Some Bar Owners Defy Colorado Smoking Ban

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
WHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! I want to smoke, kill myself slowly, annoy the crap out of those around me, and defy the will of the majority!!! God dammit, it's my right!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

If we take a vote and the majority agrees that Jules Maximus should be violently sodomized with a broom handle, will you go along with it? It is the will of the majority after all. You wouldn't want defy that would you?

I vote yea.


BTW, to those who continue to not understand this issue, this has nothing to do with smoking except what you're being brainwashed and controlled by fear to believe. This is a property rights issue. It's not your property. You are not entitled to dictate to other people what they may or may not allow on their property anymore than they are entitled to dictate what you may or may not allow on your property. You are being tricked into sacrificing your own rights under the false guise that you are under attack. This is just yet another "war on terror."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Vic
I applaud their civil disobedience and wish them luck.

It's not the smokers who are the whiners, it's a small minority of self-righteous non-smokers. You don't like smoking in bars, then don't fscking go to smoky bars! I'm a non-smoker, and that's exactly what I do. And what a shocker, bars are becoming non-smoking all by themselves everywhere you go! They want the non-smoker business just as much as they smoker business.

These laws pass democratic elections BTW because the overwhelming majority of the electorate never even goes to a bar -- young people don't vote. Grandma OTOH never misses an election.

I love how legislation to ban smoking suddenly becomes self righteous. There wouldn't be these laws if the majority of smokers actually gave 2 shits who is around them when they light up. They just assume you will deal with it or leave....even if you were there first. It's like one of those belligerent drunk douchebags who just sits down next to you and won't stfu about ufos.

The in-your-face self-righteousness in this post in quite ironic.

Of course legislation to ban smoking is self righteous. Who the hell are you to tell other people what to do with themselves? And to use the force of law to do so? The only way you could possibly justify such actions is by believing that your sh!t don't stink.

Why is it self-righteous to tell someone who is SMOKING (aka killing not only themselves but others around them with secondhand smoke) to GTFO or stop smoking around others that don't? Why is it self-righteous to tell smokers that other people don't want to smell and inhale their crap? Why is it self-righteous to tell someone else that the MAJORITY doesn't want something so a law is enacted to enforce that majority position? Geez...I'm coming to fully believe that people that smoke/support smoking really don't give two s**ts about anyone but themselves. "Let me smoke anywhere, anytime and in any amount I want. Screw anyone that doesn't smoke." Tell me that isn't self-righteous.

It's self righteous because the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER choose to allow smoking. If you don't like smoking, don't go to places that allow it.

The only selfish ones are those who chose to impose their wishes on others and violate the private property rights of business owners.

I hate smoking. I hate the smell. I banned it in my stores from the beginning. But I would NEVER think to force any other private property owner to do the same. It's THEIR property. Not yours. If I don;t like their policy, I don't go there.

You do NOT have a right to go into a business. You are not entitled to walk into ANY business. You are there by the invite of the owner and can be asked to leave at any time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Why is it self-righteous to tell someone who is SMOKING (aka killing not only themselves but others around them with secondhand smoke) to GTFO or stop smoking around others that don't? Why is it self-righteous to tell smokers that other people don't want to smell and inhale their crap? Why is it self-righteous to tell someone else that the MAJORITY doesn't want something so a law is enacted to enforce that majority position? Geez...I'm coming to fully believe that people that smoke/support smoking really don't give two s**ts about anyone but themselves. "Let me smoke anywhere, anytime and in any amount I want. Screw anyone that doesn't smoke." Tell me that isn't self-righteous.

It might be if it wasn't an absurd straw man that has virtually nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm offended by people who wear too much cologne/perfume, and it even upsets my sinuses, but you don't see me trying to pass a law against that, or to fearmonger the sheep majority into a stampede either.

And so what about the majority? If the majority decided to commit genocide on a minority group, would that be acceptable to you as well? Is that how democracy works to you?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: davestar
the hyposcrisy of these smoking ban alarmists is absurd.

if you're SO against a smoking ban in bars, then shouldn't you also be up in arms about ANY state/county law prohibiting smoking in "conventional" places of business? retail stores, offices, etc are privately owned buildings that serve the public. what right does the gov't have to stop people from smoking in them?!? oh yeah, there's no loud music or booze being served.

admit it: the only reason that people are upset about the increasing number of smoking bans in bars is due to the tradition of smoking while drinking. equal and fair application of the law is conveniently ignored when smoking bans are discussed. people are sh!tting bricks about their "rights" being taken away, but they ignore the fact that a bar is a business and by law, should be treated like a business.

