Smoking -- attitudes in Chicagoland (Clinton, Stockton: casino, restaurant, law)

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Sounds like Hayfever.

Can I get that in the Phoenix area though?

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

Can I get that in the Phoenix area though?

Yes. Hayfever (of course is not a scientific name-its more of a catch all name) has more than one cause. Dirt and dust are two of them. Pollen is usually the big culprit, but there are many causes.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

My friend was at TGIF in St. Charles for New Years, grabbin some brews at the bar. At midnight they were told to put out their smokes. He said it was strange to sit in the bar w/o smoking. He's not going back there anymore he says, only because he doesnt like to drink w/o smoking. I fear many bars are going to lose lots of patrons because of this new law. Time will tell.

They might. I don't like to be around smoke, but it seems like if you're drinking you should probably have a right to smoke in there too. I appreciate smoking areas in restaurants that are away from the non-smokers since I go to restaurants often. The news station out of Cape Girardeau covered the event and talked to patrons about it. I don't smoke, but I'm more in favor of not having a ban in bars. It just doesn't really make sense to me. I do think we demonize smokers too much.

The news station said that a local Illinois bar gave all their ashtrays to a place in Cape, since there is no ban in Missouri.

Although one of the most common sources of resistance to bans comes from businesses concerned that they will suffer financial losses due to lost customers, research seems to offer them some reassurances. A review published in 2003 of 97 studies on the economic effects of smoking bans on the hospitality industry shows that all the best designed studies by anti-smoking groups and their contractors report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bars laws on sales or employment.

United States
In the USA, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from smoking bans. Some restaurateurs argued that smoking bans would increase the rate of dine and dashes where patrons declare they are stepping outside to smoke, while their intent is to leave. Others have countered that even if this occurred it could decrease the leisure (non-eating) time spent in the restaurants, resulting in increased turn-over of tables, which could actually benefit total sales. The experiences of Delaware, New York, California, and Florida have shown that businesses are generally not hurt, and that many hospitality businesses actually show increased revenues. According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy. A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review of studies suggests that business may actually improve. Thus, research generally indicates that business incomes are stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and many customers appreciate the improved air quality.
In 2003 New York City amended its anti-smoking law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it one of the toughest in the United States. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments. A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results.
Other studies, however, have found far different results. Michael Pakko of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has released several studies of the negative economic impact of smoking bans on restaurants and bars, including generally, in Columbia, Missouri, and at Delaware gambling facilities. His studies have shown decreased revenues for bars and restaurants in each case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking..._on_businesses

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

They might. I don't like to be around smoke, but it seems like if you're drinking you should probably have a right to smoke in there too. I appreciate smoking areas in restaurants that are away from the non-smokers since I go to restaurants often. The news station out of Cape Girardeau covered the event and talked to patrons about it. I don't smoke, but I'm more in favor of not having a ban in bars. It just doesn't really make sense to me. I do think we demonize smokers too much.

The news station said that a local Illinois bar gave all their ashtrays to a place in Cape, since there is no ban in Missouri.





Smoking ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have never had any problem not being able to smoke in most places. But banning it in bars is ridiculous.

No bar or any other establishent has ever been restricted from banning smoking if they wanted to on their own. Non-smokers could have opened their own bars and made them non-smoking. Banning smoking in bars,casinos (that have seperate floors),racetracks and OTBS is ridiculous.

All of those places were a working mans last refuge.

"Next thing you know theyll take my thoughts away." Dave Mustaine

[j33]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Now, that the comprehensive smoking ban is in effect, anyone been to a bar? What's it like?

I went to a bar last night for a couple of drinks. It was nice not to have to deal with all the smoke.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Ya. This could potentially hurt bars in East St. Louis and any other border cities. I believe most the bordering states still allow smoking in bars. If a smoker is spending an evening in a bar what's another 10-20 minutes driving if you can smoke in another state without freezing your butt off in the cold?

On the other hand it could draw people to Illinois if they don't want to deal with the smoke in bars in other states.

I see no reason to ban it in bars. If a bar owner doesn't want it in his bar he can ban it himself.

[FormerStocktonian]

Okay, thought that I would have to put my thoughts into this post.

This is just another step in government trying to taking control over the lives of citizens. Okay, I agree, you go out to dinner, you don't want to breath in smoke while you're trying to enjoy your meal. But in bars and nite clubs and casinos? Come on! That is just plain ridiculous.

This should not be a state law, but something that should left up to the business owners. Who is the government to say what businesses need to enforce and what not to enforce? If you are not a smoker, fine, that is your god given american right. But why should smokers feel like criminals? In that case, then ban businesses from selling alcohol. Isn't drinking more dangerous than smoking a cigarette? I have never heard of a smoker leaving a bar and killing someone with their car. Why isn't alcohol being attacked from being sold in public places? I better shut up with that or some lonesome citizen might just get the idea to bring that to congress.

I don't know, I just feel that we are allowing ourselves to be controlled by the government more and more each day. They are setting laws on what we can eat and making corporations take away certain ingrediants from our foods. Are we, as Americans, not that smart to decide what we should eat on our own or how to control ourselves when it comes to our diet? Why do we need the government to control our daily lives? I'm sorry, but this goes beyond the smoking ban. We are allowing ourselves to be subjective to government control and having our personal choices being taken away.

For the record, I'll take my entertainment dollars to Wisconsin and Indiana where I can smoke in a casino or in a bar and not feel like a criminal. I will never step into a another casino or bar in Illinois where they will get my tax dollars. Lucky for me, I live in a great location where I can travel to either state in less than an hour.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Ya. I think it is going a little bit overboard. We need to find a happy medium between smokers and nonsmokers. Drinking is dangerous as well. My Grandfather smokes. As much as I hate the fact that he does, he has a right to smoke in public in most places. I'm glad we have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants, since I don't want to be around the smoke, but I think bars are different. Although my grandfather normally smokes outside when we go out to eat anyway.

You're probably not the only one traveling across state borders to smoke.

[Avengerfire]

Maybe the American Lung Association can push to ban all private vehicles and all factories in which people are exposed to cancer causing agents everyday. The exhaust from oil powered vehicles and pollution from factories dont cause health problems do they? Nah, thats not possible is it? If that group was serious about health they would push to ban all manufacturing and power generation in the U.S.A.

Hypocrites.

I dont own a car, I walk everywhere and take a bus or train when I have to.Yet I am being exposed to cancer causing agents coming from people driving their damn cars to go to a store 3 blocks from their house. Whats better is this air everyone has to share. Why are people exposing me to cancer causing exhaust in an outdoor public place? Oh, the humanity. Look at all the people driving their SUVs polluting the outdoor air to their new health hangout-the non-smoking bar! LMFAO

[Avengerfire]

What I find even more amusing is how many of anti-smoking militant people idolize Bill Clinton(who smoked cigars-no pun intended -his whole time in office and as far as I know still smokes them) and Barack Obama who is a long time cigarette smoker. Morons.