Smoking in Bars...

[loser]

Interesting that this thread came up.

The town i was spawned in (Moose Jaw SK) passed a no-smoking bylaw on Feb 11th.  

The bylaw applys to any public building, not just bars and restaurants.

To my suprise the bars and restaurants arent empty...same goes for the bingo halls. However there is a new problem.

Aside from the discussion regarding segregation and all that there seems to be a new problem that has developed. People walking out on bar and restaraunt tabs.

Eg. party of people A go out for a smoke and dont come back. Apparentley alot of local establishments have had to hire many more staff to keep an eye on the smokers and collect tabs before people step out. That of course hurts their bottom line and drives prices up accordingly.

I'm interested to see how this will play out.

[Wlfgng]

public places don't include bars..

but they do include the ski slopes...(ok.. I wish)
the only time I mind is if I'm on the chair behind theirs...

still. smokers think they want a cig at 11k while skiing.

tards.
they usually end up in ICU or on the little stretcher back to the hotel with an oxygen bottle.

[beet1e]

I spent a lot of time in New York/Manhattan in the years 95-99. Their no smoking law had been in existence for some time. It was wonderful to go to restaurants and breathe clean air! We would choose restaurants as opposed to bars which served food to be guaranteed a smoke free environment. I'm very surprised that restaurants are losing money by adopting a no smoking policy. In New York, we sometimes had to wait 45 minutes to get a table for those Sunday brunches. No downturn in business there.

Just this evening, I went with Tomato to the Caffé Uno in Marlow. All the tables in the nonsmoking area were taken. We had to choose between a long wait or a table in smoking, but the maître D' advised us that most of the smoking section was empty, so we were given the end table. It was OK because the next 2-3 tables were empty. Seems most people prefer the nonsmoking section.

[miko2d]

Toad: It does seem to me that if you allow the owner to "make the rules" that apply to his place, then you have to accept segregated establishments.

Toad: Miko has postulated that the owner should be the sole arbiter of who may or may not come into his establishment.

 Right. An owner of an appartment is allowed to make such rules - who he allows in and who he does not.
 A person is allowed to choose his friends or mates.
 But somehow if the relations involve money changing hands rather than non-monetary values (companionship, sex, entertainment, etc.) the outsiders are supposed to have the right to dictate.

Note that I'm not saying this is good or bad.

 Racism may be immoral. But oppression and coercion is evil. When a person offers a service to some category of people, he does not take anything away from other categories of people. He may be making them feel envious of those who enjoy his services and may be losing valuable customers but if he did not offer his services to some people, others would still not get any.

Well, there is a clientele for that sort of place. I'm sure some of the "white power" and "aryan nation" types would love it. Maybe enough to make the owner rich. Or not.
 Under Miko's assessment, that's how it should be.

 I would not be caught dead in such place but if some people do not want to associate with blacks, what right do I have to prevent them from associating with each other?
 About as much right as I have to tell you that you are not allowed to marry a woman of your race, only a different one.


beet1e: I spent a lot of time in New York/Manhattan in the years 95-99. Their no smoking law had been in existence for some time. It was wonderful to go to restaurants and breathe clean air! We would choose restaurants as opposed to bars which served food to be guaranteed a smoke free environment.

 You are confused. The ban was introduced by Mayor Bloomberg - who replaced Juliani in 2002. So it's less than a year old. You could not have enjoyed it in 95-99.
 What you did enjoy was good ventilation systems and separation of the restaurants into smoking and no-smoking zones.

 miko

[beet1e]

Originally posted by miko2d
You are confused. The ban was introduced by Mayor Bloomberg - who replaced Juliani in 2002. So it's less than a year old. You could not have enjoyed it in 95-99.
 What you did enjoy was good ventilation systems and separation of the restaurants into smoking and no-smoking zones.

