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.
I'm not ashamed because we're talking principles.....drunk driving kills more than second hand smoke.
Would you be for banning alcohol in clubs/restaurants like they have done in MANY towns in Texas??
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.
Honestly, I think it should be up to the venue owner, who if he is smart, will do what's best for his business.
Certainly you realize there are people making the same argument for serving alcohol in clubs(ie drunk driving deaths).
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.
A bar survives off of the sale of alcohol, not cigarettes. You couldn't ban alcohol from a bar or they wouldn't be a bar anymore, they'd be a family restaurant or a meeting hall or something. The durnk driver vs. second hand smoke argument is tired, it's apples and oranges, and I don't think it's worth even bringing into the argument (i'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it's an entirely different issue). And loud music has never killed anybody. And again, if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in Denver, he or she can convert to a cigar bar and stop serving food, because in Denver, the law IS enforced, entirely. Nobody gets a pass. If an establishment allows smoking it needs to be advertised as such, and per the law, it cannot serve food. Simple as that. I see where you're coming from, but you know, the people decided it should be this way, so that's the way it is going to be. They left options for people who think smoking is a necessity for their business. Nobody's business is failing here from the ban, and nobody is really upset about it or making a big deal over it at all, so it seems like what you see as an issue is not actually bothering the people who have been directly affected by the law.
Honestly, I think it should be up to the venue owner, who if he is smart, will do what's best for his business.
If it were up to the venue owner, it wouldn't be a "ban", it would be just as it was before. Nobody ever enforced smoking in a bar. Any business owner pre-ban could have banned it from their establishment by simply posting some signs.
Certainly you realize there are people making the same argument for serving alcohol in clubs(ie drunk driving deaths).
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.
A bar survives off of the sale of alcohol, not cigarettes. You couldn't ban alcohol from a bar or they wouldn't be a bar anymore, they'd be a family restaurant or a meeting hall or something. The durnk driver vs. second hand smoke argument is tired, it's apples and oranges, and I don't think it's worth even bringing into the argument (i'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it's an entirely different issue). And loud music has never killed anybody. And again, if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in Denver, he or she can convert to a cigar bar and stop serving food, because in Denver, the law IS enforced, entirely. Nobody gets a pass. If an establishment allows smoking it needs to be advertised as such, and per the law, it cannot serve food. Simple as that. I see where you're coming from, but you know, the people decided it should be this way, so that's the way it is going to be. They left options for people who think smoking is a necessity for their business. Nobody's business is failing here from the ban, and nobody is really upset about it or making a big deal over it at all, so it seems like what you see as an issue is not actually bothering the people who have been directly affected by the law.
So there was a VOTE on this smoking ban and the people decided??
Certainly you realize there are people making the same argument for serving alcohol in clubs(ie drunk driving deaths).
I lived in a town that was "dry" which meant you had to DRIVE further to get your drink on.......pure genius!
So... people would have to drive further to buy cigarettes? That comparison doesn't really work.
I definitely think the concept of "dry" states are ridiculous, I'm 100% with you there. But no one's asking cigarette smokers to do anything other than smoke in another place where they aren't sharing the health risks of their habit with people who don't have that habit.
Honestly, I think it should be up to the venue owner, who if he is smart, will do what's best for his business.
If it were up to the venue owner, it wouldn't be a "ban", it would be just as it was before. Nobody ever enforced smoking in a bar. Any business owner pre-ban could have banned it from their establishment by simply posting some signs. [/b]
I totally support a business owner's right to ban smoking in his establishment.
Certainly you realize there are people making the same argument for serving alcohol in clubs(ie drunk driving deaths).
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.
