I love it...had my first smoke free DJ gig this weekend and it was awesome...my hair and clothes were smoke free. I dont really see it hurting business (time will tell), I mean what music fan is going to not go see a band they like because they cant smoke during their set...effing go outside in between bands...any smoker that complains about this is a douchebag( I know they are addicts in addtion to being a douchebag, but still).
I've never smoked.
I support smoking bans in city/government controlled public places.
I think it's very fucked up that a private business owner who wants to cater to those who do smoke is prohibited to do so by law.
I think it's very fucked up that a private business owner who wants to cater to those who do smoke is prohibited to do so by law.
I kinda agree with this, even though I'm not a smoker and never have been. I support the ban in restaurants and public places, but it's odd for bars I think. Don't get me wrong, I like being in a smoke-free bar as much as everyone else on here, but a bar's raison d'etre is the indulging of vices, so to ban one of those vices outright seems strange. If you are that offended/affected by cigarette smoke, then maybe a bar isn't the right entertainment choice for you.
Couldn't they have a smoking license that's similar to a liquor license? If you're a bar owner and you want to cater to smokers, you can, but it's going to cost you a little bit. A lot of people probably won't want to go to the trouble, but those that do will be contributing that money to the city or state or whatever. I dunno.
If you are that offended/affected by cigarette smoke, then maybe a bar isn't the right entertainment choice for you.
That's kind of bullshit though. Go to a cigar bar if you are going out to smoke. The problem with smoking is that it affects people in the immediate area instantly. Alcohol doesn't. You can't get second hand drunk. Just because you are going to a bar does not mean that you should have to be subjected to every vice in the world. That's like saying that if you go to the bar, you should have to be prepared to bang some heroin or snort some oxycontin while you're drinking, because it's a vice that other people might be interested in partaking in. Smoking is the only type of vice that subjects everybody in the area, so it makes sesne to keep it out of places that may contain a majority or fair percentage of people who do not do it.
I think a decent compromise (which many places ended up creating) is a smoking room/smoking patio. You can still have your drinks, there's room for you and all your smoking friends, and the party doesn't have to stop.
If you are that offended/affected by cigarette smoke, then maybe a bar isn't the right entertainment choice for you.
That's kind of bullshit though. Go to a cigar bar if you are going out to smoke. The problem with smoking is that it affects people in the immediate area instantly. Alcohol doesn't. You can't get second hand drunk. Just because you are going to a bar does not mean that you should have to be subjected to every vice in the world. That's like saying that if you go to the bar, you should have to be prepared to bang some heroin or snort some oxycontin while you're drinking, because it's a vice that other people might be interested in partaking in. Smoking is the only type of vice that subjects everybody in the area, so it makes sesne to keep it out of places that may contain a majority or fair percentage of people who do not do it.
I think a decent compromise (which many places ended up creating) is a smoking room/smoking patio. You can still have your drinks, there's room for you and all your smoking friends, and the party doesn't have to stop.
I think it's very fucked up that a private business owner who wants to cater to those who do smoke is prohibited to do so by law.
I kinda agree with this, even though I'm not a smoker and never have been. I support the ban in restaurants and public places, but it's odd for bars I think. Don't get me wrong, I like being in a smoke-free bar as much as everyone else on here, but a bar's raison d'etre is the indulging of vices, so to ban one of those vices outright seems strange. If you are that offended/affected by cigarette smoke, then maybe a bar isn't the right entertainment choice for you.
Couldn't they have a smoking license that's similar to a liquor license? If you're a bar owner and you want to cater to smokers, you can, but it's going to cost you a little bit. A lot of people probably won't want to go to the trouble, but those that do will be contributing that money to the city or state or whatever. I dunno.
See this is what the debate centers around in Baltimore -- that the smoking ban is unfair to business owners.
I see what these people are saying, but my first thought for someone who makes this argument is: for what other health/safety-related issue would you prioritize the rights of business owners over the health/safety rights of employees and patrons of that business?
In other words, business owners don't have the "right" to open any kind of business they want. They can't open a business that pays their employees 10 cents an hour, and more pertinent to this argument, they can't open a bar with rusty nails sticking up outta the floor. What is happening with a smoking ban is that the government has redefined what a safe environment for a bar is, and classified cigarette smoke alongside rusty nails as "unsafe." Unless you're a libertarian or neocon or a scientist under the employ of RJ Reynolds who either a)doesn't believe in ANY government-imposed safety standards, or b)still in 2007 doesn't believe nicotine smoke is potentially deadly, I don't see the argument with that.