No, I am not confused. But you are obstinate. If I were entering a restaurant in the US in which smoking was allowed, the first two things the maître D would ask me is "For how many" and  "Smoking or Non". I distinctly remember not having been asked the second question in New York in 1995 because by then it was a redundant question. And I distinctly remember not seeing anyone smoke - even if passing through to the rest room etc.

There were TWO Acts. There was the original Smoke-Free Air Act of 1995, and there was the 2002 Act which you are talking about. The 2002 Act was an extension of the 1995 Act.

Here’s something I found doing a Google search. By all means do your own. Not only does this confirm that I was correct about the nonsmoking law being in effect in 1995, but it also confirms what I said about the restaurant trade booming in spite of the ban - indeed, because of the ban.

http://www.smokefreekids.com/nycrest.htm

Researchers at Cornell University found that a smokefree policy for restaurants attracts more business -- and revenue -- than it drives away. The conclusion was based on a study, "Should NYC's Restaurateurs Lighten Up?" that examined the economic effects of New York City's Smoke-Free Air Act, a law that banned smoking in almost all restaurants in the city. The findings refute assertions made by the tobacco industry and some restaurant groups before the Act went into effect in April 1995 that banning smoking would cause a tremendous loss of business for restaurants.

The legislation is described in detail here.

http://www.dglaw.com/resource/winter2003_02.shtml

As you will see, although the 2002 Act is discussed at length, there are numerous references to the 1995 Act which preceded it.

I think I'm old enough to know the difference between a nonsmoking restaurant, and one which has a separate area for smoking.

Miko, I think you need to spend less time reading books and researching political facts. You should try to get out a bit more.

[Fatty]

ignore the quote I deleted, the people at your second link are idiots.  Not sure if that's the researchers themselves or people trying to draw from the research, but the interpretations are crap.




In the 1995 version smoking was allowed in restaurants with less than 35 people, and in the bar area of all restaurants.

[Stridr417]

Look, its very simple.  Bars *are* public places.  No they may not be owned by the government, but people can freely go into them, and generally speaking the owner is obliged to allow them.  If a bar decides they simply don't like the look of me and won't let me in, is that allowed?  I think that that would not hold up in a court of law.  

That being said, when the elected government decides that the majority of the population does not smoke, and that all of the evidence shows that smoking and breathing second hand smoke directly cause cancer, heart disease, and a whole host of other unplasantness, they have the power to say that establishments must restrict smoking in the same way that an establishment can't do one of many other things that are health hazards to all of the potential patrons.  You can still do what you wnat at home or outdoors, but ina  palce that is open to the public it is different.  You business is not necessarily your home!

Anyw hy is it that smokers get more wortk-breaks than non-smokers?

[Dowding]

If a bar decides they simply don't like the look of me and won't let me in, is that allowed? I think that that would not hold up in a court of law.

Maybe in the US, I don't know about that. But over here the management reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone. This is especially the case in clubs, which are also licensed. Try to get into a club with a group of lads and you might get refused entry. Happened to me a few times. That's why it is useful to chat up the girlies in the queue.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Stridr, you are not from the US so it is somewhat difficult for you to understand the problem we have with the government becoming involved in a private business regarding smoking.

Cigars and pipes are NOT allowed in bars due to the amount of smoke they produce, however, cigarettes are because some people just love getting a nicotine buzz while boozing.

Yes, just as in England, people can be denied service for how they look. You look too hammered, you won't get service. You go into a bar where you're not wanted, you won't get service. Etc.

Its not UP to the government, it should simply be up to the business' owner. When the majority of the population doesn't smoke and decides they aren't going to go to a bar that allows smoking, he can decide whether or not he wants the majority of the population's business. If he doesn't, then ****, why the hell can't he just allow people in who smoke? They aren't a different race, and there are no parallels to race or sexual orientation with smokers and non-smokers.

Simply put, if a owner of a private business (it is not under the ownership of the public) wants to have smokers as his customers - then he should be allowed to. If he doesn't, well then it'd be a non-smoking bar with a snap of the fingers and no government intervention is necessary.

