Cigarette Smoking Bans & Ordinances

[Reefmonkey]

I still think the bars will lose a lot of business.

Especially since the alergic poindexters who avoided bars due to smoke don't even go out in the first place. It's not like they will suddenly show up.

They'll continue to stay home on weekends reading WebMD.com

So where will the smokers be on Friday and Saturday nights now? What will they stay home reading?

Despite proof to the contrary (http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/1/13, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...amp;sec=health), it appears MidtownCoog and even bar owners are still afraid that the smoking ban is going to harm business for bars. So I have been thinking long and hard about this, and the thought that popped into my head is "who cares?"

Now I know how flippant and callous that sounds on the face of it, but bear with me. A lot of people have been talking about "choice" here - the anti-smokers have been saying "smokers choose to smoke" while pro-smokers have been saying "snon-smokers can choose not to go to smoky bars", etc. Those points all make good sense when you are talking about a pre-ban environment, but in 19 days, all those points will be irrelevent. The ban will be in place, smoking will not be allowed in bars anymore. The only choice that will be important then will be the choice that smokers, at less than 25% of the population, will make: "do I stay home to smoke, or do I go to the bar and hold off smoking until later?"

The majority of the population and the majority of bar goers, like me, are non-smokers, who have been silently enduring the smoke for as long as we have been 21, we have been showing our loyalty to bar owners by choosing to go to bars despite the smoke. But the bar owners seem disproportionately concerned about losing the business of their most flakey and disloyal customers - those who are going to choose smoking over patronizing them. Sounds a little pathetic to me.

It's not like the bar will be the only place that smokers can't smoke - smokers are required to abstain for hours at a time every day. They abstain at work. You can't smoke on an airplane - do smokers choose to stay home instead of taking vacations? So smokers can delay smoking for at least a few hours at a time, and regularly do. Here is another time they will be asked to make a choice, the cigarettes, or the drinks and socialization. My instinct, as well as a significant amount of data, tell me that the majority of smokers will choose to keep the Camel Lights unlit for a few hours so they can have a few drinks, see their friends, get out of the house for a few hours. As for those who choose to stay home so they can smoke, that's their choice, and it's a sad one, if you think about it. When your need to intake a chemical for its recreational effects becomes so strong that it trumps your desire to have interaction with friends and family, that's the classic definition of a hardcore addiction.

So for the people who make that choice, why do we wring our hands?

Edited August 13, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[MidtownCoog]

We all know the smokers are the real drinkers. The rest are just pansy-arse posers and a waste of space as far as bar owners are concerned.

The bar owners need the real drinkers to stay in business.

[Reefmonkey]

You have captured my argument very well. And yes, I would agree that if they make an adequate disclaimer, that customers would have enough information to make the choice. But as sanitation is often not well understood by the proprietors of restaurants, much less consumers, as it is a multifaceted set of issues, and as the proprietors would have the capability to very easily misinform consumers, it would seem that enforcement of restaurant sanitation is probably best left to the local government or an independent contactor to that government.

Fair enough, now I know where you stand on that, and you are very consistent. It comes down to a fundamental philosophical disagreement abotu public health between you and me.But even if I were swayed to your POV on this, that anything should be allowed as long as full disclosure and understanding takes place, do we really have that right now? The tobacco industry has spent billions of dollars over the years trying to squealch evidence that smoking is harmful. Even on this thread here, there are people claiming that they have heard second-hand smoke was not as dangerous as it is made out to be. Let's say that there is a good case to be made that second-hand smoke might not be that bad, that would still mean the jury is out, we are not sure if it is bad or not, and there are people who are believing the tobacco-lobby funded studies - I would call that an imperfect understanding of the risk.

How is it not their choice to work in a smokey bar or a coal mine or a hazardous waste site? If you don't like it, find a different job. We aren't in ye olde India. There is no caste system or anything approximating an equivalent.Some jobs carry inescapable health hazards; employers must pay high enough wages to compensate new hires for nonpecuniary aspects of the job. The wages simply go up until either there are enough people to staff the hazardous jobs or until the wage level gets to a point at which the hazardous jobs are not viable...then we export an industry to the 3rd World. Again, the important factor is that employees have sufficiently good information from which to judge the price at which they would be willing to do potentially hazardous work. ...and with that in mind, any level of hazard is acceptable insofar as the employee is aware of it.