A bar survives off of the sale of alcohol, not cigarettes. You couldn't ban alcohol from a bar or they wouldn't be a bar anymore, they'd be a family restaurant or a meeting hall or something. The durnk driver vs. second hand smoke argument is tired, it's apples and oranges, and I don't think it's worth even bringing into the argument (i'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it's an entirely different issue). And loud music has never killed anybody. And again, if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in Denver, he or she can convert to a cigar bar and stop serving food, because in Denver, the law IS enforced, entirely. Nobody gets a pass. If an establishment allows smoking it needs to be advertised as such, and per the law, it cannot serve food. Simple as that. I see where you're coming from, but you know, the people decided it should be this way, so that's the way it is going to be. They left options for people who think smoking is a necessity for their business. Nobody's business is failing here from the ban, and nobody is really upset about it or making a big deal over it at all, so it seems like what you see as an issue is not actually bothering the people who have been directly affected by the law.
So there was a VOTE on this smoking ban and the people decided??
By way of democracy, yes. Legislature voted on it.
Honestly, I think it should be up to the venue owner, who if he is smart, will do what's best for his business.
If it were up to the venue owner, it wouldn't be a "ban", it would be just as it was before. Nobody ever enforced smoking in a bar. Any business owner pre-ban could have banned it from their establishment by simply posting some signs. [/b]
I totally support a business owner's right to ban smoking in his establishment.
Well, luckily you don't have to now, because it's illegal to allow it.
Honestly, I think it should be up to the venue owner, who if he is smart, will do what's best for his business.
If it were up to the venue owner, it wouldn't be a "ban", it would be just as it was before. Nobody ever enforced smoking in a bar. Any business owner pre-ban could have banned it from their establishment by simply posting some signs. [/b]
I totally support a business owner's right to ban smoking in his establishment.
Again, you're prioritizing the "rights" of the business owner over the safety of his employees and clientelle. As I said ealier, in Baltimore bars are scared to be the only place that bans smoking because they don't want to lose the % of people who smoke. As a result, roughly 2 bars out of 1,000 are non-smoking. However, you'd better believe that more than .5% of the DJs, bands, bartenders, barbacks, waiters, and drinkers in this town would rather do their thing in an environment where they weren't increasing their risk for a wide variety of cancers.
Why is the bar owner's free enterprise unfettered by any safety regulations more valuable than the tens of thousands of people who work 8-hour shifts in a cancerous environment. Might makes right?
You may say "those people could have found other jobs." Nope, not in Bmore. Times are tough and I personally know many people who choose to work in smoke-filled environments against their strong preference because they couldn't find other ways to make rent and put food on the table.
smoking is virtually illegal in the united states as it is. they should just say that smoking will be completely illegal in like five years to give people some time to quit or something.
i don't smoke so i guess i like the smoking ban but i'm kinda agreeing with rockadelic (omg) that a business owner should be able to choose what they want if shits legal. i think in hawaii you can't smoke within 20 feet of a business entrance which means in some areas if you really strictly followed that 20 feet thing you would have to walk a few blocks just to smoke.
Honestly, I think it should be up to the venue owner, who if he is smart, will do what's best for his business.
If it were up to the venue owner, it wouldn't be a "ban", it would be just as it was before. Nobody ever enforced smoking in a bar. Any business owner pre-ban could have banned it from their establishment by simply posting some signs. [/b]
I totally support a business owner's right to ban smoking in his establishment.
Again, you're prioritizing the "rights" of the business owner over the safety of his employees and clientelle. As I said ealier, in Baltimore bars are scared to be the only place that bans smoking because they don't want to lose the % of people who smoke. As a result, roughly 2 bars out of 1,000 are non-smoking. However, you'd better believe that more than .5% of the DJs, bands, bartenders, barbacks, waiters, and drinkers in this town would rather do their thing in an environment where they weren't increasing their risk for a wide variety of cancers.
Why is the bar owner's free enterprise unfettered by any safety regulations more valuable than the tens of thousands of people who work 8-hour shifts in a cancerous environment. Might makes right?
You may say "those people could have found other jobs." Nope, not in Bmore. Times are tough and I personally know many people who choose to work in smoke-filled environments against their strong preference because they couldn't find other ways to make rent and put food on the table.
I'm FOR banning smoking in public venues.
I'm FOR banning smoking where children might be
I'm FOR allowing business owners to ban smoking if that's what they choose.
And for the record, if the government outlawed the sale of cigarettes tomorrow I'd support them 100%.
