Some Bar Owners Defy Colorado Smoking Ban

[Amused]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: Amused

Most businesses voluntarily banned smoking years before the bans. The vast majority of restaurants had separated smoking areas with negative pressure LONG before the smoking bans. And most, if not virtually all retail businesses had banned it.

In fact, the only business without wide spread smoking bans in the past decade were bars... for a reason: The majority of the customers smoke.

And yes, smoking bans hurt the bar business. Especially in areas with harsh weather. Since the local smoking ban here, 12 bars in this small city have closed. 12 bars in less than 6 months. When previously one or two bars a year might close.

in reference to the bolded portion: how do you know? i could just as easily say that <40% of bar patrons in my area smoke (and that's what i estimate to be true). plus i know plenty smokers who would prefer to have smoke-free bars.

and who has determined that if smoking is banned that more non-smokers won't come out to the bar to make up for those who leave? it's all guess work until the law passes. in some areas, smoking bans might hurt business. in other areas, it might help.

the gov't already controls other vices (drinking, drugging, gambling, etc), so it's about time they focus on a vice that has possibly the most direct and widespread effects on innocent bystanders.

No one who walks into a smoke filled business is "innocent." They assmued the risk when they came in. Again, smoking is not a hidden "threat."

And yes, the majority of bar patrons smoke. Sorry you don't want to believe that but you can ask any bar onwer. Moreoever, ask him about the regulars. 90+% of daily bar regulars (the life blood of any corner pub) smoke.

I can tell you from this town's smoking bans that the non-smokers did NOT come out in droves after the ban. The only thing that happened is the smokers came out less, especially when the weather was harsh. House parties in this town are up, as are liquor store sales.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
He doesn't know if it's true, he just doesn't have any real arguments. Let's go back to 1984 and lets see how many bars closed when the drinking age was raised. In 1983 the majority of drinkers where under 21 in my town, 12 bars closed inn my small town alone, 12, it's true because I posted it.

OK, now that you've called me a liar you're obligated to come to this town and ask the bar owners yourself. If you're not willing to do that, STFU.

Why would I lie? I don't even smoke.

The bars that closed:
Buster's
Villi's
The Cave
Teaser's
Shooterz
Safe Harbor
Bullfrog Bar
Fairview Tavern
All Star Bar
Prisms
Thirsty?s Playground
Max?s California Bar

Oh, I forgot one:

Imo?s

That's 13 closed in 6 months since the smoking ban.

Quite a few more are in serious trouble. Bar business is down 40-50%

And this is in a small city with just over 100,000 people. Not a big city by any means.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97

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!!!

Id rather sit beside a smoker relaxing with a cig than hearing whiny b1tches

Duct tape yourself every morning?

 

[TeeJay1952]

If you had a device like an old styled phone booth with close able doors and fan filtration system you could charge a buck a 3 minute (a smoke) time period. But it is still not permitted. Why? Because it is about controlling people and not about health or personal decisions.
Every airplane movie that shows a hole in the fuselage shows every thing rushing to the exit. Yet the powers that be are unable to come up with a filtration system that is allowable.
If I was choking on smoke in a bar or anywhere else I would choose another place to be. Why don't we let the marketplace decide? If a bar OWNER wants smoking allowed and attendance is not mandatory why do we worry our collective heads about it.
Do people have a constitutional right to bars with clean air? Not that I found in the constitution. There isn't enough Social Security to go around so if some folks want to volunteer to leave the party early, who are we to dissagree?

 

[glutenberg]

I'll never understand this logic of, "hey, don't like it, go somewhere else." So, should one counter with, hey, don't like the laws, go move to another city, another state, another country?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Raduque

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're going off the tangent, here. The point is that the choice should rest with the bar owner, not the nanny state. Unless of course, the nanny state wants to start paying the bar owner's property taxes, license fees and mortgage/rent costs for his building.

I must have missed this, but where is my choice to have lower issurance premiums for the effect on the health industry of all those wonderfull smoking related diagnosis.

 

[lupi]

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.