Yes, of course it is everyone's choice to work in a smoky bar, a coal mine, or a hazardous waste site. And as I have said, even though it is their choice to work there, the government still requires the employers to reduce risk as much as possible, wherever possible. Employers can't just run their job sites however they see fit and then pay the employees a little more. If a mine or a hazardous waste site can't be made safe enough, MSHA or OSHA comes in and shuts it down. If a worker comes to OSHA and complains about unsafe working conditions, OSHA doesn't say "if you think it's dangerous, go get another job." Just doesn't work that way.As far as "employers [paying] high enough wages to compensate" employees for hazardous conditions, you could not have picked a worse example for that then bar employees. Typically bar owners don't even pay their employees minimum wage, they expect tips to cover that. They certainly don't give them medical insurance to take care of any pulmonary illnesses they are at increased risk of suffering from due to second-hand smoke.

Yes, some jobs have inescapable harzards. At a hazardous waste site, there is no way to make the hazardous waste safer before I get there. That was my job. But other hazards are escapable. I can suspend nearby welding/grinding operations if I am dealing with a flammable substance. I can lock out/tag out machinery that could make the job more dangerous, even if it costs my client more money. Those are not inescapable hazards, they are escapable hazards.Second-hand smoke is not an inescapable hazard of being a bar employee, it is an escapable one, even if it will cost the bar some money. The fact that it is an escapable hazard will be proven September 1.

We all know the smokers are the real drinkers. The rest are just pansy-arse posers and a waste of space as far as bar owners are concerned.The bar owners need the real drinkers to stay in business.

Well, if that's true (though again, it has been disproven in reality nationwide), then starting September 1st, the bar owners are going to have to get creative about attracting us more casual drinkers to come in and drink more. If they can't come up with a way to do that, they're lousy businessmen.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[ricco67]

<br />So now I am a fascist. Well, that's not so bad. Fascists are pretty snazzy dressers, and boy can they march.<br />

well, before you get too enthusiastic about it, fascists have a lousy retirement plan.

i'm just sayin'.

[RedScare]

But the bar owners seem disproportionately concerned about losing the business of their most flakey and disloyal customers - those who are going to choose smoking over patronizing them. Sounds a little pathetic to me.

Now, THAT's funny!

As a former waiter, bartender, restaurant manager, and restaurant owner, there is a very good reason that bar owners are fighting to allow their smoking customers to keep on smoking. For as long as there have been bars and smoking, smoking customers have spent more money, tipped more and complained less as a group than non-smokers. Sure, there are good tipping non-smokers, and there are whiny smokers, but ask any owner or bartender who the better customers are overall, and the answer is always the same.

All of this healthy talk is all well and good, but the fact is...at least in the bars I frequent...health nuts in bars is a recipe for boring. If I'm going to get ripped, I don't want to hear some schmuck at the next table talking about how he's going for a jog tomorrow at 7 am. Hell, I may not get home til then. The City may have every right to constitutionally outlaw smoking, but that doesn't mean that those of us that enjoy actually living life...as opposed to merely surviving as long as possible...won't see this as another in a long line of wimpy rules enacted for the wimpy class, whose motto is, "If it saves just one life...".

I'm not too worried, though. The places I hang out in have already been planning for the day. They've assured their good customers that we'll be taken care of. That's good enough for me.

[Reefmonkey]

Now, THAT's funny!

And he's back, folks! Nice to see you again, RedScare.

As a former waiter, bartender, restaurant manager, and restaurant owner, there is a very good reason that bar owners are fighting to allow their smoking customers to keep on smoking. For as long as there have been bars and smoking, smoking customers have spent more money, tipped more and complained less as a group than non-smokers. Sure, there are good tipping non-smokers, and there are whiny smokers, but ask any owner or bartender who the better customers are overall, and the answer is always the same.

Whew! And here I was afraid all you were going to bring to the discussion was conjecture and unverifiable anecdotal "evidence".