I'm FOR allowing business owners to ban smoking if that's what they choose.
And for the record, if the government outlawed the sale of cigarettes tomorrow I'd support them 100%.
Why favor the harsher measure (complete ban) rather than allowing them to designate areas in which people can't indulge because it's unsafe for others?
I'm FOR allowing business owners to ban smoking if that's what they choose.
And for the record, if the government outlawed the sale of cigarettes tomorrow I'd support them 100%.
Why favor the harsher measure (complete ban) rather than allowing them to designate areas in which people can't indulge because it's unsafe for others?
The ONLY thing that I apparently disagree with is you think a smoker should have a designated 'area" and I think they should be allowed to have a designated "bar" where they can smoke.
Hey non-smokers, if smoke bothers you don't go to a club that is designated as a smokers club......and don't go to where the designated "smoking areas" are either.
I'm FOR allowing business owners to ban smoking if that's what they choose.
And for the record, if the government outlawed the sale of cigarettes tomorrow I'd support them 100%.
Why favor the harsher measure (complete ban) rather than allowing them to designate areas in which people can't indulge because it's unsafe for others?
The ONLY thing that I apparently disagree with is you think a smoker should have a designated 'area" and I think they should be allowed to have a designated "bar" where they can smoke.
Maybe you missed it the three times I mentioned it, but they can go to Cigar Bars.
I'm FOR allowing business owners to ban smoking if that's what they choose.
And for the record, if the government outlawed the sale of cigarettes tomorrow I'd support them 100%.
Why favor the harsher measure (complete ban) rather than allowing them to designate areas in which people can't indulge because it's unsafe for others?
The ONLY thing that I apparently disagree with is you think a smoker should have a designated 'area" and I think they should be allowed to have a designated "bar" where they can smoke.
Maybe you missed it the three times I mentioned it, but they can go to Cigar Bars.
I hear you......but that is not the case here in Dallas.....which is EXACTLY my point.
the way i see it now, i think a license would be a good look. i mean, if people really prefer non-smoking bars, they'll go to a non-smoking bar and bars that allow smoking will lose out or basically the majority of people there will be smokers themselves. it just seems like it would work itself out on its own. i just think a business owner should be allowed to choose what is allowed in their business as long as its not illegal.
I'm FOR allowing business owners to ban smoking if that's what they choose.
And for the record, if the government outlawed the sale of cigarettes tomorrow I'd support them 100%.
Why favor the harsher measure (complete ban) rather than allowing them to designate areas in which people can't indulge because it's unsafe for others?
The ONLY thing that I apparently disagree with is you think a smoker should have a designated 'area" and I think they should be allowed to have a designated "bar" where they can smoke.
Maybe you missed it the three times I mentioned it, but they can go to Cigar Bars.
I hear you......but that is not the case here in Dallas.....which is EXACTLY my point.
So, you're saying they don't have Cigar Bars in Dallas? Or they don't allow them?
This is hitting Chicago on the 1st. I dont think its such a bad thing, but the bars I usually go to are older neighborhood bars in various states of disrepair that have had people smoking in them since the 30s. Now theyll probably just smell like urine and spilt beer.
I smoke, but not that much, UNLESS im out at a bar then I smoke a bit more, and would happily go outside (even during the cold-ass chicago winter) But I usually go on weeknights or Sundays to relax and watch some football and maybe have a couple smokes indoors, because i dont smoke in my house. Those nights the bar isnt that crowded and you can barely notice the smokiness anyway. Totally different story on a saturday night, i tend to go home before the crowds or hit a gallery opening instead, mostly to avoid the hordes of drunk idiots, which is the reason Its smoky in the first place.
I think that if youre old enough to decide to drink, youre old enough to decide if you want to go to a bar or club that allows smoking, and I think its important to see both sides of opinions here.
I dont think its something that should be regulated by the government, the possession of tobacco and alcohol is already a right that is given in america based on age, which varies in most every country anyway. I think the owner should have the option to ban smoking if he chooses, or not allow smoking on crowded nights.