The vast majority of retail businesses voluntarily banned smoking in their stores LONG before laws were passed.

A business is private property. Smoking is not a hidden "threat." It is readily apparent that people are smoking when you walk into a building.

What we are doing here is robbing property owners of their rights. It has nothing to do with smokers. Telling a business they cannot allow smoking is no less egregious than the government telling you you must allow smoking in your home.

Telling a business they can not allow smoking is just like telling a business they can not sell alcohol. What is the difference?

While I disagree with alcohol sales licensing in general, I'll bite.

Alcohol is the TYPE of business they are doing. Not the actions they are allowing on their property. It requires a license and the only people denied are people with criminal records, or because of zoning issues.

In other words, it's an invalid comparison.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused

The vast majority of retail businesses voluntarily banned smoking in their stores LONG before laws were passed.

A business is private property. Smoking is not a hidden "threat." It is readily apparent that people are smoking when you walk into a building.

What we are doing here is robbing property owners of their rights. It has nothing to do with smokers. Telling a business they cannot allow smoking is no less egregious than the government telling you you must allow smoking in your home.

Oh please, The USSC ruled that no one has private property in the U.S.

Knock it off Dave. No one wants to hear you rant about sh!t you can't even understand.

Why don't you tell everyone how you blamed "neocons" for taking down a cross on public land? :roll:

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: davestar
the hyposcrisy of these smoking ban alarmists is absurd.

if you're SO against a smoking ban in bars, then shouldn't you also be up in arms about ANY state/county law prohibiting smoking in "conventional" places of business? retail stores, offices, etc are privately owned buildings that serve the public. what right does the gov't have to stop people from smoking in them?!? oh yeah, there's no loud music or booze being served.

admit it: the only reason that people are upset about the increasing number of smoking bans in bars is due to the tradition of smoking while drinking. equal and fair application of the law is conveniently ignored when smoking bans are discussed. people are sh!tting bricks about their "rights" being taken away, but they ignore the fact that a bar is a business and by law, should be treated like a business.

The vast majority of retail businesses voluntarily banned smoking in their stores LONG before laws were passed.

A business is private property. Smoking is not a hidden "threat." It is readily apparent that people are smoking when you walk into a building.

What we are doing here is robbing property owners of their rights. It has nothing to do with smokers. Telling a business they cannot allow smoking is no less egregious than the government telling you you must allow smoking in your home.

Telling a business they can not allow smoking is just like telling a business they can not sell alcohol. What is the difference?

While I disagree with alcohol sales licensing in general, I'll bite.

Alcohol is the TYPE of business they are doing. Not the actions they are allowing on their property. It requires a license and the only people denied are people with criminal records, or because of zoning issues.

In other words, it's an invalid comparison.

Yes, and they are banning smoking at that type of business.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: davestar
the hyposcrisy of these smoking ban alarmists is absurd.

if you're SO against a smoking ban in bars, then shouldn't you also be up in arms about ANY state/county law prohibiting smoking in "conventional" places of business? retail stores, offices, etc are privately owned buildings that serve the public. what right does the gov't have to stop people from smoking in them?!? oh yeah, there's no loud music or booze being served.

admit it: the only reason that people are upset about the increasing number of smoking bans in bars is due to the tradition of smoking while drinking. equal and fair application of the law is conveniently ignored when smoking bans are discussed. people are sh!tting bricks about their "rights" being taken away, but they ignore the fact that a bar is a business and by law, should be treated like a business.

The vast majority of retail businesses voluntarily banned smoking in their stores LONG before laws were passed.

A business is private property. Smoking is not a hidden "threat." It is readily apparent that people are smoking when you walk into a building.

What we are doing here is robbing property owners of their rights. It has nothing to do with smokers. Telling a business they cannot allow smoking is no less egregious than the government telling you you must allow smoking in your home.

Telling a business they can not allow smoking is just like telling a business they can not sell alcohol. What is the difference?

While I disagree with alcohol sales licensing in general, I'll bite.

Alcohol is the TYPE of business they are doing. Not the actions they are allowing on their property. It requires a license and the only people denied are people with criminal records, or because of zoning issues.

In other words, it's an invalid comparison.

Yes, and they are banning smoking at that type of business.

The funny thing is you find such an irrelvant compaison so profound, you think it trumps all other arguments.

It doesn't. It's absurd.

 

[Gooberlx2]

He should just start selling tobacco and fudge his numbers with the tip money to reflect an appropriate percentage.. It's what the strip joints do to get around it.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Really? So business owners don't own their property?

Wow...

