Some Bar Owners Defy Colorado Smoking Ban

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 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.

Don't they? Maybe not for those who had been raised during those times but certainly their children and their children after them. I think the population of this country is a lot more tolerant now than we were 50-60 years ago. Or are you saying there is all this seething hatred for blacks just under the surface and nothing has changed?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 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.

Don't they? Maybe not for those who had been raised during those times but certainly their children and their children after them. I think the population of this country is a lot more tolerant now than we were 50-60 years ago. Or are you saying there is all this seething hatred for blacks just under the surface and nothing has changed?

That's a loaded question. (the last one)

No, though. A law cannot change hearts and minds no more than a ban on drugs can stop drug abuse.

Laws don't do that. Only education and social pressure does that. The younger generation is more tollerant than the last not because of laws, but because of social change.

Look how much more tolerant society is of gays and lesbians now. That didn't take a law to do it. The trend in society is toward tolerance overall. In fact, the more laws you make and the more pressure you give the more likely you are to run into a backlash.

Anyhow, please don't drag me into a civil rights law debate. They always end bad and so many people use their emotions rather than reason. I've had enough flame fests this week.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm in the service business and quite close to many bar owners in this town.

Bar business is down 40-50%. Bars that were thriving pre-ban lost that business. How many businesses do you know of that can lose 40-50% of it's sales and stay open? The only bars and restarant bars that have not seen a hit since the ban were non-smoking to begin with.

Many of the bars that closed were decades old. Well established.

Like I said, the biggest hit were the daily regulars, the vast majority being smokers, who used the bar as a social club of sorts. Smokers don't want to hang out where they can't smoke. So they change to places where they can.

As I said, in the years before the ban, the average failure rate of established bars was one or two a year, and usually because of the owner retiring or dying. 12 in six months is NOT normal.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 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.

Don't they? Maybe not for those who had been raised during those times but certainly their children and their children after them. I think the population of this country is a lot more tolerant now than we were 50-60 years ago. Or are you saying there is all this seething hatred for blacks just under the surface and nothing has changed?

That's a loaded question. (the last one)

No, though. A law cannot change hearts and minds no more than a ban on drugs can stop drug abuse.

Laws don't do that. Only education and social pressure does that. The younger generation is more tollerant than the last not because of laws, but because of social change.

Look how much more tolerant society is of gays and lesbians now. That didn't take a law to do it. The trend in society is toward tolerance overall. In fact, the more laws you make and the more pressure you give the more likely you are to run into a backlash.

Anyhow, please don't drag me into a civil rights law debate. They always end bad and so many people use their emotions rather than reason. I've had enough flame fests this week.

Don't you think those laws helped bring about social change though?

I'm not getting emotional. Just having a debate is all. :beer:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused
I'm in the service business and quite close to many bar owners in this town.

Bar business is down 40-50%. Bars that were thriving pre-ban lost that business. How many businesses do you know of that can lose 40-50% of it's sales and stay open? The only bars and restarant bars that have not seen a hit since the ban were non-smoking to begin with.

Many of the bars that closed were decades old. Well established.

Like I said, the biggest hit were the daily regulars, the vast majority being smokers, who used the bar as a social club of sorts. Smokers don't want to hang out where they can't smoke. So they change to places where they can.

As I said, in the years before the ban, the average failure rate of established bars was one or two a year, and usually because of the owner retiring or dying. 12 in six months is NOT normal.

Well, I remain skeptical. Those numbers seem very high to me.

There hasn't been any decrease in bar patronage here in SoCal I can tell you. Oh, and I don't know of a single bar that didn't allow smoking prior to the ban. They were always a smokers haven. I'm glad it was outlawed here many many years ago. You can't smoke in a place of business anywhere in CA. It's great! :thumbsup:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused
I'm in the service business and quite close to many bar owners in this town.

Bar business is down 40-50%. Bars that were thriving pre-ban lost that business. How many businesses do you know of that can lose 40-50% of it's sales and stay open? The only bars and restarant bars that have not seen a hit since the ban were non-smoking to begin with.

Many of the bars that closed were decades old. Well established.

Like I said, the biggest hit were the daily regulars, the vast majority being smokers, who used the bar as a social club of sorts. Smokers don't want to hang out where they can't smoke. So they change to places where they can.

As I said, in the years before the ban, the average failure rate of established bars was one or two a year, and usually because of the owner retiring or dying. 12 in six months is NOT normal.

Well, I remain skeptical. Those numbers seem very high to me.