All of this healthy talk is all well and good, but the fact is...at least in the bars I frequent...health nuts in bars is a recipe for boring. If I'm going to get ripped, I don't want to hear some schmuck at the next table talking about how he's going for a jog tomorrow at 7 am. Hell, I may not get home til then. The City may have every right to constitutionally outlaw smoking, but that doesn't mean that those of us that enjoy actually living life...as opposed to merely surviving as long as possible...won't see this as another in a long line of wimpy rules enacted for the wimpy class, whose motto is, "If it saves just one life...".

Yes, those of us who don't revel in inhaling the results of incomplete combustion are all tofu-eating, yoga-doing, patchouli wearing health nuts, and boring. You know, normally, reducing three quarters of Americans over 18 to a simplistic characterization is likely to be grossly inaccurate, but I think in this case you've captured us nicely.

....but that doesn't mean that those of us that enjoy actually living life...as opposed to merely surviving as long as possible.......

Yeah, I've often thought that my decision to refrain from smoking has kept me from enjoying life. I don't truly appreciate simple things, like climbing a flight of stairs, because I can do it without wheezing. It's too bad I wasted 5 days in 2001 climbing Kilimanjaro when I could have been hanging out at the bottom with the Brit smokers in my group who had to give up after the second day. And why do I waste time paddling my surfski when I could sit on my couch and smoke. All the wasted opportunities.....if only I had lit up.

I'm not too worried, though. The places I hang out in have already been planning for the day. They've assured their good customers that we'll be taken care of. That's good enough for me.

That's very ominous. I am impressed. It's like you are a member of a secret society. If I were a member maybe they'd "take care" of me, too. Is there a secret password or do I just give a phlegm-rattling cough?

Edited August 13, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[Reefmonkey]

well, before you get too enthusiastic about it, fascists have a lousy retirement plan.

i'm just sayin'.

Actually, it's very good. We all change our names and move to farms in Argentina or Brazil.

[MidtownCoog]

Speaking of the Secret Smokers Society, who in the heck is going to enforce this ban?

Non-smoking Poindexter snitches? Do they call 911 if they see someone smoking?

[Reefmonkey]

Speaking of the Secret Smokers Society, who in the heck is going to enforce this ban?

Non-smoking Poindexter snitches? Do they call 911 if they see someone smoking?

We fascists have our secret police. We create a climate of fear to encourage people to turn in their neighbors before their neighbors turn them in. Trust us, we know how to handle this. It's what we do.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[RedScare]

Yeah, I've often thought that my decision to refrain from smoking has kept me from enjoying life. I don't truly appreciate simple things, like climbing a flight of stairs, because I can do it without wheezing. It's too bad I wasted 5 days in 2001 climbing Kilimanjaro when I could have been hanging out at the bottom with the Brit smokers in my group who had to give up after the second day. And why do I waste time paddling my surfski when I could sit on my couch and smoke. All the wasted opportunities.....if only I had lit up.

Yeah, I like a good set of stairs, too. I often walk the 9 flights to my office for exercise. I wrote about it in Vertigo's diet thread. As for those Brit smokers, I'll bet you got a great laigh at that. I get that same thrill from passing up the non-smokers on my 60 mile bicycle rides, then watching the look on their faces when I light up at the rest stops. It's great comedy. You can almost see their mouths forming the words, "How does he do that?"

Look, I know you find my habit disgusting, just as I find posuers disgusting (not accusing you of being one). I've smoked ever since my days at RJ Reynolds High School (Google it, if you doubt its existence). Used to smoke before wrestling practice. I enjoy it. If I didn't, I'd quit. I also like my booze. I don't choose it because "it's healthy". I also like defending people accused of crimes. I like coffee. I don't go to church. If I cared what 75% of Americans do, I'd probably quit smoking, drink red wine, and drive a Suburban to my church in the suburbs. But, I don't care. I LIKE being contrarian.

My point is I DON'T like people passing laws restricting the things I like to do, even if it can be legally done. Clearly, you enjoy things like that, even though the odds of you ending up in one of my bars is virtually nil. But, like millions of others in this increasingly authoritarian society, I will adapt...and I will do so with a box of smokes in my pocket.

[Reefmonkey]

As for those Brit smokers, I'll bet you got a great laigh at that.

