It's late and I'm on my way home, but I've wanted to [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] about this for three days now. NYC banned all cigerettes in bars and restaurants, as did California, and now so has Boston. Bar owners in Chicago are quaking in their boots as the City Council considers doing it here.

I'm sorry, but cigs are about HALF of what a bar is for. Plus, I'm tired of explaining to people from other countries why you can't light a f-ing cigarette in public in "the land of the free." I mean, if there is a market for non-smoking bars, that's fine -- let people go there and have a great time. But, as with many people, the only time I do smoke is when I'm drinking, and it's part of the experience for me.

I'll try to post more serious thoughts later, but if you hear about a city building suddenly imploding in the middle of the night in Chicago, rest assured that ol' Timber finally got wind that the smoking ban had passed into law.

I couldn't agree more, banning smoking from bars will be a major blowout for the owners. I can't imagine going to a bar or a club, and not being allowed to smoke. I'd rather drink my beer in the street then. I can understand why they would ban smoking from restaurants, but bars and clubs.... that sucks big time.

Hello Timber!
Your line of work expose's you to alot of downsides in environmental issues but tabacco fields and freedom in smoking, in smoking area's, should be fought for also. I like a smoke after a drink in many case's. </p> Let's take a close look at Mt. Vernon, home of our first President. Some of the best writings, plans, and idea's came from that creative thinking environment. Yea! you tell them Timber!

here in AR it is still optinal for buissness owners, but i smoke all the time, and alot of ppeople will not go to a resturant where we can notsmoke after eating, what is the point?...because if you are a "true" smoker, you always like to light on up and enjoy it before going back into traficc, or while you are having a conversation, it is annoying to set in a placeand talk, while you are wantng a cig

They just passed the smoking ban in Dallas.

I figure if they can do it here, of all places, Chicago would be a cakewalk.

I am allergic to smoke, so I stopped going out to places because I couldn't handle it. Now I can go to a resturaunt again.

There really aren't good compromises for this issue. I wish there were.

I really don't like smoke, I even bug my dad when he does it around me, but they think they should know their limitations. Banning it froms bars and such is going overboard a bit, but I agree with them about the restaruants. Even if you're in a non smoking section, it still hovers over by you and quite honestly I don't want that near me when I eat.

As an ex smoker I'm the worst about smoking...But in the bar,or lounge I have not ptoblems with smokers. In the eating part of the establishment I hate smoking. Remember that all taste is aroma. When I order a nice wine, I don't want it to taste like a camel, or whatever is popular. I don't want my filet to taste like a cigar. So smokers take it to the lounge. As for me I think it stupid to put burning leaves in your mouth...


http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/nahnah.gif

I wonder if this will turn out just like the 1920's ban on alchohol... Perhaps in a few years we'll see Tobacco Barons and then the Mob will come back wiht imported products from cuba ( *cha-ching* ) and then after enough people die (from shootings not melanoma) They might re-think the whole ban thing and in 2013 we'll all be smoking again... then again the Mayans predict hte world will end in 2012 so maybe by then the No-Smoking situation will have gone nuclear? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I smoked for 30 years and 7 years ago I guit and not because sombody told me I had to, I quit because I didn't want to wake up and cough for 25 min. any more. I'm Not one for letting people tell me what to do and I always smoked when and where I wanted up until the last 3 years that I did smoke. I realized that other people around me didn't like the smell or the smoke its self so, I made a point not to smoke around people that didn't like it unless I was the first one to the spot I happend to have started smoking and then I'd tell them to get lost. All I can say about the Laws in New york is they should rename the place New Natzi land and declare open target shooting on the govener and mayor of the state. then throw the rest of the natzies in the government and their laws and there new taxes packing.

Well I agree about restaurants. There is no place for smokers in there IMO. But banning smokers from bars will probably just slap the non-smokers in the face, since most bars probably will face economic hardship.

Direct them to a gun shop instead. At least guns don´t harm other people. Or wait? ;)

Well, I live in upstate NY where there are LOTS of poolhalls, bars, and such with no smoking anymore and guess what, they not only don't appear to be hurting, but they look to have more business then ever. Lots of these places are now crowded. The smokers aren't leaving (they go outside for a cig) and the non-smokers are coming when they weren't before because now they won't smell like smoke. I'm not saying this is the case all over, I'm just presenting a case where it doesn't appear that the ban is hurting business at all.

