine taste of food prep workers that have just returned from a smoke break that handled the food or the plates, trays, etc., but it helps. (And if the employees washed their hands as the laws required, even those issues wouldn't really be a problem).

In the case of the D.C. area establishments that were crying about the bans, as their neighboring areas got a bit more progressive (and in some ways fiscally conservative about health care costs) and enacted the same types of bans, they saw their business remain the same or even perhaps come back up more than before.

For all of the cries that cutting out smoking cuts down on the bar business, the restauranteurs haven't been able to prove it in their profit statements, and for all of the talk that not allowing smoking in the restaurants keeps down business in general because smokers won't go out to those restaurants, again they've not been able to show any gain or loss. It's as if smokers are replaced by non-smokers, or smokers just learn to go longer between smokes while out for their dinner.

Again, either way it's good for me (a non-smoker).


But, as I've done before, I would defend to the death -- or at least very vocally -- the right of someone that wants to smoke to smoke in their own car, home, or other property, or in a well ventilated public area where they won't be adversely affecting others.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
An argument for banning smoking in bars is that fewer people -who might call themselves "social smokers"- would feel pressured to take up the habit, with the possibility of eventually becoming addicted.

Smoking is a bad thing, and it would be good if people were less often placed in situations where there is pressure to smoke in order to conform to the group norm.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Guess what folks, in America we have the right to make unhealthy choices


only if the unhealthy choice in question is mainstream. others are denied us to save us from destroying civilization and ourselves. (the last story i sold--cuz it was the last one i wrote--imagined a future in which euphoria no longer required anything more than software; of course, the that kinda spp was illegal to possess.)

I live in the heart of Tobbaco country, the local mall is named "Golden East Crossing" and has a tobbaco leaf in its logo, and yes, the out of town management just banned smoking in the mall.


now this upsets me. those who grow, cure, process and package tobacco should not only be free to smoke--a lot--but encouraged, if not coerced.


i haven't hadda smoke since the first weekend of october; over the past 10 years, i've spent a lotta time outside smoking. it never really bothered me that much even tho it can be a pain in the ass when you're in a car owned by a non-smoker. (btw, i've liked the smell of smoke since i can remember; i must associate it with sittin in my mom's lap as she read to me...i have no problem with smokers now i didn't have when i smoked. i've always thought it was the dumbest hard drug going cuz there's no buzz.)

so cheer up. it aint as if yall are forbidden to indulge yourselves. ya just gotta do it outside.

easy.

hell, i can go out to the desert, throw myself on the burnin sand, raise up my right hand and still find myself violation of state, federal and international law and liable to spending years in prison for mere possession of a much more pleasurable and infinitely safer plant substance.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Although hundreds of people have read my article, nobody really actually got my point.

My point was:

I suppose that younger drinkers and grizzled bar veterans enjoy going out to bars to drink and to socialize, and to smoke if they want.  This may be an opportunity for some disgruntled bar patrons to take up drinking at home.  Drinking at home offers: cheaper drinks, no smoking ban, far less risk of getting caught driving while drunk, and no necessity to tip anyone. 

Drinking at home is cheaper and less dangerous. 

Did anyone even read my article?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Although hundreds of people have read my article, nobody really actually got my point.

My point was:

I suppose that younger drinkers and grizzled bar veterans enjoy going out to bars to drink and to socialize, and to smoke if they want. This may be an opportunity for some disgruntled bar patrons to take up drinking at home. Drinking at home offers: cheaper drinks, no smoking ban, far less risk of getting caught driving while drunk, and no necessity to tip anyone.

Drinking at home is cheaper and less dangerous.

Did anyone even read my article?


Looking at the comments posted, I think that they did read your article and it's main point, and are coming up with reasons why your statement is flawed. The same point could be made to the non-smokers...if you don't like smoke, don't go to bars and restaurants that allow smoking. A. Your anti-smoking attitude is not welcome at these establishments and B. Non-smokers could save money by not eating out, and can drink more cheaply at home.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find it very hard to believe that you can 'taste' nicotine on your cooked, seasoned, and totally assembled dinner entrees because some prep cook snuck out for a smoke as he chopped onions, peeled oranges, or assembled salads and forgot to wash his hands afterwards, much less because he simply handled a tray! Sheesh, if your palate is that sensitive you might want to reconsider eating out at all.


Sorry LW, but yes, I can taste the Nicotine and/or other smoking residue on my food and in my drink if it's been handled by a smoker that just came back in.

If the nice barista's at my favorite Starbucks within another store location weren't so friendly otherwise, I would probably avoid there because I know at least one of them smokes and quite frequently comes back in from her smoke break just as I'm arriving at the store. If she winds up prepping my drink, then I pick up the smoke taste on the cup, especially the plastic lid she snaps down over the hot drink.

It's not that I have a highly trained palate -- quite the opposite, those that have been smoking don't notice their impaired sense of taste and don't notice the taste that they are adding to foods, the smell that reaks through their clothing, is on their hands, etc.

If I climb into an elevator after one of my co-workers who just returned from a smoke break I'm bombarded with the smell of his cigs and the smokey air he released into the air inside the elevator, the hallway, etc. I can pick up the smell on the buttons in the elevator, the door handle, etc.

You can also try this crappy argument if you want:

In other words, let the non-smokers stay the hell home and reap all those benefits.