That said, I agree with the quote above -- it seems reasonable for a set number of smoking-bar licenses to be issued. That way patrons and employees can choose those places if that's their preference.
The flip side of the coin is the current situation in Baltimore: there is a fear among bar/cub owners that they'd lose a segment of their clientelle if they were in the vast minority of the bars to be non-smoking by choice; as a result, only 2 bars I know of in the entire city (out of 1,000 or more, I'd guess) have chosen to be non-smoking. So due to other people's vice, I have two places I can go to have a drink (my chosen vice) without polluting my lungs (a vice I don't consent to).
That said, I agree with the quote above -- it seems reasonable for a set number of smoking-bar licenses to be issued. That way patrons and employees can choose those places if that's their preference.
Does this mean I can get a special license issued for my trendy rusty-nails-on-the-floor concept bar, where, coincedentally, I plan to pay staff 10 cents an hour?
That said, I agree with the quote above -- it seems reasonable for a set number of smoking-bar licenses to be issued. That way patrons and employees can choose those places if that's their preference.
Does this mean I can get a special license issued for my trendy rusty-nails-on-the-floor concept bar, where, coincedentally, I plan to pay staff 10 cents an hour?
If people of legal age want to come to your rusty nail bar you should be able to open one.
I believe paying employees 10 cents an hour is against Federal Law.
That said, I agree with the quote above -- it seems reasonable for a set number of smoking-bar licenses to be issued. That way patrons and employees can choose those places if that's their preference.
Does this mean I can get a special license issued for my trendy rusty-nails-on-the-floor concept bar, where, coincedentally, I plan to pay staff 10 cents an hour?
If people of legal age want to come to your rusty nail bar you should be able to open one.
Substitute "nails in the floor" for "e coli in the food" and you feel the same way?
Government health standards are to protect the public so they can walk into an establishment and partake assuming it will be safe for them to do so. Smoke has now simply been grouped with rusty nails, e coli, and 100s of other things as unsafe.
Ottawa's smoking ban started in 2001 and a study looking at the provincial Ministry of Finance's data on sales of licensed restaurants and bars and unlicensed restaurants, from March 1998 to June 2002, found no noticable decline - they took into account September 11 as well.
I appreciate that the adjustment period to a smoking ban can be difficult at first, but I know of people who would not come out to some bars I've played at because of the overwhelming amount of smoke in the place before the Toronto ban. It's worth considering that for all the smokers who may not come out for the first little while, there are quite a few non-smoker customers that can be gained. I know some hardcore smokers and they are not smoking their brains out and drinking only at home, they are at the bars just like they always were and stepping out to smoke.
If you are that offended/affected by cigarette smoke, then maybe a bar isn't the right entertainment choice for you.
That's kind of bullshit though. Go to a cigar bar if you are going out to smoke.
Ummm...if smoking is banned how can there be a Cigar Bar???
I don't know, but cigar bars still exist here.
Well then you obviously don't have a 100% smoking ban in place like other cities do.
Oh geez, OK, sorry, it's a 99.9999% smoking ban because there are 2 cigar bars in this metro area of 2 million people.
And as for having the right to open a cigar bar, uhh, you still have it here. The difference is, it is advertised as a smoking lounge or bar, so people who go there know what they are getting into. Plus, the way I understand it, cigar bars are not allowed to serve food. I suppose any regular bar that doesn't serve any type of food can classify itself a cigar bar if they sell cigars and then they can allow smoking.
That said, I agree with the quote above -- it seems reasonable for a set number of smoking-bar licenses to be issued. That way patrons and employees can choose those places if that's their preference.
Does this mean I can get a special license issued for my trendy rusty-nails-on-the-floor concept bar, where, coincedentally, I plan to pay staff 10 cents an hour?
If people of legal age want to come to your rusty nail bar you should be able to open one.
Substitute "nails in the floor" for "e coli in the food" and you feel the same way?
Government health standards are to protect the public so they can walk into an establishment and partake assuming it will be safe for them to do so. Smoke has now simply been grouped with rusty nails, e coli, and 100s of other things as unsafe.
I was just joking, of course, but yeah, Rockadelic, a floorful of rusty nails is every bit as much regulated (i.e. illegal) as 10 cent wages. The joke does highlight, however, that there is still some flexibility allowed for carcinogenic smoke with the "limited special license" proposal that is not allowed for nails, e-coli, etc. because one is an "accepted" recreational activity and the others are not.
That said, I agree with the quote above -- it seems reasonable for a set number of smoking-bar licenses to be issued. That way patrons and employees can choose those places if that's their preference.
Does this mean I can get a special license issued for my trendy rusty-nails-on-the-floor concept bar, where, coincedentally, I plan to pay staff 10 cents an hour?