It’s been the law down here for a while, and after the first few months of uproar and down turn in trade, the pubs and restaurants are full and everyone is happy and just accepts the rule.

My kid has asthma. Trust me you will not want to smoke near him. It WILL be a hazard to your health. :mad: And NO I will not be tying him up outside a cafe. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]
That area is reserved for addicts.

<font color="#f683ad"> [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] I absolutely detest cig. smoke. I think it should be banned from public places...like food courts at the mall and basicly in the mall itself....BUT....I do not believe the state or federal government has the authority to make the rules for privately owned establishments. If a Bar owner wants to attract the smoking crowd that is up to him and how he wants to run his business. I think NYC and other places that Ba smoking from private establishments is overstepping their bounds. </font>

[ 05-08-2003, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Magik

What is with your aversion to governments making laws? That is what they exist for. Knowing the law is constant in the state means I can go into any food court or cafe and relax knowing that my kid is not going to be assaulted by smokers. We would also be free from the situation where you go into the cafe and there are no smokers, you order and start to eat just for some selfish addict to come in and start spreading his cancer!

Without the law being there, it is pot luck on the smoker having his day really ruined ;) a government law means that they *smokers* can be gathered outside, bonding in their self help groups in safety from non addicts, So it is in the smokers best interest too. A fact often overlooked in discussions.

regulations allow for cosistancy

[ 05-08-2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

I live in NY, which used to allow smoking and non-smoking sections in resteraunts... I didn't even realize how much nicer it was to eat in a full non-smoking resteraunt until I spent a year in LA. I'm glad they've eliminated smoking from resteraunts, however I too tend to think that Bars and Pubs are for drinking and smoking both and banning it from those sorts of establishments is going overboard.

Here in Upstate I'm sure you'll just see every bar with a smoking tent out back, but in the city I suspect it could be tough on smokers.

If I could try and find some common ground between us.


If a bar is open to the public (thats why they are called pubs) then no, they should not cater to the minority smokers. However if the bar is private (a club) then I am with you 100%. Smoke, dress, include exclude whatever. As long as the rules are clear and consistently applied I see no problem.

But the goverment should legaslate to protect people in public places, including shops or offices where the public have a reasonable chance of being in or access too, from the lack of manners of a very small but vocal minority group. Its a shame governments are forced to enable laws that common decancy should cater for, but thats people.

there are laws about spitting in the streets, its disgusting, spreads disease and is frowned upon in public. I wonder if there was the same uproar when the government brought in that law?

[ 05-08-2003, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

It's how I've seen things in the upstate area too, Harley. This is a very controversial subject in NY and pretty much anywhere I'd imagine!

I won't say the new law bothers me because I am very allergic to smoke and am prone to bronchitis (doctors say it's probably because my dad chain smoked around me when I was a kid).

No offense intended to anyone here, but sometimes I find myself wondering if most die-hard 'we demand our right to smoke anywhere' smokers really have any understanding of what it's like for others who have to inhale their smoke and especially for those with allergies, asthma, etc. It's hell on wheels for me. Even a short exposure can leave me stuffed up, congested and with my eyes burning for hours AFTER leaving the area.

I used to just tolerate this for years, being miserable in silence, but in the last 10 yrs I've been able to politely reply to "Do you mind if I smoke?" with "I'm sorry, but I do. I'm allergic so could you please not do it near me?" Most people are very nice when you ask them politely! I've had a few grumble but like I said, the vast majority have either been very understanding or at least very well mannered! [img]smile.gif[/img]

So I can't say the law bothers me, personally. I haven't been in a bar in about 20 or so years BECAUSE of the smoke, so heck, I might actually go into one now. And as Harleyquin said, it does look like business is picking up in pool halls and the like around here.