I think the owner should have the option to ban smoking if he chooses, or not allow smoking on crowded nights.
The things I would like people making this point to address is that when the owner chooses, in most areas of the country bar owners choose 99.9% of the time to allow smoking. And they have made that choice for everyone who works in all of those joints over the years as well. It doesn't actually result in a spectrum of options for employees, nor for customers!!!
One of the benefits in my area of the smoking ban is the relaxed re-entry policy it forces all clubs and venues to have. Most live music venues around here used to have strict no re-entry policies and once you were in the show you were pretty much locked in until you went home. Not that I have this burning need to leave a show every five minutes, but it's nice to have the option, especially if you want to skip the middle band or whatever. Or if you want to go to your car for a nice
Again, you're prioritizing the "rights" of the business owner over the safety of his employees and clientelle. As I said ealier, in Baltimore bars are scared to be the only place that bans smoking because they don't want to lose the % of people who smoke. As a result, roughly 2 bars out of 1,000 are non-smoking. However, you'd better believe that more than .5% of the DJs, bands, bartenders, barbacks, waiters, and drinkers in this town would rather do their thing in an environment where they weren't increasing their risk for a wide variety of cancers.
Telling the people to go stand out on the corner in the middle of the night in Baltimore is not exactly what i would consider safe.
Again, you're prioritizing the "rights" of the business owner over the safety of his employees and clientelle. As I said ealier, in Baltimore bars are scared to be the only place that bans smoking because they don't want to lose the % of people who smoke. As a result, roughly 2 bars out of 1,000 are non-smoking. However, you'd better believe that more than .5% of the DJs, bands, bartenders, barbacks, waiters, and drinkers in this town would rather do their thing in an environment where they weren't increasing their risk for a wide variety of cancers.
Telling the people to go stand out on the corner in the middle of the night in Baltimore is not exactly what i would consider safe.
Lol. Point taken, although more people out on the street at night would actually make things much safer IMO.
Again, you're prioritizing the "rights" of the business owner over the safety of his employees and clientelle. As I said ealier, in Baltimore bars are scared to be the only place that bans smoking because they don't want to lose the % of people who smoke. As a result, roughly 2 bars out of 1,000 are non-smoking. However, you'd better believe that more than .5% of the DJs, bands, bartenders, barbacks, waiters, and drinkers in this town would rather do their thing in an environment where they weren't increasing their risk for a wide variety of cancers.
Telling the people to go stand out on the corner in the middle of the night in Baltimore is not exactly what i would consider safe.
Lol. Point taken, although more people out on the street at night would actually make things much safer IMO.
True, Friendlyness probably got me safely through the time I was living there! depends on where your at in the city though. Another thing that people dont think about is the noise complaints, bars already have alot of trouble around here with just people making noise entering and leaving the bars in neighborhoods, much less crowds of people stand outside till 2 a.m. Im not talking about all the euro-trash clubs downtown or posh nightspots (which is what I see this law targeting anyway).
Imagine all the drunk locals and art kids making noise and starting fights with crazies in front of the Mount Royal Tavern. Just one problem leading to another.
Again, you're prioritizing the "rights" of the business owner over the safety of his employees and clientelle. As I said ealier, in Baltimore bars are scared to be the only place that bans smoking because they don't want to lose the % of people who smoke. As a result, roughly 2 bars out of 1,000 are non-smoking. However, you'd better believe that more than .5% of the DJs, bands, bartenders, barbacks, waiters, and drinkers in this town would rather do their thing in an environment where they weren't increasing their risk for a wide variety of cancers.
Telling the people to go stand out on the corner in the middle of the night in Baltimore is not exactly what i would consider safe.
Lol. Point taken, although more people out on the street at night would actually make things much safer IMO.
True, Friendlyness probably got me safely through the time I was living there! depends on where your at in the city though. Another thing that people dont think about is the noise complaints, bars already have alot of trouble around here with just people making noise entering and leaving the bars in neighborhoods, much less crowds of people stand outside till 2 a.m. Im not talking about all the euro-trash clubs downtown or posh nightspots (which is what I see this law targeting anyway).