If people of legal age want to come to your rusty nail bar you should be able to open one.
Substitute "nails in the floor" for "e coli in the food" and you feel the same way?
Government health standards are to protect the public so they can walk into an establishment and partake assuming it will be safe for them to do so. Smoke has now simply been grouped with rusty nails, e coli, and 100s of other things as unsafe.
I was just joking, of course, but yeah, Rockadelic, a floorful of rusty nails is every bit as much regulated (i.e. illegal) as 10 cent wages. The joke does highlight, however, that there is still some flexibility allowed for carcinogenic smoke with the "limited special license" proposal that is not allowed for nails, e-coli, etc. because one is an "accepted" recreational activity and the others are not.
Unlike e coli or rusty nails, smoking can be an accepted and consensual[/b] recreational activity. No one in their right mind selects a bar based on an atmosphere that includes an ecoli risk, but some people would select a bar based on its smokey atmosphere.
That said, I agree with the quote above -- it seems reasonable for a set number of smoking-bar licenses to be issued. That way patrons and employees can choose those places if that's their preference.
Does this mean I can get a special license issued for my trendy rusty-nails-on-the-floor concept bar, where, coincedentally, I plan to pay staff 10 cents an hour?
If people of legal age want to come to your rusty nail bar you should be able to open one.
Substitute "nails in the floor" for "e coli in the food" and you feel the same way?
Government health standards are to protect the public so they can walk into an establishment and partake assuming it will be safe for them to do so. Smoke has now simply been grouped with rusty nails, e coli, and 100s of other things as unsafe.
I was just joking, of course, but yeah, Rockadelic, a floorful of rusty nails is every bit as much regulated (i.e. illegal) as 10 cent wages. The joke does highlight, however, that there is still some flexibility allowed for carcinogenic smoke with the "limited special license" proposal that is not allowed for nails, e-coli, etc. because one is an "accepted" recreational activity and the others are not.
Unlike e coli or rusty nails, smoking can be an accepted and consensual[/b] recreational activity. No one in their right mind selects a bar based on an atmosphere that includes an ecoli risk, but some people would select a bar based on its smokey atmosphere.
I thought it was assumed that everyone at the Rusty Nail was knowingly there to get their Tetanus on and get twisted on some e-coli. Are you saying my business model is flawed?
Rich - most people prefer the smoking ban; most clubs do not lose money on its account; some bars still allow smoking, despite the ban; what exactly is the problem?!?
Rich - most people prefer the smoking ban; most clubs do not lose money on its account; some bars still allow smoking, despite the ban; what exactly is the problem?!?
So your saying it's a ban that isn't enforced.....no problem.
In Dallas, which also has anti-smoking laws, they have fined and even shut down establishments that haven't enforced said laws.
Would you have a problem if decibel levels were next on the list???
Would you have a problem if decibel levels were next on the list???
They have started to really enforce this in Toronto - the bar I play at got fined a few months ago on my night - they made us turn the bass bin off and turn down the volume. They came back later in the night to check on things and wrote the place up - even though the woofer was still off. Another place I do the door at gets fined on a monthly basis. $150 is nothing to the owners given that the loud volume draws in a good many folks who just happen to be walking by and are drawn in by the chest-rumbling reggae coming out of the place.
Rich - most people prefer the smoking ban; most clubs do not lose money on its account; some bars still allow smoking, despite the ban; what exactly is the problem?!?
So your saying it's a ban that isn't enforced.....no problem.
In Dallas, which also has anti-smoking laws, they have fined and even shut down establishments that haven't enforced said laws.
Would you have a problem if decibel levels were next on the list???
Rich you should be ashamed of yourself for making that comparison. People die behind this shit.
I'd be surprised if Dallas bar owners are any worse off than their NYC counterparts... I'm sure a few have gotten fines but I know from experience plenty are still operating.
I have no problem with the idea of smokers being asked to partake outside. Common courtesy. Even back when I was a smoker, I didn't mind doing it.
And some clubs play their music at a decibel level that is proven to have adverse effect on listeners.....we should ban that too.
cosine
Pittsburgh passed a smoking ban early this year, but it was never put into effect after intense protesting from restaurant/bar owners.
I don't really mind smoke in bars. Occasionally it bothers me, but most of the time it doesn't. Sure your clothes smell, but if you let them sit there for a few days, they don't really smell anymore. I let my friends smoke in my car and in the LeisureB Headquarters if they want.