Uh..MagiK, don't ever visit my house or those of many of my friends and neighbors....we have insurance stipulating we don't allow smoking in our homes! ;) Get a nice discount for that too- less fire hazard, I guess. :D

I think you mentioned kids and bars.. LOL, I was going to add above that the 'pool halls' are more family oriented these days, at least up here, so maybe no smoking policies there means more families go? Just a wild guess, but it could be a partial reason, if nothing else. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think you may of noticed but others may have not, I said cafe not bar. But just for clarifacation a cafe down here does not sell alcohol.

[ 05-08-2003, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

The difference between cigarettes and alchohol is that you can drink as much as you like and it won't affect anyone else {(unless you drive home after of course) or are a "fighting drunk"}.

If you smoke, whether they like it or not, you are poisoning everyone else around you with your chemicals.
I am in favour of a complete ban on smoking in public places (including bars, restaurants and cafes), like there is in most work places in the UK.

As a body builder and fitness type guy, I don't see why, just by choosing to go to a bar or club, I should be subjected to the chemicals that those whos choice is to poison themsleves choose to inflict on themselves.

Oh yes, and I've got a little girl of 18 months, if anyone smokes near her out somewhere, I find a menacing glare does the trick.

[ 05-08-2003, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Desdicado ]

<font color=red>All I have to say is, whats next? I thought they did away with the commies in the states a while back? :mad: An example: They made, not wearing a seatbelt a primary offence in Washington St., this means they can pull you over just for that. While I am an advocate of seatbelt use, It should be a personal desision IMO. I heard on the news last night that they are going to only pay overtime to cops if they meet a quota of 3 seatbelt violations a week! Sounds like Communism to me. :rolleyes: </font>

I don't think it's communism to want to protect those who don't want to be poisoned by other peoples smoke my friend.

Sounds like common sense to me [img]tongue.gif[/img] shame you have to legislate to protect people from themselves

You're right there Wellard, just like the seatbelt law in the UK, people complained but it's saved thousands of lives.

<font color=lime>Thats very true. But if you go into a privately owned establishment knowing there is smoke, what do you expect? Why should we have to pay for there ignorance or whining? If you dont like the "atmosphere", dont go. People who don't like alcohol dont go to a bar, right? The point is, why is the gov. advocating private business like this? </font>

Sounds like common sense to me [img]tongue.gif[/img] shame you have to legislate to protect people from themselves </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=lime> But thats my point. I don't need or want legislation protecting me from my own desisions. That is communism. That is the gov. slowly taking away our freedom to choose our own path in life. Next, you wont be able to fart in public, becouse it offended somebody. Are they going to give me a ticket for that, or just let that person sue me? You have to look down the road. Guns are on the line. I personaly hate guns. I feel inclined to get one, why, to protect myself from other guns! See the parodox? The irony. Mark my words, your freedom is being flushed quickly before your eyes, by method of attacking the self destructive issues first. Again, whats next? </font>

In my mind, there is a BIG difference between offending someone and giving someone else cancer, emphasima (sp?), and other lung diseases.

no problem with self destructive smokers, self destructing in private. But if they smoke near my Asthmatic child of 5. it will be my duty to correct things.

anyway time for my bed... to be continued [img]tongue.gif[/img]

LordK, seat belts should be mandatory. Although you have the common sense to use yours, plenty of people thinks that seat belts is part of the interior decoration. ;) Some people doesn´t even take time to tell their children to fasten their seat belts. Pull´em over and fine them hard. ;) Communism? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Back to the smoking. I think MagiK makes a valid point. Ban smoking from ALL public places. If you want to smoke while shopping, do it on the street! There´s enough fume there already. If you want to smoke outside a hospital, wait until you get home. ;)

Exactly, it is tough in the city.
1. Someone always has to stay at the table to watch purses and/or coats while smokers step outside.
2. If you take your drink w/ you to have a smoke (which is a MUST for those of us who mix drinking and smoking) then you risk Johnny Law nicking you for an open container violation.
3. Bar owners are having difficulty with people who step outside for a smoke and, either in drunken stupor or out of malice, do not return to pay their bar tab.
4. Smoking should not be something you can only do in your home.

Look, I'm all for no smoking restaurants - - and Arvon is right that the majority of taste = smell. I never smoked in restaurants when I was a full-time smoker.

