Some Bar Owners Defy Colorado Smoking Ban

[TheAdvocate]

a business in an ultra-competitive, mature industry will always cater to inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. a few niche players can get by with the latter strategy, from time to time, but in the long term, and if you ever want to grow, you have to cater to the lowest common denominator to do so. and smoking isn't a personal activity, no matter how it's portrayed. so the "choice" argument is hogwash.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: 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:

Should that not mean that the business owner should make this decision regarding which demographic he/she wishes to focus on, not some statewide law? (forgive me if I'm arguing your point, I've kind of had a lot of wine at this point)

 

[AMDZen]

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.

Just because your too lazy to do the research and find non smoking restaurants in your area doesn't mean they aren't there. Try Google its helpful

There are national chains out there, such as Red Robin, PF Changs and definitely others that don't allow smoking nationwide.

Here in Denver there was non smoking bars, restaurants and clubs everywhere before the ban. You just had to look for them.

I do agree that restaurants should of had tighter restrictions - if they chose to allow smoking they should have better ventilation and more move the smoking or non smoking section further away. They could even go so far as to allow another glass door between the sections and or simple atrium style entryway thats well ventilated.

Your reasoning is fascist and I almost guarantee that your simply too young to realize it yet.

I'm glad Denver and outlining areas are doing this. Hopefully it spreads

 

[Trey22]

One reason I love CA.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: 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:

Should that not mean that the business owner should make this decision regarding which demographic he/she wishes to focus on, not some statewide law? (forgive me if I'm arguing your point, I've kind of had a lot of wine at this point)

you're confusing arguments. the statewide ban doesnt determine which type of establishment you're running. I'm not trying to be flippant.

i'd view allowing smoking in bars as a very practical accomodation. smokers do need a place too.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

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.

Just because your too lazy to do the research and find non smoking restaurants in your area doesn't mean they aren't there. Try Google its helpful

There are national chains out there, such as Red Robin, PF Changs and definitely others that don't allow smoking nationwide.

Here in Denver there was non smoking bars, restaurants and clubs everywhere before the ban. You just had to look for them.

I do agree that restaurants should of had tighter restrictions - if they chose to allow smoking they should have better ventilation and more move the smoking or non smoking section further away. They could even go so far as to allow another glass door between the sections and or simple atrium style entryway thats well ventilated.

Your reasoning is fascist and I almost guarantee that your simply too young to realize it yet.

I'm glad Denver and outlining areas are doing this. Hopefully it spreads

Sure, or you "young" idiot could realize I live in the middle of tobbacy producing country. I see pregnant bimbos with one in their mouth and a car full of kids with the windows up and someone with a death stick. Intelligence does not seem to be a common factor around here with smokers.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: 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:

Should that not mean that the business owner should make this decision regarding which demographic he/she wishes to focus on, not some statewide law? (forgive me if I'm arguing your point, I've kind of had a lot of wine at this point)

you're confusing arguments. the statewide ban doesnt determine which type of establishment you're running. I'm not trying to be flippant.

i'd view allowing smoking in bars as a very practical accomodation. smokers do need a place too.

I just feel its unnecessary to place businesses into categories in this instance, and place restrictions on them based on those categories. Surely people want to smoke and eat at the same time? Why should that niche be disallowed. A good compromise would be requiring them to state clearly whether they allowed smoking or not in the establishment IMO.

 

[Old Hippie]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: 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:

Should that not mean that the business owner should make this decision regarding which demographic he/she wishes to focus on, not some statewide law? (forgive me if I'm arguing your point, I've kind of had a lot of wine at this point)

I'm saying, if you have a higher % of liquor sales than food, allow the establishment's owner to decide if he wants to ban smoking.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Mike
I would hope not. The more smokers there are, the higher the possibility for increased exposure.

