Smoking bans...

[halik]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: halik
I agree it's a zero sum game, but the difference is that smoking is a public BAD where as not smoking a public GOOD. Government is in the business of encouraging public GOODS and discouraging public BADs (Econ101).

And we're discussing bans in privately-owned establishments, not public buildings. The public has a choice as to whether or not they wish to patronage these privately-owned establishments. Particularly as many of these establishments have already done non-smoking all on their own, providing the public with more than adequate choice. Regulation is unnecessary.

edit: BTW you changed your argument.

Not sure where i switched the arugments...

But to the other thing, non-smokers visiting a smoking bar still creates a negative externality or hidden costs, which is what the ban would address.

I would absolutely agree with you if smoking bars would be packed with smokers and the opposite for non-smokers, but that's simple not the case. If your goal is to minimize the exposure of non-smokers to 2nd hand smoke, having a free market alternative is simply not working .

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik
My argument for that is as follows:

When you go to any bar that allows smoking, the number of actual smokers won't be more than 10%. So the other 90% of people don't smoke, but go to this bar anyway. This essentially voids your argument, since the free market results you argue for would have mostly smokers in smoking bars and mostly non-smokers in non-smoker bars.

In regards to what I put in bold, why? Why do they go anyway?

I mentioned that earlier in the thread, the cost on an individual level is tiny, but on aggregate level is huge (health care costs). It's kind of a market failure - no individual has enough incentive do fix it themselves, even though it would be better for all of us.

Tariffs on sugar are a great example of this phenomena - every U.S. household pays around $100-200 bucks a year more for sugar due to tariffs, but no one will overturn them since the cost of doing so is more than the $100-200 you would save over a year's time.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

You said...

"When you go to any bar that allows smoking, the number of actual smokers won't be more than 10%. So the other 90% of people don't smoke, but go to this bar anyway."

And I asked, "why?"

 

[bamacre]

I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate smoking but these bans are overbearing govt at work imo. MN is great. They ban smoking in the metro area and the bars on the outskirts flourish. So they spread the misery across the entire state. Now bars in Wisc across the border are hopping and they are pressuring wisc to ban smoking.

Then to add insult to injury the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside. WTF? HUH? What purpose does the smoking ban server if the state helps to build rooms to smoke in?

btw one of the biggest nanny stater who pushed through the smoking bans was a huge smoker who wanted to quit. Apparently he felt the best way for him to quit was to outlaw the practive for the states 4.5 million residents as well.

What a fucking douchebag.

While I don't agree with this smoking ban garbage, building seperate rooms does NOT violate the spirit of the law. The idea is that people can go to bars and not be subjected to tons of cigarette smoke - having smokers in a seperate area alleviates that problem.

Yes, it does. It's part of the bar, the voters voted for no smoking in the bar.

The point of the law is that people can go to a bar without being subjected to cigarette smoke. Thus, building seperate rooms would allow that. How is that not upholding the spirit of the law?

But But But there will a part of the bar that has smoke!

So? How is that harming anyone who doesn't already smoke? Those who don't want to be subject to the fumes will be able to enjoy their drinks smoke free. You're not making any sense here.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
I hate smoking but these bans are overbearing govt at work imo. MN is great. They ban smoking in the metro area and the bars on the outskirts flourish. So they spread the misery across the entire state. Now bars in Wisc across the border are hopping and they are pressuring wisc to ban smoking.

Then to add insult to injury the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside. WTF? HUH? What purpose does the smoking ban server if the state helps to build rooms to smoke in?

btw one of the biggest nanny stater who pushed through the smoking bans was a huge smoker who wanted to quit. Apparently he felt the best way for him to quit was to outlaw the practive for the states 4.5 million residents as well.

What a fucking douchebag.

While I don't agree with this smoking ban garbage, building seperate rooms does NOT violate the spirit of the law. The idea is that people can go to bars and not be subjected to tons of cigarette smoke - having smokers in a seperate area alleviates that problem.

Yes, it does. It's part of the bar, the voters voted for no smoking in the bar.

The point of the law is that people can go to a bar without being subjected to cigarette smoke. Thus, building seperate rooms would allow that. How is that not upholding the spirit of the law?

But But But there will a part of the bar that has smoke!

So? How is that harming anyone who doesn't already smoke? Those who don't want to be subject to the fumes will be able to enjoy their drinks smoke free. You're not making any sense here.

Well, what if they have darts in the smoking section?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

If you want to take away my right to smoke in a bar, I'll fight to take away your right to go to bars.

Oh, wait, you don't have the right to go to a bar.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik
My argument for that is as follows:

When you go to any bar that allows smoking, the number of actual smokers won't be more than 10%. So the other 90% of people don't smoke, but go to this bar anyway. This essentially voids your argument, since the free market results you argue for would have mostly smokers in smoking bars and mostly non-smokers in non-smoker bars.

In regards to what I put in bold, why? Why do they go anyway?