Plus, the smell is disgusting. Not everyone wants to stink up their home. I have a cig every now and then with my whiskey while playing BG at my computer, but I open the window wide, light some sort of smell-good candle, and blow all smoke out the window. Who wants it on their clothes in the closet? And, if I didn't live 13 floors up, I'd just step outside. Which is what I used to do in a two-story townhome I had in Upstate NY. Even when we had friends over all smoking goes outside.

But, that is exactly why a bar is a haven for me. It's a place to go and do that stuff. Even if there is a ban, I hope they still allow cigar bars -- that serve alcohol. Do they in Upstate NY?

Look, I am all for the smoking education and the villifying of smoking done in the US. In Europe most will admit it is one health and environment issue we are much more dedicated to than most other first world folks (but it looks like Oz is pretty harsh on it, too, from Wellard's comments). But tyranny is tyranny. Just how many liberties must we let them take?

The argument that their purpose is to make laws is bunk. The government's purpose is to make the minimum amount of laws necessary to protect us from harming each other. And, yes, secondhand smoke does harm others. Which is EXACTLY why an owner should be able to choose between smoking or non-smoking for his establishment. There IS a market for both, I assure you.

Thorfinn, are you around these days? Listen, when you and the other revolutionaries are ready, let me know -- I am on board. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

This is also ignorant. It is fundamental that I own myself. Ergo, my life is mine to risk. Now, if you want to prohibit my insurance or legal recovery based on me being stupid enough to not wear a seatbelt, that is fine. But, forcing me to strap myself in while driving is, quite literally, wrongful imprisonment.

Sounds like common sense to me [img]tongue.gif[/img] shame you have to legislate to protect people from themselves </font>[/QUOTE]It's a shame you get to decide what protection I need.

So ban smoking on the street then. Hey, maybe that IS a good idea. Make it so the ONLY place you can smoke is your home, your car (hell, on the road there's much worse threats to your lungs), or in a SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT. That way you will only be exposed to the smoke you voluntarily expose yourself to.

If you don´t use your seat belt I would say it´s a shame he DOES NOT get to decide what protection you need. ;) How hard is it for a person to fasten a seat belt? ;) Everyone knows murder is wrong. So why have a law against it? ;) Seriously, some people don´t know any better than to drive without their seat belt fastened.

no problem with self destructive smokers, self destructing in private. But if they smoke near my Asthmatic child of 5. it will be my duty to correct things.

anyway time for my bed... to be continued [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]1 out of 4 kids are asthmatics these days. It has been proven to be tied to industrial emissions, smog, and car exhausts. Attack the sources. Ban all industrial emissions and car exhausts.

Plus, must I, or others lucky enough to be born able to regularly and reliably fill our lungs with air (quite literally the problem and asthmatic suffers), suffer impingement of our freedom due to our society's deteriorating health? Puh-lease. If there were smoking bars and non-smoking bars and smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurants, you and your get would not need to worry about it -- it would be your choice.

And, with 1/4 of the young population suffering asthma, we can reasonably rely on the marketplace to provide non-smoking bars.\

Oh, and I've met asthmatic smokers and many asthmatic pot smokers (which also contains carcinogens). <s>Don't know how old your kid is,</s> (ooops) The day your kid takes up smoking, please let me know so I can have a good laugh.

[ 05-08-2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

If you don´t use your seat belt I would say it´s a shame he DOES NOT get to decide what protection you need. ;) How hard is it for a person to fasten a seat belt? ;) Everyone knows murder is wrong. So why have a law against it? ;) Seriously, some people don´t know any better than to drive without their seat belt fastened. </font>[/QUOTE]I could not disagree more. By that notion, we can now reasonably outlaw rock climbing, bungee jumping, surfing, and motorcycles. It is my life to risk, and it is not your place to judge. Murder is wrong. Suicide is not. The government telling you that you cannot take the one thing you and only you undeniably own is BULLSHIT.

Look, if we assume one owns one's self, then these limitations are simply not logical. (Btw, suicide is illegal -- has been for years.)

On the other hand, if one does not own one's self, we may go down a different path. It is called communism, and may be a viable path. But do NOT consider it freedom. Either we are free or we are not.