How will the smoking ban affect the "bar scene?" (apartment, health insurance)

[Castaway]

Getting back to Midnitebreeze's original thread: How will the smoking ban effect the"bar scene?"
It has effected many bars and the climate within. As I have said before, when you lose a bar the others pick up. Sure, they are doing better business, the market has gotten smaller. When people say, "business has picked up and it has gotten better", it makes me think that they are not paying attention to the world around them.
They don't notice the small bars, they have never patronized those type of bars, nor could they care less if they go under. People just recognize the bigger places. Comments like: Isn't it nice not to have smoke in my hair, or while I eat, or the smell in my clothes?? I agree. For the non-smoker it must be heaven. What about smokers?
I have never gotten an answer to, "Why can't there be smoking bars & non-smoking bars? Clienteles in bars are different- bikers, professionals, blue collar, white collar, smokers, non-smokers, etc. Why can't there be a compromise?
The bar I manage is a conversational bar. The only conversation we are having is "Why is the bar empty?" while they smoke on the patio until it gets too cold.

[MidniteBreeze]

Originally Posted by Castaway

I have never gotten an answer to, "Why can't there be smoking bars & non-smoking bars? Clienteles in bars are different- bikers, professionals, blue collar, white collar, smokers, non-smokers, etc. Why can't there be a compromise?

Exactly!!!!

[AVguy]

Originally Posted by Castaway

I have never gotten an answer to, "Why can't there be smoking bars & non-smoking bars? Clienteles in bars are different- bikers, professionals, blue collar, white collar, smokers, non-smokers, etc. Why can't there be a compromise?

Well stated. Though you may not like the answer, the reason that all smoking in public places is prohibited is because the health concerns of everyone who frequent bars and who work at bars outweight the right of people to smoke in public places. The state believes that all people, not some people, should be sheltered from the health effects of smoking. The state, in its police power (check Wikipedia), has the ability to restrict behaviors that it perceives to be against public welfare, including public health. An argument exists for claiming that such use of police power is unconstitutional. However, the activity of smoking has no special protection under our Constitution and laws, and the fact that the state is only regulating activity in public and semi-public areas, it is very easy for smoking bans to pass constitutional muster.

Now, an anti-smoking advocate may question why the state can prohibit adults from smoking at bars while parents are permitted to smoke in a house inhabited by children. The activity of private actors on private property has been respected for many centuries, notwithstanding eminent domain (a totally different issue), making the smoking in a house full of children a permitted activity (so long as it does not rise to the level of child abuse). It should be noted that some people confuse the law of private actors on private property with the law of public actions on private property, but these are governed by two different bodies of law. The reason why these two treatments are not inconsistent is because the state has exclusive domain to regulate public activity.

Back to the poster quoted above, there was a time when I was more sympathic to your cause, when I had a stronger libertarian streak. I don't think that there is anything inherently flawed in your logic, nor do you come across as being unreasonable, but this is one of those times where, quite simply, the majority rules. This will be another case where government handouts and regulations can make or break certain businesses (ethanol production versus head shops).

[Castaway]

Thanks for the explanation.

Originally Posted by AVguy

Back to the poster quoted above, there was a time when I was more sympathic to your cause, when I had a stronger libertarian streak. I don't think that there is anything inherently flawed in your logic, nor do you come across as being unreasonable, but this is one of those times where, quite simply, the majority rules. This will be another case where government handouts and regulations can make or break certain businesses (ethanol production versus head shops).

How can the majority rule if there was never a vote? In my state, Governor Richardson (a prez hopeful), just played follow the leader on this. How can the government know that the smoking ban is what the people want. The loud voices of Lobbyists groups are not always the voice of the masses just a select few. Interesting?

[MidniteBreeze]

Well, I suppose it's easier for the government to do a "blanket" policy rather than make exceptions for small bars where the majority of the employees/customers are either smokers or "smoker tolerant", but it's too bad that some people will be put out of business or, at best, see a significant decrease in profits/income because of this.

I do understand where the non-smokers and public health folks are coming from with MOST smoking bans, but again, it seems reasonable that there should be ONE small sector of the economy left where customers and business owners have the choice to patronize/own an adult-oriented smoking establishment. Everyone knows the risks involved with smoking...I don't see how this would hurt anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to smoke. Again, another example of the government "saving us from ourselves."

[Castaway]

Originally Posted by MidniteBreeze

Again, another example of the government "saving us from ourselves."

Couldn't agree more.