Damn right! We should legalize drunk driving now, it's our choice!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: lupi
I must have missed this, but where is my choice to have lower issurance premiums for the effect on the health industry of all those wonderfull smoking related diagnosis.

Well then, you should just ban smoking. It worked perfectly for dugs and alcohol.

Wait...

Folks, fascism will come with the taglines: Think about the cost to society, and, think of the children.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
He doesn't know if it's true, he just doesn't have any real arguments. Let's go back to 1984 and lets see how many bars closed when the drinking age was raised. In 1983 the majority of drinkers where under 21 in my town, 12 bars closed inn my small town alone, 12, it's true because I posted it.

OK, now that you've called me a liar you're obligated to come to this town and ask the bar owners yourself. If you're not willing to do that, STFU.

Why would I lie? I don't even smoke.

The bars that closed:
Buster's
Villi's
The Cave
Teaser's
Shooterz
Safe Harbor
Bullfrog Bar
Fairview Tavern
All Star Bar
Prisms
Thirsty?s Playground
Max?s California Bar

Oh, I forgot one:

Imo?s

That's 13 closed in 6 months since the smoking ban.

Quite a few more are in serious trouble. Bar business is down 40-50%

And this is in a small city with just over 100,000 people. Not a big city by any means.

Good, that means they were on the edge anyway.

A weak business is no business at all.

and by the way, I just closed my bar.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Amused
No one who walks into a smoke filled business is "innocent." They assmued the risk when they came in. Again, smoking is not a hidden "threat."

And yes, the majority of bar patrons smoke. Sorry you don't want to believe that but you can ask any bar onwer. Moreoever, ask him about the regulars. 90+% of daily bar regulars (the life blood of any corner pub) smoke.

I can tell you from this town's smoking bans that the non-smokers did NOT come out in droves after the ban. The only thing that happened is the smokers came out less, especially when the weather was harsh. House parties in this town are up, as are liquor store sales.

working in a coal mine is an assumed risk too. should the owners be obligated to provide safety equipment for their miners? should chemical plants provide adequate ventilation? shouldn business owners be obligated to provide smoke-free environments for their workers. in each case it's the same: the owners take a financial hit for the health of their workers. and in the case of bars, the financial hit isn't even proven.

ok, you have observed the goings-on of a single admittedly small town and extrapolated that to the state of an entire country full of bars. maybe your podunk town can't support a smoke free bar environment, but i'd venture a guess that large cosmopolitan cities thrive on smoking bans.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: lupi

Damn right! We should legalize drunk driving now, it's our choice!

What does allowing smoking in a private business with informed and assumed risk have to do with drunk driving?

:music:Jeopardy music:music:

What is "nothing," Alex?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: Amused
No one who walks into a smoke filled business is "innocent." They assmued the risk when they came in. Again, smoking is not a hidden "threat."

And yes, the majority of bar patrons smoke. Sorry you don't want to believe that but you can ask any bar onwer. Moreoever, ask him about the regulars. 90+% of daily bar regulars (the life blood of any corner pub) smoke.

I can tell you from this town's smoking bans that the non-smokers did NOT come out in droves after the ban. The only thing that happened is the smokers came out less, especially when the weather was harsh. House parties in this town are up, as are liquor store sales.

working in a coal mine is an assumed risk too. should the owners be obligated to provide safety equipment for their miners? should chemical plants provide adequate ventilation? shouldn business owners be obligated to provide smoke-free environments for their workers. in each case it's the same: the owners take a financial hit for the health of their workers. and in the case of bars, the financial hit isn't even proven.

ok, you have observed the goings-on of a single admittedly small town and extrapolated that to the state of an entire country full of bars. maybe your podunk town can't support a smoke free bar environment, but i'd venture a guess that large cosmopolitan cities thrive on smoking bans.

We are the capital of IL... but that's OK.

Again, you don't have to enter the establishment if you don't want to be exposed. It's really that easy.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Why don't the powers that be ever take some of the EXTRA taxes that they place on smokes and apply it towards the EXTRA heath care that smoking causes?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: lupiDamn right! We should legalize drunk driving now, it's our choice!

big diffrence. you can't drive drunk anytime. Such as you can't drive drunk after drinking in a bar. you can't drive drunk after drinking at a friends. it is 100% always against the law.

with smokeing its diffrent. it is legal to smoke in the car, house etc. it is legal in almost EVERY private place except a business. wich is where i have trouble with.