But since I defend to the near death your right to destroy your own health without taxing you into oblivion (though I might get close on such sin taxes), and without making you pay extra for your health insurance (not that some companies won't charge you extra, but at least I'll claim that they are lunatics for trying to do it), then you can be so friggin' kind as to take a hour or so away from your addictive little habit while I enjoy the one addiction I have -- fine (or at least quality) food cooked by someone else so that I can enjoy time away from home and away from work and the stresses that go with.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
then you can be so friggin' kind as to take a hour or so away from your addictive little habit while I enjoy the one addiction I have -- fine (or at least quality) food cooked by someone else so that I can enjoy time away from home and away from work and the stresses that go with.


You are arguing completely different subjects. If your problem is with the food preparers, then take up the issue with them. As far as I know, smoking patrons aren't preparing your food, so I don't know what your problem is. The issue is that the state (or local govt) is taking it upon themselves to dictate to business owners what kind of activity can take place in their busineses out of a faux concern for health. There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants for any non-smoker to dine in. Patronize those businesses and leave the smokers with their own places.

And while you're at it, tell your non-smoker entrepeneur associates (I'm addressing this to everyone now) to start up a smoke-free bar so social drinkers don't have to complain about smoke. THe smokers can have their places to visit, and so can the non-smokers. Who will complain?

Someone posted this link not too long ago on JU, and it thought it was eye-opening.

The Smoking Issue: An essay by Joe Jackson
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health???

If any body believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.

It is not about health and it never was a bout health.

It is all about denormalizing smoking

Unfortuantely, the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health???

If any body believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.

It is not about health and it never was a bout health.

It is all about denormalizing smoking

Unfortuantely, the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health???

If any body believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.

It is not about health and it never was a bout health.

It is all about denormalizing smoking

Unfortuantely, the hospitality sector is caught in the cross-fire.


I'm pretty sure I read this quote in a letter to a newspaper editor.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
My point was:I suppose that younger drinkers and grizzled bar veterans enjoy going out to bars to drink and to socialize, and to smoke if they want. This may be an opportunity for some disgruntled bar patrons to take up drinking at home. Drinking at home offers: cheaper drinks, no smoking ban, far less risk of getting caught driving while drunk, and no necessity to tip anyone. Drinking at home is cheaper and less dangerous. Did anyone even read my article?


Yeah Jamie, I read your article, but if you're going to get all snippy on us for not reacting to one specific paragraph in an entire article, I'll have to rethink whether I bother reading anymore of you articles.

We all read the articles we want, and from those articles we make comments, you can choose what you want to write about, but don't get pissed at us if our comments don't reflect what you want.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
if I own a bar, shouldnt I be the one to decide whether or not smoking will be permitted in it, period?


not to mention whether to serve absinthe or laudanum. or to provide a backroom for use by hookers and johns. or another one complete with clean syringes, spoons, water and ties.

after all, them pickled eggs gotta be a much worse public health hazard than nicotine, booze, drunken conversation, venereal disease and dope.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Many places near D.C., and even D.C. itself have banned smoking in the workplace, including bars and restaurants.


This isn't actually true. Yes, counties in Maryland have smoking bans, but there is not one here in DC yet. On October 27, 2005, they voted for a smoking ban to start in January 2007. So, I suppose the stuff about business actually increasing in these smoke free DC bars must be made up, since they certainly aren't smoke free.

Sincerely,
A DC smoker.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
not to mention whether to serve absinthe or laudanum. or to provide a backroom for use by hookers and johns. or another one complete with clean syringes, spoons, water and ties.


Well Kingbee, we are talking about LEGAL substances here. Last I checked, Absinthe, Laudanum, Heroin and prostitution were all illegal. Apparently the whole legal/illegal thing is a bit much for you. ;~D
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently the whole legal/illegal thing is a bit much for you. ;~D


yeah well it does have a tendency to shift with the wind. tobacco was first made illegal in what's now new england in 1632. for the next 100 years it was criminalized elsewhere. china executed tobacco smokers in the the 1600s.

on the other hand, laws restricting narcotics use first appeared in the early 20th century.

more to the point, yall are up in arms over proprietors' 'rights' to permit illegal smoking in venues where its forbidden.

local government licenses their establishments...just as it does marriages. why are ya cool with one but suffering under the other?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Decent point with the timing of the laws. You're right, up until a few decades ago many of what we consider "illicit" today was perfectly legal... and there may be a day when tobacco products are, once again considered "illicit". To tell you the truth, if they banned tobacco products completely, it wouldn't bother me in the least. However, until that day then it should be up to proprietors to decide what legal substances they should and should not allow in their establishments.

That being said, I also said that I am for community standards. So, being consistent, I will say that I am not against communities deciding that smoking in businesses is against their standards. Apparently, according to some of the posters here, their communities have passed ordinances to that effect, and it actually improved business in the area... so the community has spoken. Great! On the other hand, here in Wisconsin, the Fox Valley area governments decided to ban smoking in businesses. The local community has rejected such a ban so strongly that they are willing to drive out of the area. That has, in turn, affected the local tax base that now the governments in the Fox Valley area are trying to make it a state law, "To level the playing field". So the people in government there are saying, "we don't care what the community wants, we will shove this down their throats... and because it has hurt our tax base, we're willing to shove it down the throats of the whole state!

On your other point (about marriage licenses), you are just plain wrong. Marriage licenses may be issued at the local level, but they are issued by the authority of the state... So local ordinances and community standards are meaningless.

Glad you did catch the joke of the rest though. ;~D
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
after all, them pickled eggs gotta be a much worse public health hazard than nicotine, booze, drunken conversation, venereal disease and dope


Man I used to love those pickled eggs