People who think like you scare the hell out of me. You really do.

I said it's different, I didn't say they don't own the property. I don't allow people to just walk into my house whenever they please. Do you?

You can't just walk into a bar whenever you please either. They want your business, which is why they let you in, but they reserve the right to refuse service and/or to even kick you out should you wear out your welcome. It's clearly private property.

When is the last time you got kicked out of a bar? It's NEVER happened to me and I've been in plenty of bars. How many times have you just walked into a house you've never been to before where you didn't know anyone who lived there?

A bar is a business that allows the public free access to it during business hours. Is it legally private property? Yes. Is it the same as a personal home? No fvcking way. Walk up to my door and ring the bell. If I recognize you I'll open the door, if not, I'll ignore the bell and hope you go away. If you don't go away I have a few loaded guns that might persuade you to leave. Pretty much anyone can walk into a bar anytime during business hours. It's not the same.

I think a key point of the law is that the employees are not forced to breath second hand smoke in order to make a living. These people are setting themselves up for a lawsuit from the first employee that gets an athsma attack or bronchitus. If a person had a good lawyer, he/she sould easily end up owning a bar.

I don't smoke, but telling others they can't smoke is BS.

"THE SMOKERS ARE REVOLTING"

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Really? So business owners don't own their property?

Wow...

People who think like you scare the hell out of me. You really do.

I said it's different, I didn't say they don't own the property. I don't allow people to just walk into my house whenever they please. Do you?

You can't just walk into a bar whenever you please either. They want your business, which is why they let you in, but they reserve the right to refuse service and/or to even kick you out should you wear out your welcome. It's clearly private property.

When is the last time you got kicked out of a bar? It's NEVER happened to me and I've been in plenty of bars. How many times have you just walked into a house you've never been to before where you didn't know anyone who lived there?

A bar is a business that allows the public free access to it during business hours. Is it legally private property? Yes. Is it the same as a personal home? No fvcking way. Walk up to my door and ring the bell. If I recognize you I'll open the door, if not, I'll ignore the bell and hope you go away. If you don't go away I have a few loaded guns that might persuade you to leave. Pretty much anyone can walk into a bar anytime during business hours. It's not the same.

I think a key point of the law is that the employees are not forced to breath second hand smoke in order to make a living. These people are setting themselves up for a lawsuit from the first employee that gets an athsma attack or bronchitus. If a person had a good lawyer, he/she sould easily end up owning a bar.

I don't smoke, but telling others they can't smoke is BS.

"THE SMOKERS ARE REVOLTING"

Um, no. Smoking is not a hidden "threat." It is readily apparent. Employment at a smoking establishment is not manditory. Just as the customer can chose not to patronize a smoking establishment, an employee can chose not to work at one.

Working in a business that allows smoking is an ASSUMED risk.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
What's the difference between the government ordering a smoking ban at bars and the government deciding not to give out a liquor license?

I've read a lot of arguments about how it should be up to the bar owner to decide, etc. Well, what if the government just decides not to issue liquor licenses to establishments that allow smoking? A liquor license is issued from the government. So, if they can determine who can or can not get a license to sell liquor, I don't see why they can't decide to ban smoking.

As for the nanny state arguement....well, the government's function is to serve in the best interests of its citizens. If smoking is deemed to be a public health hazard, the government has a right to act in the best interest of the people. If that means banning smoking in bars, then so be it. It isn't banning all smoking. It is just banning it in certain geographic location (within the confines of a public place).

Yes, outright banning smoking would be unconstitutional. So instead, we'll just ban it in bars, public places, private businesses, then near schools, on streets, in apartment buildings, then condos, houses that have other houses within 200ft, in cars on public streets, etc. That way we can get around that nasty little constitution thing that allows people the right to do what they want (within reason). We'll just ban it in one area at a time until its effectively banned everywhere.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
WHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! I want to smoke, kill myself slowly, annoy the crap out of those around me, and defy the will of the majority!!! God dammit, it's my right!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

It's absolutely their right. Just like it's our right to not patronize places filled with smoke, a right that I exercise regularly.

Are there any such places where you live?

Thankfully, there are here...in fact, smoking is banned in all public buildings where I live. It's something I really only fully appreciate when I go to states that don't have these laws though.

A bar is not a public building. It is private property.

No, my house if private property. A bar is a little different.

Really? So business owners don't own their property?

Wow...

People who think like you scare the hell out of me. You really do.

So since a bar is private property, the bar owner can walk around naked? I can walk around naked in my house, why can't he in his own bar? If he did, I'm sure he'd get arrested.

