Smoking in Austin Bars? (Howe: jobs, school, college)

[Paulmmm]

I went to a local joint around the corner from me on Manchaca Rd. to hear some music over the weekend, and not only did it seem that smoking was allowed, it seemed that it was mandatory. Each table even had an ashtray and the club's personalized matchbooks on it. Having just moved here and not run into this before in Austin, I assumed that smoking was illegal in clubs, but I might be wrong. Does anyone know? Is there a list of clubs anywhere that have a smoking and non-smoking section, which might help a little bit? Thanks.

[achtungpv]

Only in the city limits of Austin. If it was in Manchaca it may not have technically been in the city.

[Paulmmm]

Originally Posted by achtungpv

Only in the city limits of Austin. If it was in Manchaca it may not have technically been in the city.

Hmmmm, that is possible, I guess. Its website gives it an Austin address (on Manchaca Rd. in ZIP 78748). And I voted (Austin resident) at the school right next door to it, but maybe they're incorporated in another town or something.

[another_hot-day]

The bars I go to leave it up to the customer to smoke or not smoke. If the cops come the smoker gets the ticket, not the bar.
A lot of bars were losing business quick with the smoking ban.

Every bar I went into on 6th allowed smoking also....

[TexasHorseLady]

There used to be a lovely compromise law in Austin - no smoking, but if the owner of an establishment felt it was in the best interests of their business to allow smoking (bars), they could get a permit (and pay a heft fee for the privilege) to operate a smoking allowed establishment, with that posted clearly on the front door so those who didn't wish to be exposed to cigarette smoke could patronize one of the thousands of other establishments that don't allow smoking. This, however, was not acceptable to the "I don't like to smoke so I don't think anybody should be allowed to" crowd and I don't believe it's the case any more. Which is too bad - it allowed those who do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke to go out without being exposed to it, and it allowed those for whom smoking is a part of the pleasure of the evening to have that, as well - in other words, everyone had a choice (though the nonsmokers had more venues to choose from). Quite the civilized compromise, it seemed to me, with neither side imposing their own choices on others, and I was proud of Austin for coming up with it.

I don't smoke, by the way. It doesn't agree with me (tried it 40 years ago in college, briefly, while living with chain smokers during exam time, and learned that). However, I'm definitely allergic to the legislation of personal choices, especially when such compromises as described above are possible, because I have no doubt that sooner or later someone is going to decide that since they don't want to do something that I like, a law should be passed to make sure that I don't get to do it. (Of course, the same thing applies to those who want to pass such laws, but they don't seem to realize that.)

[Jenbar]

Quite the civilized compromise, it seemed to me, with neither side imposing their own choices on others, and I was proud of Austin for coming up with it.

I disagree. The "pro-smoking" side is imposing their choice on those who are working at the establishment.... but this really isn't an "Austin" specific topic....

[TexasHorseLady]

Sure it is! Austin worked out the perfect solution. (By the way, a lot of people who work in the bars smoke and were quite happy to work at the smoking-allowed establishments, leaving jobs open for non-smokers at the others.) That solved the problem of imposing on anyone, but that wasn't sufficient for those who don't want anybody to smoke. Images of Carrie Nation with her hatchet inevitably come to mind.

[S6Sputnik]

Many year x smoker piping (pun intended) in.

It should be the choice of the owner of an establishment. free market, freedom, free to choose ...You know all the stuff that we live here for!!!!

If you don't like a bar with a no smoking policy got to one where you can smoke and visa versa!

[AGA]

If you went to the Stardust, I think it is in the county so it does not follow the smoking ban. That would apply to the Giddy-Up as well.

Some bar owners turn a blind eye to the smokers and the law says the smoker will be ticketed but not the owner (this came after the initial policy was the opposite...)But I read just the other day that now the owner can be cited also if they are not "trying hard enough" to keep customers from lighting up.

As a smoker, I initally hated the ban, but then got used to it. I can go either way, but I personally don't think it should have to be a law!!! Just choose if you want your establishment to participate or not.

There is my $4.75 worth (price of a pack +/-)

[TexasHorseLady]

Agreed. It would appear that either those who want to enforce their preference on everyone in the form of a law banning smoking were afraid that all the establishments would decide that it was better for their business to pay the license fees and become smoking establishments than to remain nonsmoking, which would indicate that the majority either preferred that smoking be allowed or didn't care and would patronize smoking establishments, or that they simply wanted to enforce their preferences across the board regardless. Otherwise, why fight a law that allowed actual freedom of choice? Establishments for smokers and those who oppose smoking alike to choose from, and for those who prefer to work in a smoking allowed or a no smoking establishment to choose from seems like the ideal solution for greatest freedom of choice.