Smoking Ordinance

Mark Herrick · Post by **Mark Herrick** » 19 Apr 2005 11:09 am

They were still smoking at the Cinema, last year...

Last year? They were still smoking at the Cinema Bar LAST NIGHT!

------------------

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 19 Apr 2005 12:15 pm

[quote] If they would just ban..., cell phones, food, alcohol, carbonated beverages, bottled water, snacks, and gambling from all night clubs...]

Nobody ever got sick or died because somebody else engaged in any of the above mentioned practices.

What is the function of government if not to protect it's citizen from those who would do them harm? We have laws against physically attacking each other for a reason. I see inposing one's second hand smoke on people as another form of assault.

I have asthma, as did my mother who died from the disease, and whom I genetically resemble. My right to be healthy supercedes somebody elses right to poison me.

If somebody wants to kill themselves, let them do it in private. Not take others with them.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 19 Apr 2005 12:24 pm

If they would just ban..., cell phones, food, alcohol, carbonated beverages, bottled water, snacks, and gambling from all night clubs...

Nobody ever got sick or died because somebody else engaged in any of the above mentioned practices.

I would agree, with the exception of alcohol. Just ask MADD.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 19 Apr 2005 12:56 pm

Leon, you're right, you asked a question and got a lot of preaching about the ills of smoky bars. I did it myself, and only caught myself after I posted, and then edited to at least answer your question.

The problem here is that the majority of the public,who do not smoke - myself included - cannot go out to hear music in a club without essentially being made sick. It takes me at least a day or two to recover after playing a gig, and you should understand that this isn't imaginary, nor am I unusual. There are air quality laws which apply to every other workplace in this country, but not clubs. Asking about the effect of such an ordinance on business without permitting discussion of the health consequences to its employees/patrons would be much akin to asking about the effect of taxes levied on the public that go to arrest, prosecute and punish violent criminals without permitting a discussion of the consequences on the quality of life of law-abiding citizens. Sure, taxes have a de-stimulating effect on the economy, but do we want to just let violent criminals operate freely? [Note, take my analogy the right way - I'm emphatically not comparing smokers with violent criminals.

]

But I still argue, since the majority of Americans clearly do not smoke, that this should have, if anything, a stimulating effect on a club's business. But non-smoking patrons will need some time before they believe it is safe for them to go out. Many non-smokers that I know simply will not go out unless the venue is non-smoking. There are a few clubs now who have no-smoking shows, even here in Pennsylvania where there are no rules whatever. It'll take a while to catch on, but many of us support this out of principle, enough to get them started. I think the ball will roll much faster when we also go smokeless.

Terry Edwards · Post by **Terry Edwards** » 19 Apr 2005 2:02 pm

I would agree, with the exception of alcohol. Just ask MADD.

Well, then you would have to add mad mothers. Just ask DAMM.

Terry

Kevin Lange · Post by **Kevin Lange** » 19 Apr 2005 2:30 pm

They've passed a few of those non-smoking ordinances here in Minnesota. I think it's something else the gov't should stay out of. I would think that local, state and federal elected officals could find much more pressing issues to regulate.

------------------

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 19 Apr 2005 2:41 pm

Yeah, what are they tryin' to do anyway? Regulate the health of the American people, or something? Let the free market decide, I say! If people didn't want mercury in their drinking water, companies wouldn't keep supplying it...

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 19 Apr 2005 3:13 pm

BTW the smoking ban has been in effect for several years now in Califonia, and as far as I know, not a single club has closed because of it, and the general consensus is that it has not hurt anybody's business at all (except the tobacco companies.)

Cigarettes are the only product that when used properly, as directed, causes disease and death.

Janice Brooks · Post by **Janice Brooks** » 19 Apr 2005 5:50 pm

Good to see the local guys posting among my buddies on the subject. Smoke does not bother me that much but I like the non smoking concept.

Looking at the sight about Austin, The Filling Station did better just as a resturant and Katz was always a great place to go and to get a cab afterwords.

------------------
Janice "Busgal" Brooks
ICQ 44729047

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 19 Apr 2005 6:42 pm

I smoke an occassional cigar, but I haven't smoked cigarettes in many years, and I appreciate the clear air in New York clubs. But there is a sterile puritanical feeling I don't like about these smoking bans in clubs. I would much prefer that proper ventilation laws be passed and enforced. The enforcement could be paid for out of tobacco taxes.

This complete smoking ban is part of a mentality I have come to loath in America. Instead of coming down harshely on those who cause a problem (club owners who don't provide adequate ventilation - and I understand the heating and air conditioning problems), all smokers and club owners are punished. The same has happened with alchohol. Instead of really cracking down on the few repeat offenders who drive really drunk, they have lowered the alchohol blood level in many states to levels that will catch the majority of people who have a drink or two and are reasonably safe driving. At one time most states had lowered the drinking age to 18, but now Federal pressure has raised it back up to 21 in most states. Kids are still starting to drink in high school as always, they are just getting fake I.D.s and drinking illegally until they turn 21. That is typically five or more years of illegal drinking. This is a joke that instills a great disrespect for the law in youth. Instead, youngsters who can't handle their liquor should be harshely punished, and the rest left alone.