Actually, I was disappointed when they gave up. They were funny guys and great company. After they left, it was just my brother, me, and a middle aged couple - both lawyers - from NYC. Very proud of living in Midtown Manhattan and looked down on a couple of Texans.

Oh, I am willing to bet we have passed each other at Rudyards, La Carafe, Davenport, LZ's, Barfly, places like that. I am just always careful to only wear clothes that can be machine-washed to those places. I am glad I'll be able to start wearing dry-clean only there. See, that's the thing. You've sat in smoke-laden bars and been surrounded by people you didn't know anything about. You assumed that all non-smokers stayed away from bars and were "boring" people, and everyone around you must be a smoker, just because we didn't say anything about it, pretended to tolerate it because social taboo was against us, complaining about it would not have gotten us anywhere in the bars. So you built this myth in your head that nonsmokers were boring people who would never go into "your" bar. This national movement is happening in cities across the US because the tide of public opinion is with us now.

For decades those of us who didn't smoke just had to silently endure as we walked through clouds of cigarette smoke in movie theatres, on airplanes, at work, etc. (When I go to Asia on business it is a reminder of how things used to be). We just had to suck up and silently endure because we had been the minority for so long, we had no chance of asking for a smoke-free environment. The will of the majority was imposed on us. It may not have been codified in city ordinances, but it was culturally institutionalized nonetheless. Now the worm has turned. It's not a matter of an increasingly authoritarian society taking away any rights, and it is overly dramatic to characterize it as such. The rights are just being redistributed according to a shift in demographics and general public attitude.

That has always happened, will always happen. It's nice when it happens in a way that is good for people. Not just the nonsmokers who don't want to breathe it in, but also for those coming up, who might otherwise pick up smoking because it's "the thing to do at bars."

Edited August 13, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[TheNiche]

But even if I were swayed to your POV on this, that anything should be allowed as long as full disclosure and understanding takes place, do we really have that right now? The tobacco industry has spent billions of dollars over the years trying to squealch evidence that smoking is harmful. Even on this thread here, there are people claiming that they have heard second-hand smoke was not as dangerous as it is made out to be. Let's say that there is a good case to be made that second-hand smoke might not be that bad, that would still mean the jury is out, we are not sure if it is bad or not, and there are people who are believing the tobacco-lobby funded studies - I would call that an imperfect understanding of the risk.

Operative word was adequate.

Analogously to your example of risk ambiguity, many people believe in the five second rule, others not so much. And other people believe that a little bit of contamination can build your immune system. Whether the risk ambiguity is the result of malicious or accidental misinformation is not relevant to this debate. My point is, however, that as long as you know that they're engaging in a risky practice, you can choose whether to accept the risk or not based upon your best estimate of the risk. It is also important to bear in mind that different people react different ways to health hazards, and that they're probably a better judge of what they are willing and able to handle than you or any government entity.

Surely you can concede that it is not reasonable to expect that every conceivable risk be mitigated. That kind of goal can be taken to an absurd extent.

Yes, of course it is everyone's choice to work in a smoky bar, a coal mine, or a hazardous waste site. And as I have said, even though it is their choice to work there, the government still requires the employers to reduce risk as much as possible, wherever possible. Employers can't just run their job sites however they see fit and then pay the employees a little more. If a mine or a hazardous waste site can't be made safe enough, MSHA or OSHA comes in and shuts it down. If a worker comes to OSHA and complains about unsafe working conditions, OSHA doesn't say "if you think it's dangerous, go get another job." Just doesn't work that way.

You are correct. Employers cannot "just run their job sites however they see fit and then pay the employees a little more." I see that as unfortunate.

As far as "employers [paying] high enough wages to compensate" employees for hazardous conditions, you could not have picked a worse example for that then bar employees. Typically bar owners don't even pay their employees minimum wage, they expect tips to cover that. They certainly don't give them medical insurance to take care of any pulmonary illnesses they are at increased risk of suffering from due to second-hand smoke.