So, there is a group of people waiting to cross the street on a street corner and someone is smoking. Should the smoker step back and smoke away from the group, or should the group just deal with it or step back themselves? I have to tell you, the majority of smokers that I see with a blatant disregard for who is around them disgusts me to the nth degree. This is why I feel no guilt when I see legislation in place that takes away their rights. If that makes me an asshole, so be it. Maybe I am stuck in the mud and I should realize two assholes don't make a right.

i must be one of the few that actually DO step back to the back of the crowd then, i do that regularly, as well as not smoke around people i know dont smoke. ive gone hours without smoking at jobsites if i know that theres a nonsmoker there, so people like this do exist. now why you steppin on my buzz? if i choose to "kill myself slowly", and am courteous enough to not drag you down with me, then why do you feel the need to "force us smokers do the right thing"?

 

[Anubis]

here in NY when they did teh smoking ban, LOTS of bars closed or came really clos eto it because no one came to them anymore because they couldent smoke

NY then took its head out of its ass and now lets bars apply for a permet to let peopel smoke in them if their busniess declined greatly

lots of bars around when i am allow you to smoke in them

 

[Old Hippie]

. Surely people want to smoke and eat at the same time? Why should that niche be disallowed. A good compromise would be requiring them to state clearly whether they allowed smoking or not in the establishment IMO.

OH NO! More common sense!

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Anubis
here in NY when they did teh smoking ban, LOTS of bars closed or came really clos eto it because no one came to them anymore because they couldent smoke

NY then took its head out of its ass and now lets bars apply for a permet to let peopel smoke in them if their busniess declined greatly

lots of bars around when i am allow you to smoke in them

now tthat woldnt be to bad.

 

[Old Hippie]

NY then took its head out of its ass and now lets bars apply for a permet to let peopel smoke in them if their busniess declined greatly

I'm glad to hear it. The last time I was there they were allowing smoking within the 25ft smoking limit and the state was turning a "Blind Eye".

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 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.

It's kind of disturbing if you ask me. :laugh:

I still don't agree with you but nonetheless, it is your right to hold those beliefs.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Next on my rant...is the employees in these bars/restaurants. If they're non-smokers, does the business owner have the right to make them work while being exposed to what has been long called health hazard? After all, if 2nd hand smoke is the health hazard it's claimed to be, don't these people deserve the right to earn their income free from such health hazards? Isn't that the basis of OSHA laws in this counrty? Oh wait...if they don't like it...they should quit...right? That could be said for anyone who works in a job that may have workplace safety problems, or health hazards...fvck the worker...it's the business owner's right...

BTW, I'm a smoker myself...

osha says you cant work in a trench deeper than 4 feet without shoring due to the chance the sides will cave and bury you. that isnt really an assumed risk, you shore it and it wont happen. if you apply for a job at a bar, walk in for an interview and its smoky, youre taking it upon yourself to finish that interview and agree to work in those conditions. why is it the govts responsibility to make your employee change his own business model just because you had a change of heart about the working conditions?

im an industrial programmer. i dont know many other types of programmers that will stand in 115 degree weather for 7 hours trying to get a water booster station to work. the majority of programmers think it should be done in an office. i assume that sunburn as part of my job happily. i love my job. i dont expect my employer to bring me a lawn chair and an umbrella to do my job without danger of exposure tho.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: tk109
Thanks god they are going to ban smoking here in Oregon too. Dang smokers I hate em. Nasty nasty habit. Tired of smelling like smoke after just wanting to enjoy seeing a band I like or go dancing.

I'm tired of people like you making a police state. I hate em.

It's supposedly still a free Country. You're free to breathe healthy air when you go out.

If you'd like to breathe unhealty air you are free to leave and go to a country where smoking is still legal inside to harm others.

Please use that option and leave, thank you.

youre also free to leave and find cleaner air to breathe. youre not guaranteed healthy air by law, youre guaranteed to be the pursuit of happiness and freedom from oppression. even the epa has allowable contaminants for processing plants to emit. the govt pollutes much more than smokers do publicly, yet you allow them to operate 24/7. so far, all i can see is oppression of smokers by nonsmokers. you everf consider asking a smoker to not smoke around you? they may fly off a bit at first, but you can almost guarantee that 90% of the time they will say their piece and either put it out or move on. try it sometime, its called communication.