I mentioned that earlier in the thread, the cost on an individual level is tiny, but on aggregate level is huge (health care costs). It's kind of a market failure - no individual has enough incentive do fix it themselves, even though it would be better for all of us.

Tariffs on sugar are a great example of this phenomena - every U.S. household pays around $100-200 bucks a year more for sugar due to tariffs, but no one will overturn them since the cost of doing so is more than the $100-200 you would save over a year's time.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

You said...

"When you go to any bar that allows smoking, the number of actual smokers won't be more than 10%. So the other 90% of people don't smoke, but go to this bar anyway."

And I asked, "why?"

Reading comprehension... it's an imperfect market. Even though non-smokers are likely to prefer prefer it, the cost of going to the non-smoking bar is more than going to the smoking bar.

In a perfect market scenario, there would be an alternative non-smoking bar with a cost of attendance equal to the smoking one.

Arguments like yours were used to justify segregation - "just go to a black establishment, it's all the same."

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

If you want to take away my right to smoke in a bar, I'll fight to take away your right to go to bars.

Oh, wait, you don't have the right to go to a bar.

If you can guarantee that your smoke won't go anywhere else but yourself, you can smoke at the bar all you want. For a libertarian, you really lack that whole "your rights end where mine start" concept.

 

[nakedfrog]

Ha ha, bamacre is a racist!

No, I don't think that shoe fits. Comparing smoking and segregation is a stretch at best.

 

[SAWYER]

Why the F would a cry baby do-gooder complain and want to go to a cigar bar? I do not smoke, I detest it, but wtf

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

If you want to take away my right to smoke in a bar, I'll fight to take away your right to go to bars.

Oh, wait, you don't have the right to go to a bar.

If you can guarantee that your smoke won't go anywhere else but yourself, you can smoke at the bar all you want. For a libertarian, you really lack that whole "your rights end where mine start" concept.

Uh... You're anything but libertarian... The market has and does provide non-smoking bars.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

If you want to take away my right to smoke in a bar, I'll fight to take away your right to go to bars.

Oh, wait, you don't have the right to go to a bar.

If you can guarantee that your smoke won't go anywhere else but yourself, you can smoke at the bar all you want. For a libertarian, you really lack that whole "your rights end where mine start" concept.

No. The problem is NOT with me.

You fail to realize two things. One, the owner of the bar has the right to decide whether or not to allow his customers to smoke. And, two, you do NOT have the right to go to any bar you want to. If you don't believe me, go to a popular bar in LA, wait in line to get in, and watch the bouncer tell you that you are too ugly or aren't dressed "correctly" to come into the bar.

My stance on this issue is very much in step with Libertarian belief.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

So, when you come over to MY bar are you going to ask me to turn down the music?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik
My argument for that is as follows:

When you go to any bar that allows smoking, the number of actual smokers won't be more than 10%. So the other 90% of people don't smoke, but go to this bar anyway. This essentially voids your argument, since the free market results you argue for would have mostly smokers in smoking bars and mostly non-smokers in non-smoker bars.

In regards to what I put in bold, why? Why do they go anyway?

I mentioned that earlier in the thread, the cost on an individual level is tiny, but on aggregate level is huge (health care costs). It's kind of a market failure - no individual has enough incentive do fix it themselves, even though it would be better for all of us.

Tariffs on sugar are a great example of this phenomena - every U.S. household pays around $100-200 bucks a year more for sugar due to tariffs, but no one will overturn them since the cost of doing so is more than the $100-200 you would save over a year's time.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

You said...

"When you go to any bar that allows smoking, the number of actual smokers won't be more than 10%. So the other 90% of people don't smoke, but go to this bar anyway."

And I asked, "why?"

Reading comprehension... it's an imperfect market. Even though non-smokers are likely to prefer prefer it, the cost of going to the non-smoking bar is more than going to the smoking bar.

In a perfect market scenario, there would be an alternative non-smoking bar with a cost of attendance equal to the smoking one.

Arguments like yours were used to justify segregation - "just go to a black establishment, it's all the same."

No, they're used to justify discrimination. Personally, I have no problem with companies (non-public) denying service or employment to anyone irregardless of the reason.

 

[Deeko]

*yawn* it's hardly an "overbearing government" when THE VOTERS VOTED ON IT, AND 61% OF THEM WANTED THIS. Are you guys completely missing this? That isn't exactly a close vote. The people of this city wanted this ban, they voted on it, they got it. This "overbearing, nanny-state government" is what those people voted to have, so just go away and accept it. If you live there and don't like it, well, the majority of your neighbors do, so deal with it or move.

It's really quite simple....

 

[SAWYER]

What's even more simple is a self-righteous elite shithead should not go into a smoking bar if they don't like smoke. I don't like country music, that would be like me going to the Grand Old Opery.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Did I read the part where it said "the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside." incorrectly?

Why is this a bad thing?

Beats me, I think it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

As do I. Here in FL (in my area anyway) many restaurants and bars that fall into the smoke free rules have added or expanded outdoor seating to accommodate smoking guests.