It should be up to the business owner on if it is a smokeing or non-smokeing place.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
He doesn't know if it's true, he just doesn't have any real arguments. Let's go back to 1984 and lets see how many bars closed when the drinking age was raised. In 1983 the majority of drinkers where under 21 in my town, 12 bars closed inn my small town alone, 12, it's true because I posted it.

OK, now that you've called me a liar you're obligated to come to this town and ask the bar owners yourself. If you're not willing to do that, STFU.

Why would I lie? I don't even smoke.

The bars that closed:
Buster's
Villi's
The Cave
Teaser's
Shooterz
Safe Harbor
Bullfrog Bar
Fairview Tavern
All Star Bar
Prisms
Thirsty?s Playground
Max?s California Bar

Oh, I forgot one:

Imo?s

That's 13 closed in 6 months since the smoking ban.

Quite a few more are in serious trouble. Bar business is down 40-50%

And this is in a small city with just over 100,000 people. Not a big city by any means.

Good, that means they were on the edge anyway.

A weak business is no business at all.

and by the way, I just closed my bar.

Did you read my post, Dave?

Bar business is down 40-50% accross the board. Bar regulars, the life blood of any corner pub smoke at an extremely high rate. 90+%. These people are staying home now and drinking because they can smoke there.

The bars were THRIVING before the ban. Buster's was one of the most popular bars in town. Hell, Prisms was the ONLY lesbian bar in town. Weak? Hardly.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
I'll never understand this logic of, "hey, don't like it, go somewhere else." So, should one counter with, hey, don't like the laws, go move to another city, another state, another country?

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

and then here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

 

[Bacstar]

In southern california, took about a year or two, the bars ended up opening up nice patios for the smokers. I actually liked this setup more since outside it was quieter and allowed people to actually have a conversation.

Now, Alaska just passed the law which doesn't kick in til July of this year. Already there is a group planning to fight the plan and sue the state or whatever. It's a lot colder up here and going out for a smoke when it's below freezing is well to me....INSANE. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next few months.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: davestar

working in a coal mine is an assumed risk too. should the owners be obligated to provide safety equipment for their miners? should chemical plants provide adequate ventilation? shouldn business owners be obligated to provide smoke-free environments for their workers. in each case it's the same: the owners take a financial hit for the health of their workers. and in the case of bars, the financial hit isn't even proven.

ok, you have observed the goings-on of a single admittedly small town and extrapolated that to the state of an entire country full of bars. maybe your podunk town can't support a smoke free bar environment, but i'd venture a guess that large cosmopolitan cities thrive on smoking bans.

We are the capital of IL... but that's OK.

Again, you don't have to enter the establishment if you don't want to be exposed. It's really that easy.

your arguments aren't terribly convincing when in one post you insist that your city is small ("And this is in a small city with just over 100,000 people. Not a big city by any means.") and then you claim that because it is a state capital, it has at attributes of a large cosmopolitan city. can't have it both ways.

not to mention that you don't even address points brought up in previous posts. "Again, you don't have to enter the establishment if you don't want to be exposed. It's really that easy." when did i ever speak to the plight of bar patrons? i've been talking about workers.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: davestar

working in a coal mine is an assumed risk too. should the owners be obligated to provide safety equipment for their miners? should chemical plants provide adequate ventilation? shouldn business owners be obligated to provide smoke-free environments for their workers. in each case it's the same: the owners take a financial hit for the health of their workers. and in the case of bars, the financial hit isn't even proven.

ok, you have observed the goings-on of a single admittedly small town and extrapolated that to the state of an entire country full of bars. maybe your podunk town can't support a smoke free bar environment, but i'd venture a guess that large cosmopolitan cities thrive on smoking bans.

We are the capital of IL... but that's OK.