 

[Old Hippie]

so far, all i can see is oppression of smokers by nonsmokers. you everf consider asking a smoker to not smoke around you? they may fly off a bit at first, but you can almost guarantee that 90% of the time they will say their piece and either put it out or move on. try it sometime, its called communication.

More common sense!

 

[KK]

not a smoker, but I don't rely on the government to keep me from breathing in smoke. People that rely on govt laws to protect them are idiots.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Here in Kahleeforneeya, there was the same kind of "woe is me...I'm gonna go out of business" when the smoking ban was instituted in the early 90's...business owners predicted the closure of bars and restaurants all over the state...funny enough, it didn't happen.
Smokers adapted, and go outside when they want a smoke. Is it always convenient for them? no, but WTF? Life is full of inconveniences.

Personally, I have no problem with bars closing...HOPEFULLY, that will mean fewer drunks on the roads...you who call this "nanny-stating" probably also believe that drunk driving laws are interfering with the right of a business owner to sell booze to anyone, without being held responsible. Having establishments where you can go drink alcoholic beverages merely encourages driving under the influence.
Do ALL drivers drink to the point where they're legally drunK? Nope, but MANY do...as evidenced by the number of drunk driving arrests and accidents nationwide...

Next on my rant...is the employees in these bars/restaurants. If they're non-smokers, does the business owner have the right to make them work while being exposed to what has been long called health hazard? After all, if 2nd hand smoke is the health hazard it's claimed to be, don't these people deserve the right to earn their income free from such health hazards? Isn't that the basis of OSHA laws in this counrty? Oh wait...if they don't like it...they should quit...right? That could be said for anyone who works in a job that may have workplace safety problems, or health hazards...fvck the worker...it's the business owner's right...

BTW, I'm a smoker myself...

so you are ok with the goverment legeslating them out of business for something that is legal in any other PRIVATE place?


as for the workers they have the right to find work any place else. nobody is forcing them to stay.

Until they make smokeing against the law in every place it should be legal in all private places.

You guys keep trying to use the words PRIVATE PROPERTY as if this business is the same as someone's house. It isn't. This is a place of business and has to operate under BUSINESS PROPERTY law. Having a smoking ban is the same as having a regulation for any other business...one such example is that a business cannot operate with lead-based paint or asbestos-based insulation in the building materials. No one is saying that these business owners cannot continue to operate their business. What is being said is that these business owners cannot operate their businesses with an UNHEALTHY (yes, totally proven through scientific research that smoking causes cancer & kills thousands yearly) atmosphere. Having a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other places where people congregate is perfectly logical...the same logic applies with the ban on asbestos and other cancer-causing agents used in building materials. No one bitched and moaned (like many smokers/smoker's advocates are now) that a ban was placed on asbestos-based materials used in a businesses construction. Why is smoking any different? It isn't. Some people were okay that asbestos was present (albeit they were generally less-educated about it) and couldn't have cared less whether it was present or not. People that smoke just need to wise up and get a clue that if they want to continue their minority "right" to smoke, they can do it in a place the majority rules is appropriate.

So no one may take an assumed risk?

By your logic ANYTHING that involves risk should be banned from business. No more amusement parks, no more skydiving, no more flying in planes, etc...

You are the epitome of the nanny-state. All the risks you listed are hidden and not readily apparent. Smoking is NOT hidden, and is readily apparent. Which makes the choice to enter or not an assumed risk and one business owners should be free to inform their customers of, and maintain their freedom. Then the customer has the choice to assume that risk, or not... just as the employees do.

Thanks for trying, but you lose.

So...by the implied attitude of many of you, if a business uses cyanide in it's daily operation, they have only the obligation to warn it's customers and employees that it may be present, and not actually do anything to ensure their safety? Since, as you say, they DO have the "choice to assume that risk, or not... just as the employees do"...
I think it's YOU who loses...

 

[bctbct]

If the gov't wants to be involved in this issue they should mandate that all business must provide a completely separate area for smokers and no smokers.