Imagine all the drunk locals and art kids making noise and starting fights with crazies in front of the Mount Royal Tavern. Just one problem leading to another.
Yeah, although I think all the other buildings on the Tavern's block are owned by the art institue and aren't residences. But obviously noise complaints will be a valid issues with many bars anywhere the ban goes into effect.
Course, I'd always take noise polluion over lung pollution. My block is noisy 24-7 but I was made much less happy by roommates who smoked in the house against my wishes.
less happy by upstairs tenants[/b] who smoked in the house
Main reason why we moved out of our last place - the landlord lives in Panama so wasn't there to enforce the rule. Smelling smoke in the morning before you even open your eyes is revolting.
hi, just for the record, some bars have opted to go the co-op route which basically means all the employees are also part owners. and this would exempt them from the government ban on smoking. apparently the smoking ban is mostly for the actual staff at the bars and not for the patrons. it is unfair working conditions to subject your staff to the smoke.
so yeah, posse up.
also, the long arm of the law doesnt reach koreatown. you can still smoke in bars and restaurants and get soju well past the 2am california curfew.
Comments
I'm not ashamed because we're talking principles.....drunk driving kills more than second hand smoke.
Would you be for banning alcohol in clubs/restaurants like they have done in MANY towns in Texas??
Honestly, I think it should be up to the venue owner, who if he is smart, will do what's best for his business.
A bar survives off of the sale of alcohol, not cigarettes. You couldn't ban alcohol from a bar or they wouldn't be a bar anymore, they'd be a family restaurant or a meeting hall or something. The durnk driver vs. second hand smoke argument is tired, it's apples and oranges, and I don't think it's worth even bringing into the argument (i'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it's an entirely different issue). And loud music has never killed anybody. And again, if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in Denver, he or she can convert to a cigar bar and stop serving food, because in Denver, the law IS enforced, entirely. Nobody gets a pass. If an establishment allows smoking it needs to be advertised as such, and per the law, it cannot serve food. Simple as that. I see where you're coming from, but you know, the people decided it should be this way, so that's the way it is going to be. They left options for people who think smoking is a necessity for their business. Nobody's business is failing here from the ban, and nobody is really upset about it or making a big deal over it at all, so it seems like what you see as an issue is not actually bothering the people who have been directly affected by the law.
If it were up to the venue owner, it wouldn't be a "ban", it would be just as it was before. Nobody ever enforced smoking in a bar. Any business owner pre-ban could have banned it from their establishment by simply posting some signs.
So there was a VOTE on this smoking ban and the people decided??
So... people would have to drive further to buy cigarettes? That comparison doesn't really work.
I definitely think the concept of "dry" states are ridiculous, I'm 100% with you there. But no one's asking cigarette smokers to do anything other than smoke in another place where they aren't sharing the health risks of their habit with people who don't have that habit.
I totally support a business owner's right to ban smoking in his establishment.
By way of democracy, yes. Legislature voted on it.
Well, luckily you don't have to now, because it's illegal to allow it.
Again, you're prioritizing the "rights" of the business owner over the safety of his employees and clientelle. As I said ealier, in Baltimore bars are scared to be the only place that bans smoking because they don't want to lose the % of people who smoke. As a result, roughly 2 bars out of 1,000 are non-smoking. However, you'd better believe that more than .5% of the DJs, bands, bartenders, barbacks, waiters, and drinkers in this town would rather do their thing in an environment where they weren't increasing their risk for a wide variety of cancers.
Why is the bar owner's free enterprise unfettered by any safety regulations more valuable than the tens of thousands of people who work 8-hour shifts in a cancerous environment. Might makes right?
You may say "those people could have found other jobs." Nope, not in Bmore. Times are tough and I personally know many people who choose to work in smoke-filled environments against their strong preference because they couldn't find other ways to make rent and put food on the table.
i don't smoke so i guess i like the smoking ban but i'm kinda agreeing with rockadelic (omg) that a business owner should be able to choose what they want if shits legal. i think in hawaii you can't smoke within 20 feet of a business entrance which means in some areas if you really strictly followed that 20 feet thing you would have to walk a few blocks just to smoke.