Many people just want black and white solutions, so they want to ban everything for everybody. I'm a bit of an anarchist or libertine. I think people who behave responsibly and don't hurt others should be left alone by the prudes and the government. The ones who cause problems for others should be punished with enough harshness to minimize the problem.

Jason Odd · Post by **Jason Odd** » 20 Apr 2005 6:20 am

I reckon if we can get used to people getting bombed and shot every day, we can get used to no smoking laws.

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 20 Apr 2005 7:00 am

Before the ban took effect and for a couple of months afterward there was a lot of argument for and against from both the customers and the owners. But, about 6 months into the ban it became a non-issue except for the tourists from other states that were not aware of the Florida ban.

Steve Allison · Post by **Steve Allison** » 20 Apr 2005 7:03 am

Here we go again!!!

Let's all go outside and ACT like we don't smoke!!

Get a life people!
If Audey Murphy came back to life, or anybody else that fought and died for the rights that some of you folks want to throw away, they would probably be glad that they died. Some folks will fight to have abortions and kill babies, save the d@mn whales, and try to fool with the common working man that comes to listen to you play! Live and let Live!

P.S. The more YOU throw away, the less YOU have!

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 20 Apr 2005 8:16 am

If Audey Murphy came back to life, or anybody else that fought and died for the rights that some of you folks want to throw away....

Nobody has the rightto force others to injest their poison. In the contrary, people have a right to go about their business without being exposed to toxic fumes.

Steve Allison · Post by **Steve Allison** » 20 Apr 2005 8:57 am

Hell Mike Lighten Up !!

Half of the folks I know died from smokin.
The other half just DIED!

Lawrence Sullivan · Post by **Lawrence Sullivan** » 20 Apr 2005 9:13 am

It seems the original question was whether anti smoking ordinances affect business and yes it does to some extent if there are alernative businesses that can allow smoking
As a smoker I avoid places that prohibit smoking and people that find smoking objectionable I have never seen any actual figures as to how much impact this has on a business, probably there is no way to document it, mostly its just speculation as is so much of the rhetoric about smoking
If an ordinance prohibiting smoking had an exception that allowed a business owner to open a business for smokers only we could determine the real impact
St Louis County, Mo. is debating this issue right now and looks as though it will probably pass but it isn't presented to the people to decide, but in council only
For all those proposing such ordinances just stop and think, someone opposes just about everything we do in life, from BBQ smoke, lawnmower emmisions, prayer in public, Christmas displays, vehicle sizes, eating chicken, fast food burgers, and the list of things could go on and on, and it doesn't always take a majority to force their opinions on the rest of us , just some judge to go along with them
Respectfully Larry

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 20 Apr 2005 9:52 am

While we don't have many hard figures of the effects on business, there would seem to be no question that the most business would be in a place that allowed smoking but had adequate ventilation so that there was minimal exposure to second hand smoke for the nonsmokers. This would have to be enforced with frequent inspections and stiff fines. This could be covered with the tax on tobacco. This is a technological problem with technological fixes that are well within reach. You can scrub the air and return it or you can exhaust the air. The latter would raise heating and airconditioning costs and energy consumption. That too could be addressed with tobacco taxes. I have no problem with making smokers pay the real cost of their bad habits. But banning smoking everywhere just seems draconian and unnecessary.

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 20 Apr 2005 4:09 pm

someone opposes just about everything we do in life, from BBQ smoke, lawnmower emmisions, prayer in public, Christmas displays, vehicle sizes, eating chicken, fast food burgers, and the list of things could go on and on,

The difference is that SMOKING KILLS, and it not only kills the smoker, IT ALSO KILLS INNOCENT BYSTANDERS.

What if we were talking about shooting guns off in public? Would you say "I have a right to fire my shotgun off in the middle of a crowd, and there shouldn't be a law against it?"

It's the same thing. A person who dies of cancer from inhaling second hand smoke is just as as much of a victim as a person who is accidentally shot by the indiscriminate fireing of a shotgun into a crowd.

And the person doing the smoking, whether they are aware of it or not, is just as much of a menace.

[This message was edited by Mike Perlowin on 20 April 2005 at 06:52 PM.]