Bar owner can then put 3 bar stools on the sidewalk, if they perfer non-smoking customers, they will be inside.

If they perfer smokers, then the whiny non smoking bitches can sit in the rain.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Jawo]

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!!!

My thoughts exactly! I hate smelling like an ashtry when I come home from a bar. I tend to patronize bars more the prohibit smoking more then those that allow it.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm all for the smoking ban. Thank goodness for smoking bans and common sense, or I'd be forced to work in an enclosed office building with a bunch of idiot disgusting smokers. Now I can freely go into a restaurant or bar without coming out smelling like an ashtray. I will continue to vote for smoking bans whenever they come up.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I'm all for the smoking ban. Thank goodness for smoking bans and common sense, or I'd be forced to work in an enclosed office building with a bunch of idiot disgusting smokers. Now I can freely go into a restaurant or bar without coming out smelling like an ashtray. I will continue to vote for smoking bans whenever they come up.

I think poker should be banned. Think of the social costs gambling has caused. I will continue to vote for gambling bans whenever they come up.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Anubis
here in NY when they did teh smoking ban, LOTS of bars closed or came really clos eto it because no one came to them anymore because they couldent smoke

NY then took its head out of its ass and now lets bars apply for a permet to let peopel smoke in them if their busniess declined greatly

lots of bars around when i am allow you to smoke in them

Really? I'm not too far from you (about 40 minutes away); I don't recall a single bar in this area closing because of the ban. I remember a lot of them whining that they were going to lose customers, but they seem to have the same numbers of customers as they had in the past. The permits you speak of are given by the individual counties; while I don't recall seeing (Steuben?) county's data, Erie, Chautaqua, Cattaraugus, (and the other two next to Erie) had a grand whopping total of about 4 permits. Please correct me if I'm wrong - names of bars that have closed near you, bars with permits, etc. Pretty easy to find such information and to verify.

edit: nevermind, I'll save you the trouble. There have been a grand whopping total of 3 places that received permits. None of them would normally be called "bars" - The only way they were going to get the permit was if they had a completely separate room with a separate ventilation system. An Elk's club in Corning received one of the permits, and off-track betting place. The vast majority of applications for the permits are denied.

edit edit: I couldn't find stats for Steuben County, but for the greater Binghamton area (with far more establishments than all of Steuben County), they had a total of 4 places go out of business in the two years following the ban. One was a new business (3 years old), one was an Italian restaurant that mentioned the smoking ban as one of the "factors" - others were that it was facing a lot of competition from the chain restaurants, declining economy, etc. Given that most restaurants are just as busy as ever, I think we can probably determine that their business was already declining and on the way out; it just happened to occur about a year after the smoking ban. The owner said, "You just don't lose the smokers, you lose their friends who don't smoke." Pretty lame excuse as now there are more non-smokers who actually enjoy going out. Their smoking friends simply step outside to smoke.

In short, we heard the same bs excuses from bar owners in NY when the ban was about to go into effect. They're all still here and business is apparently normal. The only ones who went out of business were the crapholes already destined to go out of business. The smoking ban simply gave them something else to blame rather than their own ineptness of running a business.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I'm all for the smoking ban. Thank goodness for smoking bans and common sense, or I'd be forced to work in an enclosed office building with a bunch of idiot disgusting smokers. Now I can freely go into a restaurant or bar without coming out smelling like an ashtray. I will continue to vote for smoking bans whenever they come up.

I think poker should be banned. Think of the social costs gambling has caused. I will continue to vote for gambling bans whenever they come up.

First, perhaps you should take a peek at the laws around the country -- gambling is already banned in most places in the country. Second, "banning poker" is not the same as banning smoking in certain locations. Banning poker in certain locations is like banning smoking in certain locations, and it makes perfect sense. In fact, poker is banned in certain locations (depending on the state you are in, playing poker in a bar is illegal).

I'm not for banning any activity that doesn't directly impact someone else. If you want to smoke in your home or your car, go ahead. But other people should not be forced to endure your stench and exposure to smoke if they don't want to. Smoke in places where other people are not impacted.