I'm also amused by how old-fashioned and afraid of change everyone is around here, it's like part of the local culture, and while I realize its associated problems, I kind of identify with it and feel strangely proud. Like I think I would even feel more proud if we were the last city left that allowed smoking in bars. I know it's irrational etc.
on the more rational tip, even though i rarely smoke, i think it's uncool that i don't have the freedom to do so. I think it's bullshit that I couldn't smoke even if I wanted to in my studio/office, of which I am the sole renter and occupant.
Does someone's desire to smoke in a venue or restaurant outweigh someone's desire to see a band or eat a meal in a smoke-free venue?
I think smokers and non-smokers have EQUAL rights.....what a concept.
Each should have venues where they can go and enjoy themselves.
But the things they enjoy are not exclusive of each other. What if a band was coming to play in a venue that had smoking? What if someone had asthma but really wanted to see Paul Anka do his shit live? Miss out because folks want to smoke?
I smoke by the way.
They are also talking about banning smoking cars with children in them here.
Comments
I've never smoked.
I support smoking bans in city/government controlled public places.
I think it's very fucked up that a private business owner who wants to cater to those who do smoke is prohibited to do so by law.
I kinda agree with this, even though I'm not a smoker and never have been. I support the ban in restaurants and public places, but it's odd for bars I think. Don't get me wrong, I like being in a smoke-free bar as much as everyone else on here, but a bar's raison d'etre is the indulging of vices, so to ban one of those vices outright seems strange. If you are that offended/affected by cigarette smoke, then maybe a bar isn't the right entertainment choice for you.
Couldn't they have a smoking license that's similar to a liquor license? If you're a bar owner and you want to cater to smokers, you can, but it's going to cost you a little bit. A lot of people probably won't want to go to the trouble, but those that do will be contributing that money to the city or state or whatever. I dunno.
Haha, a legit reason is because you can't smoke while you're drinking at the bar?
That's kind of bullshit though. Go to a cigar bar if you are going out to smoke. The problem with smoking is that it affects people in the immediate area instantly. Alcohol doesn't. You can't get second hand drunk. Just because you are going to a bar does not mean that you should have to be subjected to every vice in the world. That's like saying that if you go to the bar, you should have to be prepared to bang some heroin or snort some oxycontin while you're drinking, because it's a vice that other people might be interested in partaking in. Smoking is the only type of vice that subjects everybody in the area, so it makes sesne to keep it out of places that may contain a majority or fair percentage of people who do not do it.
I think a decent compromise (which many places ended up creating) is a smoking room/smoking patio. You can still have your drinks, there's room for you and all your smoking friends, and the party doesn't have to stop.
See this is what the debate centers around in Baltimore -- that the smoking ban is unfair to business owners.
I see what these people are saying, but my first thought for someone who makes this argument is: for what other health/safety-related issue would you prioritize the rights of business owners over the health/safety rights of employees and patrons of that business?
In other words, business owners don't have the "right" to open any kind of business they want. They can't open a business that pays their employees 10 cents an hour, and more pertinent to this argument, they can't open a bar with rusty nails sticking up outta the floor. What is happening with a smoking ban is that the government has redefined what a safe environment for a bar is, and classified cigarette smoke alongside rusty nails as "unsafe." Unless you're a libertarian or neocon or a scientist under the employ of RJ Reynolds who either a)doesn't believe in ANY government-imposed safety standards, or b)still in 2007 doesn't believe nicotine smoke is potentially deadly, I don't see the argument with that.
That said, I agree with the quote above -- it seems reasonable for a set number of smoking-bar licenses to be issued. That way patrons and employees can choose those places if that's their preference.
The flip side of the coin is the current situation in Baltimore: there is a fear among bar/cub owners that they'd lose a segment of their clientelle if they were in the vast minority of the bars to be non-smoking by choice; as a result, only 2 bars I know of in the entire city (out of 1,000 or more, I'd guess) have chosen to be non-smoking. So due to other people's vice, I have two places I can go to have a drink (my chosen vice) without polluting my lungs (a vice I don't consent to).
Ummm...if smoking is banned how can there be a Cigar Bar???
I don't know, but cigar bars still exist here.
Well then you obviously don't have a 100% smoking ban in place like other cities do.
And my point is that if you wanted to open a Cigar Bar or a club called "Smoker's Paradise" you should be able to.
And those folks who don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke....DON'T GO THERE!!!!!
Does this mean I can get a special license issued for my trendy rusty-nails-on-the-floor concept bar, where, coincedentally, I plan to pay staff 10 cents an hour?
If people of legal age want to come to your rusty nail bar you should be able to open one.
I believe paying employees 10 cents an hour is against Federal Law.
Substitute "nails in the floor" for "e coli in the food" and you feel the same way?