Ultimately, all that workers care about is net compensation, and tips are part of compensation. Some people are willing to work a job because it offers non-wage benefits in the form of tips, experience, networking opportunities, extra flexibility, personal enjoyment, or notoriety (i.e. television news reporters) that wage compensation can be bid way down. Some salons, rather than hire a staff, actually rent chairs...quite a reversal...but they can do it if they have a prestige factor working for them. If that salon did something to endanger its cutters' health--for instance treating cases of lice--you can bet that they'd have to switch back to paying employees to work there. Same thing with smoking insofar as prospective employees view second hand smoke as a health hazard. Holding other factors constant, you'd expect the net compensation to stay the same, even if the wages had to rise by some amount to cover the perceived risk.

And from the data that I've seen, the health insurance thing is more related to the size of the firm than anything else. Without a sufficiently large base of employees, it is just exhorbitantly expensive--but most workers can still choose between a large firm and a small firm if they really care, so employers are still pressured to at least provide some level of compensatory wages if they're too small to be able to afford health insurance for their folks. The second most critical factor is the ease with which replacement employees can be found or that shifts can be covered. Low-skill workers just aren't going to get much...but that is often related to major life choices made by those workers.

Yes, some jobs have inescapable harzards. At a hazardous waste site, there is no way to make the hazardous waste safer before I get there. That was my job. But other hazards are escapable. I can suspend nearby welding/grinding operations if I am dealing with a flammable substance. I can lock out/tag out machinery that could make the job more dangerous, even if it costs my client more money. Those are not inescapable hazards, they are escapable hazards.Second-hand smoke is not an inescapable hazard of being a bar employee, it is an escapable one, even if it will cost the bar some money. The fact that it is an escapable hazard will be proven September 1.

I'm not sure that your welding example is very analogous to the smoking issue. If everyone is aware of the risk, then the employees have the opportunity to walk off the job site or demand hazard pay. If each of you is going about doing your own thing, putting the whole crew at risk, then that is a problem. More to the point, it gets to be grounds for criminal negligence on the employer's part for lack of oversight if there's an accident.

Smoking is a very different matter. It is yes/no, and there's very little room for ambiguity.

Edited August 13, 2007 by TheNiche

[Reefmonkey]

It is also important to bear in mind that different people react different ways to health hazards, and that they're probably a better judge of what they are willing and able to handle than you or any government entity.

Well, I am always going to believe that NIOSH is a better judge of how the average person is going to react to health hazards than the average person. I have seen the tragic results when people have thought they knew better than OSHA and could cut corners on safety regulations.

You are correct. Employers cannot "just run their job sites however they see fit and then pay the employees a little more." I see that as unfortunate.

Your model is how things worked before the days of OSHA. Since OSHA, industrial accidents, deaths, and illnesses have steadily decreased. I see that as VERY fortunate.

More to the point, it gets to be grounds for criminal negligence on the employer's part for lack of oversight if there's an accident.

Why have a laissez-faire attitude about running job sites and then let the courts take care of compensating for injuries/deaths, when sensible workplace health and safety standards can prevent the injuries/deaths in the first place. OSHA regs have a proven record of reducing injuries/deaths when compared to pre-OSHA days. The Dickensian idea that employers should be left to their own devices when it comes to workplace health/safety, and then should pay off victims/survivors is simply vomitous - and it doesn't work. After much suffering on the part of numerous workers, unions seek to fill the void if government won't. I think OSHA does a better job of balancing worker needs versus employer needs than any union.

Surely you can concede that it is not reasonable to expect that every conceivable risk be mitigated.

Of course not. I am only expecting that at the very least, real, easy to remedy conditions be remedied. Second-hand smoke hazard is one that is very real, and very easily remedied. It doesn't require expensive control technology, other than a simple sign that says "No Smoking."

[TheNiche]

Well, I am always going to believe that NIOSH is a better judge of how the average person is going to react to health hazards than the average person. I have seen the tragic results when people have thought they knew better than OSHA and could cut corners on safety regulations.

Your model is how things worked before the days of OSHA. Since OSHA, industrial accidents, deaths, and illnesses have steadily decreased. I see that as VERY fortunate.