Again, you don't have to enter the establishment if you don't want to be exposed. It's really that easy.

your arguments aren't terribly convincing when in one post you insist that your city is small ("And this is in a small city with just over 100,000 people. Not a big city by any means.") and then you claim that because it is a state capital, it has at attributes of a large cosmopolitan city. can't have it both ways.

not to mention that you don't even address points brought up in previous posts. "Again, you don't have to enter the establishment if you don't want to be exposed. It's really that easy." when did i ever speak to the plight of bar patrons? i've been talking about workers.

OK: You don't have to work in an establishment that allows smoking. If one does, don't apply there. It's really that easy. If you CHOSE to work in a business that allows smoking, you assumed the risk.

We are the state capital. Not huge, though. We would be considered a medium-small city. Look up Springfield IL, if you want to get the stats. We're not huge, but we're not "podunk" by any means.

What does this have to do with anything, anyhow?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: glutenberg
I'll never understand this logic of, "hey, don't like it, go somewhere else." So, should one counter with, hey, don't like the laws, go move to another city, another state, another country?

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

and then here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

An entirely free market would also allow for monopolies, segregation, and many more issues. It's not some sort of perfect system people on ATOT like to believe.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: glutenberg
I'll never understand this logic of, "hey, don't like it, go somewhere else." So, should one counter with, hey, don't like the laws, go move to another city, another state, another country?

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

and then here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

An entirely free market would also allow for monopolies, segregation, and many more issues. It's not some sort of perfect system people on ATOT like to believe.

Actually most monopolies were state sponsered and maintained. One can have a free market and competition easily.

As for segregation, why would you want to work for, or do business with anyone who hates you anyhow? I never understood that portion of the civil rights act. Laws don't change hearts and minds.

A truly free market ends segregation. Segregation was law, as in Jim Crow. Not voluntary.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Amused
OK: You don't have to work in an establishment that allows smoking. If one does, don't apply there. It's really that easy. If you CHOSE to work in a business that allows smoking, you assumed the risk.

might work in an ideal world, but it doesn't in this one. you're forgetting one important fact: sh!t has to get done. if everyone worked only in prisitine environments, then we'd have no coal, chemicals, sewage systems, etc, etc. it rests on the owners to make the environment as safe as possible. and if the owners won't adapt voluntarily, then the gov't has to come in and enforce legislation.

We are the state capital. Not huge, though. We would be considered a medium-small city. Look up Springfield IL, if you want to get the stats. We're not huge, but we're not "podunk" by any means.

What does this have to do with anything, anyhow?

the point is that you're generalizing springfield to situations all over the country. sorry that springfield is hurting, but you can't claim that what's happening there is the same thing that's happening in San Fransisco, New York, Baltimore, Philly, etc, etc.

 

[amdhunter]

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 am not a daily smoker, and I totally agree with you. I like to light up in a bar whenever I visit one.

Somewhat off topic, does smoking less than 2 packs a year make me a smoker?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

businesses should run their business as they see fit

bottom line

(nonsmoker)

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
He doesn't know if it's true, he just doesn't have any real arguments. Let's go back to 1984 and lets see how many bars closed when the drinking age was raised. In 1983 the majority of drinkers where under 21 in my town, 12 bars closed inn my small town alone, 12, it's true because I posted it.

OK, now that you've called me a liar you're obligated to come to this town and ask the bar owners yourself. If you're not willing to do that, STFU.

Why would I lie? I don't even smoke.

The bars that closed:
Buster's
Villi's
The Cave
Teaser's
Shooterz
Safe Harbor
Bullfrog Bar
Fairview Tavern
All Star Bar
Prisms
Thirsty?s Playground
Max?s California Bar

Oh, I forgot one:

Imo?s

That's 13 closed in 6 months since the smoking ban.

Quite a few more are in serious trouble. Bar business is down 40-50%

And this is in a small city with just over 100,000 people. Not a big city by any means.

Maybe the market was just over saturated with bars. Maybe a couple big chains like TGIF opened in the same area that year. How do you know for certain that the smoking ban was what caused these bars to close? Because you read it in a newspaper? Because the bar owners said so?

Historically speaking, bars and restaurants are some of the riskiest businesses to start.

Food for thought.