John Bechtel · Post by **John Bechtel** » 20 Apr 2005 6:54 pm

You are all entitled to your opinions about the smoking~bans and here's mine! I'm more and more happy about being (for all practical~purposes) away from the music~scene, almost every day! I won't even enter a restaurent that has a “No-Smoking” or “Smoke~Free” sign on the enterance! I can accept there being a non~smoking or smoke~free section/room, but; it all depends on my ‘mood at the time’ whether or not I want to frequent a smoke~free business of any kind! I've been smoking for 53 yrs. and have no desire to change! When they say that I can't smoke in my own home, that's when the s@#$%^t will really hit the fan! All I can say is that I'll only frequent a place where a time and place for smoking can be arranged! Otherwise, forget it! I'll just keep on playing at home. Here I can start and stop whenever I choose! Non~Smokers have the same ‘rights’ that I have, but; no more or no less! So there¡ Put that in your smoke and pipe it!
Edited to say: After all that I've mentioned above, this might or might not get me back into the good graces of a few! “I can't stand being around “stinky~cigars”! See, I ain't all bad! . . . . We all have opinions. Some positive and some negative! All lagitimate.
------------------
“Big John” Bechtel
’49-’50 Fender T–8 Custom
’65 Re-Issue Fender Twin–Reverb Custom™ 15” Eminence
[This message was edited by John Bechtel on 20 April 2005 at 08:56 PM.]

Wayne Morgan · Post by **Wayne Morgan** » 20 Apr 2005 7:31 pm

Well I'm a smoker, I'm glad they are getting rid of us smokers,,maybe they will get you drinkers nest. that will be good for bar owners, ban on booze,,that might be next, especially if they do good with this smoking thing. Dougbt if smoking kills more people than booze does.

Wayne[This message was edited by Wayne Morgan on 21 April 2005 at 01:02 PM.]

John Bechtel · Post by **John Bechtel** » 20 Apr 2005 8:36 pm

I just had a (?great?) idea! Let's some of us smokers get together and open a “Smoker’s Club”! We will only allow bottled~water and coffee and soda or other non~alchoholic beverages and food. Non~Smokers are also welcome to enter at their own risk! If they don't, we won't force them with any enticements! Sounds fair to me! Of course, we'll have to have plenty of security to stop all the alchoholic~offenders! [Even breathalizers at the door!] That way, if you have a carry~permit, you can also come armed! Oh~Brother, where art thou?

------------------
“Big John” Bechtel
’49-’50 Fender T–8 Custom
’65 Re-Issue Fender Twin–Reverb Custom™ 15” Eminence

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 21 Apr 2005 6:22 am

NYC (Brooklyn & vicinity) has a ton of small venues with great and interesting music. Many of these are just small rooms with little in any direct ventillation.

It was torture to have to sit or stand in a small room with a ton of smoke. I avoided going these places because it was unbearable and I couldn't enjoy what I came there for.

Now, I love a few cocktails (when I'm not the driving). I will have no less than three drinks when I'm out. The bars & venues don't lose money on me, except if I don't go there.

Some of my friends smoke & I did many years ago. I'm not a non smoking militant. I know the joys of tobacco. I just don't think that I should be subjected to it in a closed space without ample ventilation. It violates my rights. I like a cigar. I make sure that no one else is subjected to it though.

I remember years ago, there would always be somebody who would get in an elevator smoking a cigarette. Come on now, how inconsiderate is that?

Marty Pollard · Post by **Marty Pollard** » 21 Apr 2005 7:30 am

The difference is that SMOKING KILLS... INNOCENT BYSTANDERS.

Oh Mike, try to stick with facts and not your usual load of BS, ok? You'd try to make a politcal statement out of pepperoni pizza. Sheesh.

I do a play-w/the-band-open-mic here in Lyons on Wed. nites and this club (The Outlaw Saloon) is quite a nice place w/indoor and outdoor stages and smoking and non-smoking indoor bar areas.

I just quit smoking 2yrs ago this Father's Day so I see this issue from both perspectives.

There's another club here in Lyons (Oskar Blues) which is non-smoking upstairs and smoking downstairs where the bands play.

These are probably the last places in Boulder County that allow smoking (indoors or out).

City of Longmont outlawed all indoor smoking last year and a bar on Main Street that had music (after a fashion) every weekend promptly went out of business.

Then there's the Lion's Lair on E. Colfax in Denver and Cricket On The Hill; these places have low ceilings and about 6ft visibility after 9pm. But it's well worth it considering the tens of dollars I make playing there...

Marty Pollard · Post by **Marty Pollard** » 21 Apr 2005 8:10 am

It takes me at least a day or two to recover after playing a gig, and you should understand that this isn't imaginary, nor am I unusual.

Sounds rather sissified to me…

Nobody has the rightto force others to injest their poison. In the contrary, people have a right to go about their business without being exposed to toxic fumes.

Explain to me again; who exactly is it that’s FORCING you to ingest this poison? You tell me and I’m gonna call them and tell them to stop FORCING you to enter said bar/nightclub/restaurant/establishment! In fact, you can just call the police because it’s against the law to force you into this or that place. I believe it’s related to kidnapping. Check w/your local law enforcement.

Al Vescovo · Post by **Al Vescovo** » 21 Apr 2005 8:52 am

It's been said that nicotine is the strongest addiction there is. Consequently, the majority of smokers, can't quit smoking even if they wanted to. Al