Why have a laissez-faire attitude about running job sites and then let the courts take care of compensating for injuries/deaths, when sensible workplace health and safety standards can prevent the injuries/deaths in the first place. OSHA regs have a proven record of reducing injuries/deaths when compared to pre-OSHA days. The Dickensian idea that employers should be left to their own devices when it comes to workplace health/safety, and then should pay off victims/survivors is simply vomitous - and it doesn't work. After much suffering on the part of numerous workers, unions seek to fill the void if government won't. I think OSHA does a better job of balancing worker needs versus employer needs than any union.

Of course not. I am only expecting that at the very least, real, easy to remedy conditions be remedied. Second-hand smoke hazard is one that is very real, and very easily remedied. It doesn't require expensive control technology, other than a simple sign that says "No Smoking."

Well at this point, I don't know what else to tell you except to fall in line (more or less) with Red. It's great that OSHA has limited workplace injuries and fatalities, but is terrible that it has limited what sensible people can do. Sometimes people take on risk in good judgement and it just doesn't work out for them. That doesn't mean that they should be banned from taking a risk by a bureaucratic entity that is in a poor position to judge individual risk tolerances or risk aversion/mitigation abilities.

The fundamental difference between our positions, it seems, is that I trust in the good judgement of individuals, and that you trust in their incompetence. Neither of our stances is without cost, of course, but each also have a benefit. I view benefit net of cost with respect to my view as greater than your own; fundamentally, when provided adequate information, an individual is better positioned to make choices that affect them than is government.

----

Btw, it just occured to me to say that government is no less susceptible to misinformation than are individuals. It has been known to do some really stupid things from time to time. I should've mentioned that a while back.

Edited August 13, 2007 by TheNiche

[RedScare]

Btw, it just occured to me to say that government is no less susceptible to misinformation than are individuals. It has been known to do some really stupid things from time to time. I should've mentioned that a while back.

A great example of such would be the government's secondhand smoke propaganda itself. The OSHA secondhand smoke rules were made before they had even commissioned a study to determine if it was a hazard. And, a look at the DOT studies of airplane smoke suggests that it isn't the devil it was made out to be. The back half of the plane had the same particulates as a smoke free plane! But, there is money to be made demonizing smokers and smoke, and once the juggernaut got going, it is impossible to stop.

Better to enjoy my tobacco on my front stoop than to even try. I can still do that, can't I?

[TJones]

I don't understand how the lawsuit can claim Houston is overstepping its authority in regulat[ing] differently" businesses licensed to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption. I don't see how this is regulating bars any differently from any other business. And what does the alcohol consuption have to do with anything? If anything, this is leveling the playing field, making bars adhere to the same regulations every store, office, etc in Houston already adheres to. Bars are a place of work for the bar employees. Anti-smoking ordinances are meant to protect workers from smoke in the work environment, among other things. Why should bar employees have less protection than anyone else?

Hmmm.... how about disbanding the concealed permit law for bars also then Reefermonkey ? You can carry your concealed weapon into your work or a mall, how about being able to carry your gun into a bar now since the alcohol consumption shouldn't matter right ? I mean since you want to "level the playing field."

Bottomline.....Smoking and Drinking in bars have gone hand in hand since smoking and drinking were invented. If you are afraid for your lungs, then go work or play somewhere else. It would be likened to a hostile work enviroment, wouldn't you quit or transfer if you felt threatened at your work place but nobody else feels the same way ? If you didn't like where you were, why wouldn't you move on.

I had a few drinks with ol' Red the other night, and I had to endure his toxic cancerstix for a couple of hours, I don't smoke nor have I ever, but, I never even thought about him smoking, it didn't bother me, because I knew I was in a friggin' BAR!... or were you smoking Red? LOL! Somebody was smoking in that joint.

Edited August 14, 2007 by TJones

[musicman]

Bottomline.....Smoking and Drinking in bars have gone hand in hand since smoking and drinking were invented. If you are afraid for your lungs, then go work or play somewhere else. It would be likened to a hostile work enviroment, wouldn't you quit or transfer if you felt threatened at your work place but nobody else feels the same way ? If you didn't like where you were, why wouldn't you move on.

what about smoking in the workplace? how do you feel about that?