There hasn't been any decrease in bar patronage here in SoCal I can tell you. Oh, and I don't know of a single bar that didn't allow smoking prior to the ban. They were always a smokers haven. I'm glad it was outlawed here many many years ago. You can't smoke in a place of business anywhere in CA. It's great! :thumbsup:

Because in CA it's never 30 below and there is never 3 feet of snow on the ground.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: 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.

What was the reason behind the alcholo ban, oh yeah.

And I'm sure things would be much better with no regulation on drugs :roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus


Don't you think those laws helped bring about social change though?

I'm not getting emotional. Just having a debate is all. :beer:

Just admit you love me.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: 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?

What does having no choice about whether someone smokes in my presence without the ban and having no choice on whether someone drinks and drive have in the Clue's for $500.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: 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?

What does having no choice about whether someone smokes in my presence without the ban and having no choice on whether someone drinks and drive have in the Clue's for $500.

You have a choice. Don't go into businesses that allow smoking.

There, how hard was that?

I'll take 'Reading Comprehension' for the win, Alex.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus


Don't you think those laws helped bring about social change though?

I'm not getting emotional. Just having a debate is all. :beer:

Just admit you love me.

I wouldn't go that far...:laugh:

Maybe if you give me your motorcycle.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: davestar
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.

Apparently it lost over 2 million dollars for bars in a city of 225k people in 2005 alone

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus


Don't you think those laws helped bring about social change though?

I'm not getting emotional. Just having a debate is all. :beer:

Just admit you love me.

I wouldn't go that far...:laugh:

Maybe if you give me your motorcycle.

How about I just give you a 'ride'?

 

[lupi]

You have a choice. Don't go into businesses that allow smoking.

There, how hard was that?

I'll take 'Reading Comprehension' for the win, Alex.

Without a ban, all resturants and bars allow smoking for "Yes you do need reading comprehension".

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus


Don't you think those laws helped bring about social change though?

I'm not getting emotional. Just having a debate is all. :beer:

Just admit you love me.

I wouldn't go that far...:laugh:

Maybe if you give me your motorcycle.

How about I just give you a 'ride'?

Do you have a moustache? :shocked:

 

[TheAdvocate]

As soon as I saw the post subject, I knew it would be 7 pages of Amused reposting Atlas Shrugged with no concept of the evolution of the real property laws he keeps citing in his ideologue rant.

The fact is, and any respectable law professor will tell you this, the notions of real property and the privacy afforded by it, are antiquated because they were developed by an agrarian nation where your closest neighbor was a farmer 5 miles away. As a matter of practicality and common sense, the right of quiet enjoyment and the rights of business invitees and licensees has evolved as population density has exploded. A simple way of putting it is that places like restuarants, malls, and other "non-public" places are, essentially, quasi-public by operation, and the everyday life necessity of functioning within society by navigating through these places has antiquated many of those grarian beliefs and notions.

But don't let a couple hundred years of evolution in real property laws get in the way of a good Amused diatribe. If Ayn Rand said it, then we should all be rubbing one out to it. Never mind that the right of one individual to conduct business does not trump another individuals right to perform their role in this capitalist economy without having to trudge through a cloud of smoke or obscenity or whatever, just as a person's "right" to smoke does not abridge another person's right to clean air, or just as a person's right to play loud music does not abridge another person's right to quiet enjoyment. A real libertarian would fight for the rights of BOTH of the individuals involved without being such a pathetic corporate shill hiding behind a twisted notion of libertarienism.

But all the ideologue garbage aside, Karen is right. I have had the longheld belief that smoking should be banned in restuarants but not in bars, and the determination of which a place is should be as simple as the higher % of revenues - liquor or food. It's a practical, common sense compromise - the kind that makes our country great.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: lupi

You have a choice. Don't go into businesses that allow smoking.

There, how hard was that?

I'll take 'Reading Comprehension' for the win, Alex.

Without a ban, all resturants and bars allow smoking for "Yes you do need reading comprehension".

Not around here. Some allow smoking, and some don't.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
As soon as I saw the post subject, I knew it would be 7 pages of Amused reposting Atlas Shrugged with no concept of the evolution of the real property laws he keeps citing in his ideologue rant.

The fact is, and any respectable law professor will tell you this, the notions of real property and the privacy afforded by it, are antiquated because they were developed by an agrarian nation where your closest neighbor was a farmer 5 miles away. As a matter of practicality and common sense, the right of quiet enjoyment and the rights of business invitees and licensees has evolved as population density has exploded. A simple way of putting it is that places like restuarants, malls, and other "non-public" places are, essentially, quasi-public by operation, and the everyday life necessity of functioning within society by navigating through these places has antiquated many of those grarian beliefs and notions.