[yellowsnow]

Originally Posted by MidniteBreeze

Well, I suppose it's easier for the government to do a "blanket" policy rather than make exceptions for small bars where the majority of the employees/customers are either smokers or "smoker tolerant", but it's too bad that some people will be put out of business or, at best, see a significant decrease in profits/income because of this.

I do understand where the non-smokers and public health folks are coming from with MOST smoking bans, but again, it seems reasonable that there should be ONE small sector of the economy left where customers and business owners have the choice to patronize/own an adult-oriented smoking establishment. Everyone knows the risks involved with smoking...I don't see how this would hurt anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to smoke. Again, another example of the government "saving us from ourselves."

They're going after your Twinkies next!

[AVguy]

It is interesting how laws eventually get passed. But getting to your question about how the government can know what the people want, I'm sure you are well aware that we live in a representative democracy, meaning that our representatives, who are elected by a majority of the voting public (sans the electoral college), make our laws and granted power by us. (This is what I meant by "majority rules"--the officials representing the minority in an election do not get placed in office.) I never had a direct vote on the street light outside my house or the sewers leading to my house, but these decisions were made by those elected into power by a majority of the people. As we are a county of the people, by the people, and for the people, we are the government and the government is us. This is little solace, however, when we are on the short end of the stick, except that it satisfies the requirement of due process.

I never really followed how the smoking ban got passed. I'm not so sure that the legislators and Pawlenty were worried about smokers in general because smokers are still allowed to smoke in their homes, in their cars, and in outdoor locations. The second-hand smoking concern seemed to be personified by those who don't smoke but suffer the health effects of working in smoky environments. (To think that you used to be able to smoke on airline flights, which would subject flight attendants and other travelers to hours of smoky air.) The argument was that those who work in smoke-filled environments should not be subjected to others' smoke and others' harmful decisions. Yes, a mother of three doesn't have to work at a smoky bar, but let's be honest, this may be the mother's only chance at a good paying job to support her family in a given location. That example, as well as not subjecting other people to your choices, seemed to be the driver of the law. I didn't see any legislators championing the bill as a way to protect smokers from themselves.

[Castaway]

AVguy:
Understood. There are so many laws proposed that are driven by groups that feel they have a subtantial stake in the outcome, i.e. insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies.

I feel that there is another agenda by gov't (paranoia??). I think that smoking bans, in general, are headed towards the prohibition of smoking. They are banning not only smoking indoors but now outdoors and in apartment complexes. I just overheard a blurb on t.v. of a CA county (so new?) trying to enact just that. The tax revenue from smoking I'm sure has dwindled. Is that why they are raising the tax on any tobacco product? Make it so unaffordable for smokers that they have to quit while still gettting the same revenue. What hypocrisy!

I can't believe that the Gov't cannot formulate a bill that is equitable for all parties (smokers & non-smokers). After 29 years of working in the hospitality sector (the same business), I am not in the mood to look for another job, much less I am too old to find someone to accept me. I guess I'm part of the marginal damage caused by smoking bans they talk about.

[MidniteBreeze]

True, in MN (at least not yet) they haven't banned smoking outside, in your car, etc., but they ARE starting to talk about doing just that in some places (I think I read that San Francisco is looking at bannig smoking in cars.) Now I can understand that in cases where there are children in the car, but seriously, who is it hurting if some dude wants to light up on his commute from his non-smoking workplace to his non-smoking apartment building? And don't the police have better things to do than to pull smokers over or chase them out of parking lots and parks?

There's an old analogy: throw a frog into a pot of boiling water and he'll jump out. But turn the heat up slowly and he's cooked before he knows what's happened to him. Today it's smoking, but what tomorrow? I really hate to sound like some crazy "the sky is falling" alarmist, but I just don't like what I'm seeing. We have so many health nazis, PC nazis, and morality nazis telling everyone what we can and can't do. We're SO afraid of offending anyone that they're even talking about "banning" Christmas and Halloween becaue it might **** the muslims off (you probably heard about that incident in IL.) And don't get me started on "Holiday" trees, HA!

AVguy, you mentiond that you went through a libertarian streak...I think I might start mine now!

One last thought...yes, the taxes. It would almost be better if they just made smoking illegal all together. Since a person's house is pretty much the last place he/she can smoke anyway, folks might as well buy their ciggies on the black market and avoid Uncle Sam (much like marijuana is already.) I bet there would be a lot of money to be made with prohibition-era style "speakeasies" for smokers. How about "bathtub" marlboros? HA!