[RedScare]

Yeah, I burned a few, but I kept my ashtray to the side and did not blow smoke in your direction. Some might consider it polite to do so. Me, I just thought it was a smart thing to do, seeing as how you outweighed me by 140 pounds.

[musicman]

Yeah, I burned a few, but I kept my ashtray to the side and did not blow smoke in your direction. Some might consider it polite to do so.

i find that if a smoker knows you and knows you don't smoke, they do what Red did in this instance.

[RedScare]

What is going to be interesting in all of this is the advantage smokers will gain by being forced to congregate outside. Polls have shown a surge in "occasional smokers", those who only smoke when they drink, or other random occasions, especially among women. There are far fewer people who are offended by smoking than many think, especially amongst the younger bar crowd. These "occasional smokers", when the urge hits, will have to come outside with the rest of the smokers, meaning they will leave their non-smoking friends and acquaintances inside. This gives the smokers the decided edge in the bar dating scene, as the "occasional smoker" will stay outside for the 5 minutes or so it takes to consume the cigarette.

In the past, these OCs would merely bum a smoke and a light, and disappear into the night. Now, just as the junior worker has the undivided attention of his smoking boss for 5 minutes on the sidewalk in front of the office building, the smoker may flirt with the OC uninterrupted for 5 minutes before she returns to her non-smoking friends. As women have historically been drawn to "bad boys", I may quickly come to appreciate the City's insistence on more clearly delineating the rebels from the do-gooders.

[musicman]

What is going to be interesting in all of this is the advantage smokers will gain by being forced to congregate outside.

i think i was reading about a 25' rule. that might make it difficult in some of the downtown establishments.

then you'll have to do a tradeoff between your smoke and your drink.

Edited August 14, 2007 by musicman

[Reefmonkey]

Hmmm.... how about disbanding the concealed permit law for bars also then Reefermonkey ? You can carry your concealed weapon into your work or a mall, how about being able to carry your gun into a bar now since the alcohol consumption shouldn't matter right ? I mean since you want to "level the playing field."Bottomline.....Smoking and Drinking in bars have gone hand in hand since smoking and drinking were invented. If you are afraid for your lungs, then go work or play somewhere else. It would be likened to a hostile work enviroment, wouldn't you quit or transfer if you felt threatened at your work place but nobody else feels the same way ? If you didn't like where you were, why wouldn't you move on.I had a few drinks with ol' Red the other night, and I had to endure his toxic cancerstix for a couple of hours, I don't smoke nor have I ever, but, I never even thought about him smoking, it didn't bother me, because I knew I was in a friggin' BAR!... or were you smoking Red? LOL! Somebody was smoking in that joint.

I think you may have had a few drinks before posting this, judging from your post - especially the non sequiter about concealed weapons. I generally only respond to coherent posts. "Reefermonkey", how clever. I've NEVER heard that one before.

You can carry your concealed weapon into your work or a mall, how about being able to carry your gun into a bar now since the alcohol consumption shouldn't matter right ?

Really, you can? I don't know where you work or what malls you go to, but concealed handguns aren't allowed in any office building or mall I have been to.

What is going to be interesting in all of this is the advantage smokers will gain by being forced to congregate outside. Polls have shown a surge in "occasional smokers", those who only smoke when they drink, or other random occasions, especially among women. There are far fewer people who are offended by smoking than many think, especially amongst the younger bar crowd. These "occasional smokers", when the urge hits, will have to come outside with the rest of the smokers, meaning they will leave their non-smoking friends and acquaintances inside. This gives the smokers the decided edge in the bar dating scene, as the "occasional smoker" will stay outside for the 5 minutes or so it takes to consume the cigarette.In the past, these OCs would merely bum a smoke and a light, and disappear into the night. Now, just as the junior worker has the undivided attention of his smoking boss for 5 minutes on the sidewalk in front of the office building, the smoker may flirt with the OC uninterrupted for 5 minutes before she returns to her non-smoking friends. As women have historically been drawn to "bad boys", I may quickly come to appreciate the City's insistence on more clearly delineating the rebels from the do-gooders.