But don't let a couple hundred years of evolution in real property laws get in the way of a good Amused diatribe. If Ayn Rand said it, then we should all be rubbing one out to it. Never mind that the right of one individual to conduct business does not trump another individuals right to perform their role in this capitalist economy without having to trudge through a cloud of smoke or obscenity or whatever, just as a person's "right" to smoke does not abridge another person's right to clean air, or just as a person's right to play loud music does not abridge another person's right to quiet enjoyment. A real libertarian would fight for the rights of BOTH of the individuals involved without being such a pathetic corporate shill hiding behind a twisted notion of libertarienism.

But all the ideologue garbage aside, Karen is right. I have had the longheld belief that smoking should be banned in restuarants but not in bars, and the determination of which a place is should be as simple as the higher % of revenues - liquor or food. It's a practical, common sense compromise - the kind that makes our country great.

Pay close attention, Jules. That's REAL love right there. A woody so hard, it could cut diamonds. He rants and rants against me, then agrees with someone else who holds virtually the same opinion as I do.

The man has a huge case of viagra overdose for me.

It's actually rather flattering.

 

[lupi]

Good for you, where I live the only place you can go without having either a smoking section or all smoking would be the golden arches. So in my area, implying that it's good not to have a ban so there are choices is a fallacy as a non-smoker has no choice; either enjoying eating or drinking with that ever so pleasant wafting aroma (or dead in your face plume) or stay home.

 

[MrPickins]

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.

I didn't say they are perfect, nothing in this world is. I was merely pointing out the logic you questioned in your post.

The point is, some people prefer less government intervention, and would prefer to instead vote with their money.

 

[Old Hippie]

the determination of which a place is should be as simple as the higher % of revenues - liquor or food. It's a practical, common sense compromise - the kind that makes our country great.

Thank You Mr. Common Sense! :thumbsup:

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 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.

Don't they? Maybe not for those who had been raised during those times but certainly their children and their children after them. I think the population of this country is a lot more tolerant now than we were 50-60 years ago. Or are you saying there is all this seething hatred for blacks just under the surface and nothing has changed?

That's a loaded question. (the last one)

No, though. A law cannot change hearts and minds no more than a ban on drugs can stop drug abuse.

Laws don't do that. Only education and social pressure does that. The younger generation is more tollerant than the last not because of laws, but because of social change.

Look how much more tolerant society is of gays and lesbians now. That didn't take a law to do it. The trend in society is toward tolerance overall. In fact, the more laws you make and the more pressure you give the more likely you are to run into a backlash.

Anyhow, please don't drag me into a civil rights law debate. They always end bad and so many people use their emotions rather than reason. I've had enough flame fests this week.

Don't you think those laws helped bring about social change though?

I'm not getting emotional. Just having a debate is all. :beer:

I would argue that social change brought about those laws myself. Politicians are generally pretty weak, they give in to pressure if enough is put on them. At least on issues like the civil rights one.

 

[Canun]

Originally posted by: lupi

You have a choice. Don't go into businesses that allow smoking.

There, how hard was that?

I'll take 'Reading Comprehension' for the win, Alex.

Without a ban, all resturants and bars allow smoking for "Yes you do need reading comprehension".

Incorrect, a business will only have that option if it adds to their bottom line. If non-smokers stopped going to a smoking place, then it might ban smoking to keep the revenue.

This really is a stupid law. I've designed smoking areas for diners and such that keeps all smoke in the area designated. I'm talking about keeping negative air pressure in the smoking area with doors so that all air flows in, and none out. Plus adding higher air pressure in the non smoking room so all smoke and orders are pushed out of the room. Very simple, and effective.

 

[hanoverphist]

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.

ive been kicked out of bars plenty of times. go into one and start a scene, poke some girls in the cleavage and spill drinks all over the waitress while yelling "WET T-SHIRT CONTEST!!" and see how fast they ecercise their right to kick you ass out of their house. they definitely have the right to tell you in no terms to get the hell out, even if its for not liking the style of hair you prefer.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: lupi
Good for you, where I live the only place you can go without having either a smoking section or all smoking would be the golden arches. So in my area, implying that it's good not to have a ban so there are choices is a fallacy as a non-smoker has no choice; either enjoying eating or drinking with that ever so pleasant wafting aroma (or dead in your face plume) or stay home.

One of the restaurants here allowed smoking... in a completely closed-off room, with doors. There was a protest, and they went non-smoking. That's the right way to do it, not legislation.