I'm sure a bar is different "private property" than a house, because somehow a law was passed to ban smoking in them. It's still legal to smoke in your own home. So yes, they are different.

I'm sure he could if he wanted. I mean, people do it all the time. They're called strip clubs.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
WHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! I want to smoke, kill myself slowly, annoy the crap out of those around me, and defy the will of the majority!!! God dammit, it's my right!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

It's absolutely their right. Just like it's our right to not patronize places filled with smoke, a right that I exercise regularly.

Are there any such places where you live?

Thankfully, there are here...in fact, smoking is banned in all public buildings where I live. It's something I really only fully appreciate when I go to states that don't have these laws though.

A bar is not a public building. It is private property.

No, my house if private property. A bar is a little different.

Really? So business owners don't own their property?

Wow...

People who think like you scare the hell out of me. You really do.

So since a bar is private property, the bar owner can walk around naked? I can walk around naked in my house, why can't he in his own bar? If he did, I'm sure he'd get arrested.

I'm sure a bar is different "private property" than a house, because somehow a law was passed to ban smoking in them. It's still legal to smoke in your own home. So yes, they are different.

I'm sure he could if he wanted. I mean, people do it all the time. They're called strip clubs.

I didn't see that post.

The answer is yes, so long as there is a warning on the door and the nudity is not visable from the street (kind of silly, and I oppose "decency laws"). Nudist colonies and strip clubs exist. And there are also nudist businesses.

 

[Double Trouble]

I thought I had properly explained this to Amused/Vic and others already, but it seems they still have misconceptions.

A business is NOT --- repeat NOT --- "private property", no matter how many times you say that it is. It is "private property with public access". There is a legal distinction, like it or not. You can argue if the government goes to far imposing regulations on private property with public access, but that's a different discussion. You keep posting that a bar is private property, it is NOT.

Bar owners in many places where there are such bans are just kind of taking the approach that they are better off not enforcing it and risking fines than risking their business by enforcing the ban. That's a business decision, but I can just about guarantee that there will be lawsuits forthcoming from employees in time. When an employee gets sick (lets say someone gets lung cancer), they are going to sue the bar owner for willfully creating a hazardous work environment. In such a scenario the "it was an assumed risk when you went to work at a bar" will not hold ANY water in court, since assumption of risk does not absolve the owner of the business of responsibility to create a safe working environment, no matter how obvious the risk might seem. If the owner willfully elects to not enforce the law, they are setting themselves up for some huge suits later on. Just a matter of time.......

 

[Zolty]

I <3 the smoking ban in Madison. I smoke less, I don't smell like crap the next day and normally I get to meet more people.

As a smoker I don't believe I have the right to smoke in an enclosed area around those who choose not to smoke. I believe that if I do I am infringing on their choice and I am putting their health at risk.

PS. I do smoke but only when drinking.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tagej
I thought I had properly explained this to Amused/Vic and others already, but it seems they still have misconceptions.

A business is NOT --- repeat NOT --- "private property", no matter how many times you say that it is. It is "private property with public access". There is a legal distinction, like it or not. You can argue if the government goes to far imposing regulations on private property with public access, but that's a different discussion. You keep posting that a bar is private property, it is NOT.

Um yes, it is. Just because the owner choses to offer public access does not rob him of his property rights... no matter how much the socialists have chipped away at those rights.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
WHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! I want to smoke, kill myself slowly, annoy the crap out of those around me, and defy the will of the majority!!! God dammit, it's my right!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

It's absolutely their right. Just like it's our right to not patronize places filled with smoke, a right that I exercise regularly.

Are there any such places where you live?

Thankfully, there are here...in fact, smoking is banned in all public buildings where I live. It's something I really only fully appreciate when I go to states that don't have these laws though.

A bar is not a public building. It is private property.

No, my house if private property. A bar is a little different.

Really? So business owners don't own their property?

Wow...

People who think like you scare the hell out of me. You really do.

So since a bar is private property, the bar owner can walk around naked? I can walk around naked in my house, why can't he in his own bar? If he did, I'm sure he'd get arrested.

I'm sure a bar is different "private property" than a house, because somehow a law was passed to ban smoking in them. It's still legal to smoke in your own home. So yes, they are different.

I'm sure he could if he wanted. I mean, people do it all the time. They're called strip clubs.

I didn't see that post.

The answer is yes, so long as there is a warning on the door and the nudity is not visable from the street (kind of silly, and I oppose "decency laws"). Nudist colonies and strip clubs exist. And there are also nudist businesses.