Second Hand Smoke is still a health hazard! OMG WERE GOING TO DIE!!! AIEE!!!!

Better be carefull or it will raise your UHC rates.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Deeko
*yawn* it's hardly an "overbearing government" when THE VOTERS VOTED ON IT, AND 61% OF THEM WANTED THIS. Are you guys completely missing this? That isn't exactly a close vote. The people of this city wanted this ban, they voted on it, they got it. This "overbearing, nanny-state government" is what those people voted to have, so just go away and accept it. If you live there and don't like it, well, the majority of your neighbors do, so deal with it or move.

It's really quite simple....

Okay, let's talk about the Nebraska smoking ban that we didn't get to vote on.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Deeko
*yawn* it's hardly an "overbearing government" when THE VOTERS VOTED ON IT, AND 61% OF THEM WANTED THIS. Are you guys completely missing this? That isn't exactly a close vote. The people of this city wanted this ban, they voted on it, they got it. This "overbearing, nanny-state government" is what those people voted to have, so just go away and accept it. If you live there and don't like it, well, the majority of your neighbors do, so deal with it or move.

It's really quite simple....

Okay, let's talk about the Nebraska smoking ban that we didn't get to vote on.

Yes, that's a different discussion. I'm referring to the one in the OP, where it is very clear that this is what the people wanted.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Deeko
*yawn* it's hardly an "overbearing government" when THE VOTERS VOTED ON IT, AND 61% OF THEM WANTED THIS. Are you guys completely missing this? That isn't exactly a close vote. The people of this city wanted this ban, they voted on it, they got it. This "overbearing, nanny-state government" is what those people voted to have, so just go away and accept it. If you live there and don't like it, well, the majority of your neighbors do, so deal with it or move.

It's really quite simple....

Okay, let's talk about the Nebraska smoking ban that we didn't get to vote on.

Yes, that's a different discussion. I'm referring to the one in the OP, where it is very clear that this is what the people wanted.

I'm sure if there was a vote on a measure that would give the people a million dollars, people would head to the polls with maxed-out credit cards.

Doesn't make it right. And this is why we have a Constitutional Republic instead of a mob-rule Democracy.

 

[Deeko]

So what do you want? If the duly-elected lawmakers make up a law people don't like, OMGZ NANNY STATE! LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE! If they take an issue to the voters, and the voters pick a law some people don't like, OMGZ WE'RE A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!

Unless they're making 100% of the people happy, which is obviously impossible, they can't win with you people.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

If you want to take away my right to smoke in a bar, I'll fight to take away your right to go to bars.

Oh, wait, you don't have the right to go to a bar.

If you can guarantee that your smoke won't go anywhere else but yourself, you can smoke at the bar all you want. For a libertarian, you really lack that whole "your rights end where mine start" concept.

No. The problem is NOT with me.

You fail to realize two things. One, the owner of the bar has the right to decide whether or not to allow his customers to smoke. And, two, you do NOT have the right to go to any bar you want to. If you don't believe me, go to a popular bar in LA, wait in line to get in, and watch the bouncer tell you that you are too ugly or aren't dressed "correctly" to come into the bar.

My stance on this issue is very much in step with Libertarian belief.

Hardly,
try having a bar with "whites only" policy and see how quick you'll settle with the AG.
linkie

The same argument can be made for employers or housing providers and it's equally void. You don't have a full say into who you can or cannot bar from employing/dwelling.

BTW people that sympathize with Ron Paul are a bunch of misguided libertopians that lack in the Economics & Policy departments... hardly true Libertarians.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

So, when you come over to MY bar are you going to ask me to turn down the music?

Shot and a miss... I will tell you turn your music down if you're in a residential zoned area and are blasting music past 10pm. Google "noise violations" ...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: bamacre
I think the most dangerous thing second-hand smoke has ever done is cause people to lose respect for the ideals and beliefs of freedom and property rights.

The ideas of freedom were once something highly respected, something praised, held on a pedestal, something worth more than life itself. Something a terrorist with a bomb, nor a man with a gun, could take away. Rights that were inalienable.

But here we live in a time when people are so scared of death, they forget how to live. They don't know what living means anymore. As if its nothing more than being able to breathe air and pump blood.

If people are willing to toss away the beliefs and ideals that once made the USA great because of something so insignificant and so irrelevant as second-hand smoke, then I declare this country dead. Beat it, beat it now, beat it until its dead, beat it until I can't hear its cries anymore.

I love how people always attempt some high and mighty arguments about their "inalienable freedoms". No one, I repeat NO ONE is telling you you're not allowed to smoke anymore. We're simply saying don't make me smoke along with you.

It's no different than having quiet hours after 10pm on weekdays... you can still blast your music, just not when most people want to sleep

So, when you come over to MY bar are you going to ask me to turn down the music?

Shot and a miss... I will tell you turn your music down if you're in a residential zoned area and are blasting music past 10pm. Google "noise violations" ...

What's the difference between loud music in a bar and smoking in a bar?