Anyway - until you understand the basis behind freedom of choice, you probably shouldn't comment on issues like this.
-SW

[Wlfgng]

Anyway - until you understand the basis behind freedom of choice, you probably shouldn't comment on issues like this.

that's gonna' leave a mark  

[beet1e]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Anyway - until you understand the basis behind freedom of choice, you probably shouldn't comment on issues like this.
-SW

Hehe, coming from the country which had Prohibition of alcohol. (1926-1933)

[FUNKED1]

Boy that's really on-topic Beetle.  

[Wlfgng]

notice how we (burp) abolished that

[miko2d]

beet1e: No, I am not confused. But you are obstinate.

 Maybe you are not confised. Maybe you just are obstinate and dishonest.

http://www.dglaw.com/resource/winter2003_02.shtml
As you will see, although the 2002 Act is discussed at length, there are numerous references to the 1995 Act which preceded it.

 You though you would get away with that lie because I would be too lazy to read that link? None of the "numerous references" to the 1995 Act deals with the smoking in the bars and restaurants - the page only talks about the smoking in the office buildings.

 I did my google search. It totally confirms that there was smoking going on in thousands of restaurants untill the summer of 2002 - which is obvious to anyone who has been in New York City at that time.

Harward Center for Cancer Prevention

Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act of 2002, which would expand coverage of a current workplace smoking ban to include all restaurants, bars, offices, pool halls, bingo parlors, bowling alleys, and other indoor areas. Passage of this act would mean the enforcement of no-smoking laws in the 13,000 bars and restaurants that are currently exempt under the 1995 ordinance.[/i]

The main motivation for expanding the smoking ban is to protect bar and restaurant workers from secondhand smoke, which causes both lung cancer and heart disease.

Not only does this confirm that I was correct about the nonsmoking law being in effect in 1995, but it also confirms what I said about the restaurant trade booming in spite of the ban - indeed, because of the ban.

 That is BS - the study claims things that may be true but most likely are not and that cannot possibly be proven. First, there was plenty of smoking in NYC restaurants. Second, everything was booming in New York city from 1995 to 2000. It was the biggest bubble in history. New York was awash in easy money, and people were spending it like there is no tomorrow.
 Anybody who had really visited New York at that time would have clrearly seen it - and smelled it.


Stridr417: No they may not be owned by the government, but people can freely go into them, and generally speaking the owner is obliged to allow them.

 The person/entity who controls the property is the one who owns it. So in reality the restaurants are owned by the government - being injustlu confiscated without proper compensation. The ownership title of the formal proprietor is a fig leaf just like private ownership of the companies was in fascist Germany and Italy. That is why the owner cannot control who and on what conditions he allows to enter into his establisment.
 That is clearly unconstitutional but who gives the damn anymore.

No they may not be owned by the government, but people can freely go into them, and generally speaking the owner is obliged to allow them.

 Power - yes. Legitimate right - no.

 miko

[beet1e]

No lie, Miko. The facts are all over the web.

Here's another link: http://www.nypirg.org/health/tobacco/ciachart.html

If you click on the above link, you will see a tabulation of the scope of nonsmoking legislation in various New York counties. (Some counties enacted legislation in other years, but for NYC it was 1995) For New York City (1995), the scope was:

100% of seating capacity nonsmoking except:

1. Separately enclosed & ventilated smoking room (<25% of entire seating capacity)

2. Establishments with fewer than 35 seats

Well, I guess I was going to establishments with more than 35 seats then. And there was definitely no "separately enclosed & ventilated smoking room".  But even in those small cafés like Paz on Broadway near 84th St., there was no smoking allowed. What the 2002 Act appears to have done is to snuff out smoking at those few establishments which were exempted from the 1995 Act. But on the upper West Side where I was, the only places where food was served that allowed smoking were ones where there was also a bar.

What's the problem, Miko? Do you deny that there actually was a 1995 Smoke-Free air Act?