Just separates the wheat from the chaff, so us nonsmokers don't have to figure out which girls are going to have breath that smells like....I made my move on my now wife in Barfly while her aggressive (and psycho) smoking friend was trying to bum a smoke. Edited August 14, 2007 by Reefmonkey

[TheNiche]

Just separates the wheat from the chaff, so us nonsmokers don't have to figure out which girls are going to have breath that smells like.

Ah yes. Ashy mouth. I am very familiar with this condition. Very unpleasant--albeit usually more rewarding than not.

[MidtownCoog]

The answer to my question: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5051515.html

It'll be up to patrons, bars to ban smoking

City will not beef up tactics for enforcement

[musicman]

The answer to my question: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5051515.html

It'll be up to patrons, bars to ban smoking

City will not beef up tactics for enforcement

having patrons do it will surely lead to other problems.

[Native Montrosian]

Well, at the risk of being called all kinds of nasty names for not having children of our own (though we have a long history of borrowing nephews and spoiling them frightfully), my husband and I go to pubs to linger for a few hours, maybe throw some darts with friends or read, and generally relax on a Saturday or Sunday. I'm 46, he's 34, we've been together for 12 years - we don't do trendy bars or worry about impressing anyone but one another. He smokes two or three pipes during that time, and we usually spend at least $60-$70 between lunch, drinks, and something to take home for dinner. He doesn't have to smoke, but the pipe on the table is usually our last line of defense against a table with potentially-uncontrollable children. If the children run in ahead of the parents screaming and are not corrected, he lights up the pipe, and the family usually sits somewhere else.

Mind you, I'm not talking about children who have a firm grasp on the concept of indoor voices and behavior in someone else's place and are there because mom and dad are tired and want to get in out of the heat and have a few drinks - the pub we frequent has video games near the pool tables and darts area, and parents usually send the kids over there to entertain themselves. I'm talking about the ones who like to play chase around the tables, throw food at each other (we've been hit by some badly-aimed fries more than once), or who are obviously overdue for a nap and sit and cry for over 20 minutes (twice since his birthday lunch in April - we timed it for the heck of it). The Village is a big shopping area, and this is bound to happen - we understand this - but whereas management can say something to adults who are getting out of control over a game on TV or have had a bit too much, saying something to a child or a child's parents, even in the interest of the child's safety (not to mention the servers or other patrons) is looking for trouble, according to every server I've ever asked. We've always sat in smoking sections to avoid this problem, and will be sorry to see them go for that reason. Yes, we can sit outside and often do in cool weather, but it's the quiet, comfortable wood-paneled pub atmosphere over a pint of Guinness we enjoy.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Native Montrosian

[Reefmonkey]

The answer to my question: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5051515.html

It'll be up to patrons, bars to ban smoking

City will not beef up tactics for enforcement

Yeah, like that's going to work. One thing my sainted grandmother taught me was that it does no good to return rudeness with rudeness. I'm not going to provoke every smoker I see by saying "you're violating the smoking ban". In the past even polite requests like "I don't think you're aware your smoke is drifting into my face, would you mind moving your ashtray to the other side?" have been returned with rudeness. Smokers have never been considerate of nonsmokers' wishes in bars before, and this surely isn't going to make them so. All it will do is lead to bar fights.

One thing I have noticed - many bars that allow cigarette smoking don't allow cigar and pipe smoking. Why is that? It's like only half-admitting that you realize people find smoke irritating, but not wanting to go all the way.

Native Montrosian - getting thrown french fries at you by rambunctuous kids in the Village - are you going to BW3's? Now there is something that the city should enact an ordinance about - parents who let their little brats run around unruly at restaurants. Kidding, everyone, but poorly behaved children not kept in tow by parents is a pet peeve of mine.

[MidtownCoog]

My plan is for all non-smokers to only drink at places like Chotchkie's, Friday's or Chilis.

Leave the real bars for the real drinkers.

[musicman]

those real drinkers might be lookin like this...

[Reefmonkey]

those real drinkers might be lookin like this...

I thought they looked like this:

My plan is for all non-smokers to only drink at places like Chotchkie's, Friday's or Chilis. Leave the real bars for the real drinkers.

Like I told Red Scare, we've been drinking around you all the time, you just haven't noticed. Most of the people around you were non-smoking real drinkers, you just couldn't tell that we nonsmokers, because we silently endured.