Government health standards are to protect the public so they can walk into an establishment and partake assuming it will be safe for them to do so. Smoke has now simply been grouped with rusty nails, e coli, and 100s of other things as unsafe.
I appreciate that the adjustment period to a smoking ban can be difficult at first, but I know of people who would not come out to some bars I've played at because of the overwhelming amount of smoke in the place before the Toronto ban. It's worth considering that for all the smokers who may not come out for the first little while, there are quite a few non-smoker customers that can be gained. I know some hardcore smokers and they are not smoking their brains out and drinking only at home, they are at the bars just like they always were and stepping out to smoke.
Welcome back!
Oh geez, OK, sorry, it's a 99.9999% smoking ban because there are 2 cigar bars in this metro area of 2 million people.
And as for having the right to open a cigar bar, uhh, you still have it here. The difference is, it is advertised as a smoking lounge or bar, so people who go there know what they are getting into. Plus, the way I understand it, cigar bars are not allowed to serve food. I suppose any regular bar that doesn't serve any type of food can classify itself a cigar bar if they sell cigars and then they can allow smoking.
I was just joking, of course, but yeah, Rockadelic, a floorful of rusty nails is every bit as much regulated (i.e. illegal) as 10 cent wages. The joke does highlight, however, that there is still some flexibility allowed for carcinogenic smoke with the "limited special license" proposal that is not allowed for nails, e-coli, etc. because one is an "accepted" recreational activity and the others are not.
Unlike e coli or rusty nails, smoking can be an accepted and consensual[/b] recreational activity. No one in their right mind selects a bar based on an atmosphere that includes an ecoli risk, but some people would select a bar based on its smokey atmosphere.
I thought it was assumed that everyone at the Rusty Nail was knowingly there to get their Tetanus on and get twisted on some e-coli. Are you saying my business model is flawed?
I lived in a town that was "dry" which meant you had to DRIVE further to get your drink on.......pure genius!
And some clubs play their music at a decibel level that is proven to have adverse effect on listeners.....we should ban that too.
If people really want non-smoking clubs/restaurants then they will not patronize places that allow smoking and possibly drive them out of business.
But if a business owner wants to allow smoking and can survive economically he should have the right to do so.
If not, ban the sale of cigarettes altogether.
Does someone's desire to smoke in a venue or restaurant outweigh someone's desire to see a band or eat a meal in a smoke-free venue?
So your saying it's a ban that isn't enforced.....no problem.
In Dallas, which also has anti-smoking laws, they have fined and even shut down establishments that haven't enforced said laws.
Would you have a problem if decibel levels were next on the list???
I think smokers and non-smokers have EQUAL rights.....what a concept.
Each should have venues where they can go and enjoy themselves.
They have started to really enforce this in Toronto - the bar I play at got fined a few months ago on my night - they made us turn the bass bin off and turn down the volume. They came back later in the night to check on things and wrote the place up - even though the woofer was still off. Another place I do the door at gets fined on a monthly basis. $150 is nothing to the owners given that the loud volume draws in a good many folks who just happen to be walking by and are drawn in by the chest-rumbling reggae coming out of the place.
Rich you should be ashamed of yourself for making that comparison. People die behind this shit.
I'd be surprised if Dallas bar owners are any worse off than their NYC counterparts... I'm sure a few have gotten fines but I know from experience plenty are still operating.
I have no problem with the idea of smokers being asked to partake outside. Common courtesy. Even back when I was a smoker, I didn't mind doing it.
cosine
Pittsburgh passed a smoking ban early this year, but it was never put into effect after intense protesting from restaurant/bar owners.
I don't really mind smoke in bars. Occasionally it bothers me, but most of the time it doesn't. Sure your clothes smell, but if you let them sit there for a few days, they don't really smell anymore. I let my friends smoke in my car and in the LeisureB Headquarters if they want.
I'm also amused by how old-fashioned and afraid of change everyone is around here, it's like part of the local culture, and while I realize its associated problems, I kind of identify with it and feel strangely proud. Like I think I would even feel more proud if we were the last city left that allowed smoking in bars.
I know it's irrational etc.
on the more rational tip, even though i rarely smoke, i think it's uncool that i don't have the freedom to do so. I think it's bullshit that I couldn't smoke even if I wanted to in my studio/office, of which I am the sole renter and occupant.
But the things they enjoy are not exclusive of each other. What if a band was coming to play in a venue that had smoking? What if someone had asthma but really wanted to see Paul Anka do his shit live? Miss out because folks want to smoke?
I smoke by the way.
They are also talking about banning smoking cars with children in them here.