I'm FOR banning smoking in public venues.
I'm FOR banning smoking where children might be
I'm FOR allowing business owners to ban smoking if that's what they choose.
And for the record, if the government outlawed the sale of cigarettes tomorrow I'd support them 100%.
its not a big deal, and having to go outside everytime will make you wanna quit.
Why favor the harsher measure (complete ban) rather than allowing them to designate areas in which people can't indulge because it's unsafe for others?
The ONLY thing that I apparently disagree with is you think a smoker should have a designated 'area" and I think they should be allowed to have a designated "bar" where they can smoke.
Hey non-smokers, if smoke bothers you don't go to a club that is designated as a smokers club......and don't go to where the designated "smoking areas" are either.
Maybe you missed it the three times I mentioned it, but they can go to Cigar Bars.
I hear you......but that is not the case here in Dallas.....which is EXACTLY my point.
That doesn't really make sense when applied to this issue as making smoking in bars illegal is exactly what happens with a smoking ban.
So, you're saying they don't have Cigar Bars in Dallas? Or they don't allow them?
I smoke, but not that much, UNLESS im out at a bar then I smoke a bit more, and would happily go outside (even during the cold-ass chicago winter) But I usually go on weeknights or Sundays to relax and watch some football and maybe have a couple smokes indoors, because i dont smoke in my house. Those nights the bar isnt that crowded and you can barely notice the smokiness anyway. Totally different story on a saturday night, i tend to go home before the crowds or hit a gallery opening instead, mostly to avoid the hordes of drunk idiots, which is the reason Its smoky in the first place.
I think that if youre old enough to decide to drink, youre old enough to decide if you want to go to a bar or club that allows smoking, and I think its important to see both sides of opinions here.
I dont think its something that should be regulated by the government, the possession of tobacco and alcohol is already a right that is given in america based on age, which varies in most every country anyway. I think the owner should have the option to ban smoking if he chooses, or not allow smoking on crowded nights.
The things I would like people making this point to address is that when the owner chooses, in most areas of the country bar owners choose 99.9% of the time to allow smoking. And they have made that choice for everyone who works in all of those joints over the years as well. It doesn't actually result in a spectrum of options for employees, nor for customers!!!
ban is the relaxed re-entry policy it forces all
clubs and venues to have. Most live music venues
around here used to have strict no re-entry policies
and once you were in the show you were pretty much
locked in until you went home. Not that I have this
burning need to leave a show every five minutes, but
it's nice to have the option, especially if you want to
skip the middle band or whatever. Or if you want to
go to your car for a nice
Telling the people to go stand out on the corner in the middle of the night in Baltimore is not exactly what i would consider safe.
Lol. Point taken, although more people out on the street at night would actually make things much safer IMO.
True, Friendlyness probably got me safely through the time I was living there! depends on where your at in the city though. Another thing that people dont think about is the noise complaints, bars already have alot of trouble around here with just people making noise entering and leaving the bars in neighborhoods, much less crowds of people stand outside till 2 a.m. Im not talking about all the euro-trash clubs downtown or posh nightspots (which is what I see this law targeting anyway).
Imagine all the drunk locals and art kids making noise and starting fights with crazies in front of the Mount Royal Tavern. Just one problem leading to another.
Yeah, although I think all the other buildings on the Tavern's block are owned by the art institue and aren't residences. But obviously noise complaints will be a valid issues with many bars anywhere the ban goes into effect.
Course, I'd always take noise polluion over lung pollution. My block is noisy 24-7 but I was made much less happy by roommates who smoked in the house against my wishes.
Main reason why we moved out of our last place - the landlord lives in Panama so wasn't there to enforce the rule. Smelling smoke in the morning before you even open your eyes is revolting.
so yeah, posse up.
also, the long arm of the law doesnt reach koreatown. you can still smoke in bars and restaurants and get soju well past the 2am california curfew.