Which brings up an interesting point. What if I wanted to open up a "smoking club" where people came in for the express purpose of smoking and sampling different kinds of cigars and cigarrettes? That is now banned because of this law is it not?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zolty
I <3 the smoking ban in Madison. I smoke less, I don't smell like crap the next day and normally I get to meet more people.

As a smoker I don't believe I have the right to smoke in an enclosed area around those who choose not to smoke. I believe that if I do I am infringing on their choice and I am putting their health at risk.

PS. I do smoke but only when drinking.

I guess the nanny state works then, eh? :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tagej
I thought I had properly explained this to Amused/Vic and others already, but it seems they still have misconceptions.

A business is NOT --- repeat NOT --- "private property", no matter how many times you say that it is. It is "private property with public access". There is a legal distinction, like it or not. You can argue if the government goes to far imposing regulations on private property with public access, but that's a different discussion. You keep posting that a bar is private property, it is NOT.

You're splitting hairs on a legal distinction that is irrelevant to this issue. It is still private property, as you admit.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Which brings up an interesting point. What if I wanted to open up a "smoking club" where people came in for the express purpose of smoking and sampling different kinds of cigars and cigarrettes? That is now banned because of this law is it not?

Yes, it is in most areas/states with smoking bans. In some areas, "private clubs" that are "membership only" can get around smoking bans. But most areas banned this as well when bars started becoming "private clubs" and offered token membership to everyone.

 

[Skotty]

Originally posted by: Sraaz

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I remember reading that when the ban first started in NY, that some bar owners pulled the state run gambling machines in protest. Their thoughts were... you screw with our income, we will screw with yours. The state tried to guilt trip them that the money from the machines went for kids' and schools and etc. Ha.

Legally... I think that it should be up to individual bar owners to decide if smoking should be allowed or not.

But on a personal level, as a smoker, I agree with the ban in restaurants. I can even see the point in bar/restuarants and food chains. But theban in beer and shot joints is bullshit.

I do agree with this. It should be banned in family restaurants, but let bar owners choose. I mean, you're already going there to kill your liver, what's a little smoke going to do?

Add a vote for me. Banning in restaurants is fine, but let bars do whatever they want.

 

[Special K]

For people who currently live in cities/states without smoking bans - are there enough non-smoking bars in your city to give a person a reasonable choice if they don't want to patronize bars that allow smoking?

I can see both sides of this - it should be the owner's decision whether or not to allow it, but if most or all of the bars in an area do allow smoking, then it is pretty unfortunate for those who want to go to a bar but not be subjected to someone's second hand smoke.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tagej
I thought I had properly explained this to Amused/Vic and others already, but it seems they still have misconceptions.

A business is NOT --- repeat NOT --- "private property", no matter how many times you say that it is. It is "private property with public access". There is a legal distinction, like it or not. You can argue if the government goes to far imposing regulations on private property with public access, but that's a different discussion. You keep posting that a bar is private property, it is NOT.

Um yes, it is. Just because the owner choses to offer public access does not rob him of his property rights... no matter how much the socialists have chipped away at those rights.

Once again, you can argue about "chipping away at rights" etc all you want, but there is a legal distinction, and no, "private property" is NOT the same category as "private property with public access". Don't like it? Go talk to your legislature.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tagej
I thought I had properly explained this to Amused/Vic and others already, but it seems they still have misconceptions.

A business is NOT --- repeat NOT --- "private property", no matter how many times you say that it is. It is "private property with public access". There is a legal distinction, like it or not. You can argue if the government goes to far imposing regulations on private property with public access, but that's a different discussion. You keep posting that a bar is private property, it is NOT.

Um yes, it is. Just because the owner choses to offer public access does not rob him of his property rights... no matter how much the socialists have chipped away at those rights.

Once again, you can argue about "chipping away at rights" etc all you want, but there is a legal distinction, and no, "private property" is NOT the same category as "private property with public access". Don't like it? Go talk to your legislature.

Yes, and Dred Scott was a valid court decision too, right?

This is a discussion about laws and disagreeing, or supporting them.

Don't for a minute think your argument trumps all. It does not. Smoking bans are yet another step in a LONG line of laws that are taking away the rights and freedoms of business owners.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Special K
For people who currently live in cities/states without smoking bans - are there enough non-smoking bars in your city to give a person a reasonable choice if they don't want to patronize bars that allow smoking?

Yes. And it is particularly the nicer bars and clubs that have gone non-smoking, while it is mostly only the dive bars/neighborhood bars (who usually have a regular clientele) that still allow it.
Those with music (live or DJ) are almost always non-smoking, as many artists have refused to book gigs at smoking venues anymore.