'canes2004 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 My favorite was getting on a plane and opening the ashtray on the armrest and seeing the butts all stinkin and put out, some with lipstick...you know you are on an old plane if it still has that ashtray Southwest has plenty of planes with ashtrays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Southwest has plenty of planes with ashtrays. That's because they haven't bought a new one since 1953. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I went through this in California about ten years ago and then again here around Dallas for the last few years. I have heard all the arguments for and against over and over. Is there anywhere that has reliable data about losses caused to restuarants or bars or how many of them closed? Data not "collected" by a party with a dog in the fight? I have not personally seen that it has any effect on the business in CA or TX so I would be interested to see if it has been reliastically documented that such laws injure businesses. I understand the arguments pro and against,. I just wonder if there is anything more concrete than emotional pleas and defensive rants. It is a the way it will be everywhere eventially. I'll start by saying that as a bartender who doesn't smoke, I absolutely loved it when our city went non-smoking about 2 years ago. That being said, I disagree with the government telling a business that it's illegal to allow a legal activity. But, I digress. When our CITY went non-smoking it immensely hurt many bars that were on the outskirts of town because (at least in WIsconsin) there's a bar on every corner. I would estimate around 50% of bar patrons around here smoke. Many of them went to the next bar right outside city limits. I don't recall any going out of business, but I know alot of bar owners that mentioned numbers like 'lost 35% of business'. Wisconsin goes non-smoking in July so that will clear up that situation. But, I do know many non-smokers that would rather stay home and smoke with a case of beer or a bottle than have to stand outside in zero degree weather every half hour. Your warm weather cities don't have this problem. So in answer to your question, I don't know if it hurt overall, as it may have brought some nonsmokers out that wouldn't have been going out before, but in some circumstances, I think it hurt local businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I'll start by saying that as a bartender who doesn't smoke, I absolutely loved it when our city went non-smoking about 2 years ago. That being said, I disagree with the government telling a business that it's illegal to allow a legal activity. But, I digress. When our CITY went non-smoking it immensely hurt many bars that were on the outskirts of town because (at least in WIsconsin) there's a bar on every corner. I would estimate around 50% of bar patrons around here smoke. Many of them went to the next bar right outside city limits. I don't recall any going out of business, but I know alot of bar owners that mentioned numbers like 'lost 35% of business'. Wisconsin goes non-smoking in July so that will clear up that situation. But, I do know many non-smokers that would rather stay home and smoke with a case of beer or a bottle than have to stand outside in zero degree weather every half hour. Your warm weather cities don't have this problem. So in answer to your question, I don't know if it hurt overall, as it may have brought some nonsmokers out that wouldn't have been going out before, but in some circumstances, I think it hurt local businesses. Dozens of bars in Minnesota closed completely. Prior to the statewide ban, we also saw the hopping across the line thing between both cities and counties. The one thing that bugs me the most is the people responsible for the ban wouldn't be seen dead in a drinking bar anyway. No sane person disagrees with a ban in restaurants, planes, workplace, stores, hotels, pretty much everywhere. But why pure bars weren't given the option of putting a "We Allow Smoking" sign on the door and the staff required to sign a waiver is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 The one thing that bugs me the most is the people responsible for the ban wouldn't be seen dead in a drinking bar anyway. No sane person disagrees with a ban in restaurants, planes, workplace, stores, hotels, pretty much everywhere. But why pure bars weren't given the option of putting a "We Allow Smoking" sign on the door and the staff required to sign a waiver is beyond me. I agree with this. You can still smoke in FL in stand alone bars. In fact, a restaraunt can only have a limited food menu to allow smoking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I agree with this. You can still smoke in FL in stand alone bars. In fact, a restaraunt can only have a limited food menu to allow smoking. That's the way it should be. Have bars that allow smoking. If you go there, you know what you're getting. But if you're a smoker and go to a place that has opted to be smoke-free, don't bitch when you can't light up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I'm surprised the Tobacco lobbyists let this go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I'm surprised the Tobacco lobbyists let this go through. They didn't want to have to go to Michigan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I really think this is a case of government overstepping its bounds; if people don't like going to smoky bars, why aren't there non-smoky bars flourishing? Telling a privately-owned, adult establishment that it cannot allow a LEGAL activity inside its doors is just crap. All that said, I love going to cities that ban smoking in bars. It is so awesome not to stink when you leave a tavern. I somewhat disagree (to a point) since it is the state government imposing the law. If this were federal, I would have hugh issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I somewhat disagree (to a point) since it is the state government imposing the law. If this were federal, I would have hugh issues. Why? It's exactly the same law whoever imposes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 (edited) That's the way it should be. Have bars that allow smoking. If you go there, you know what you're getting. But if you're a smoker and go to a place that has opted to be smoke-free, don't bitch when you can't light up there. Exactly! At least you(a non-smoker) can see the other way. Better than some holier than thou idiot in this thread who calls smokers pathetic. ETA: If I was starving to death, I'd rather eat pine cones than go to his restaraunt. Edited December 13, 2009 by jaxfactor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 i guess us sober drivers should stay off the roads and let the drunk drivers rule the road!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 i guess us sober drivers should stay off the roads and let the drunk drivers rule the road!! Exactly correct . . Finally . . common ground reached! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 And there are the Bars that ignore the law and have a can for donations to pay fines! The air was hazy and the ashtrays were full on a recent night at the Crowbar Inc. tavern on the Southeast Side, despite Illinois' nearly 2-year-old indoor smoking ban. Patrons say they like it that way. They're even willing to pay a little extra to light up. Owner Pat Carroll said his customers -- smokers and nonsmokers alike -- contribute to a "smoking fund" canister that often sits on the bar, to subsidize the fines he's incurred for flouting the law. Carroll said he's been ticketed twice and paid at least $680. He fears that if he forbids smoking, his cigar-and-cigarette crowd would switch to bars that permit smoking just a few blocks away in Indiana. "So guess what, everybody can smoke in here," he said, fingering a lit cigarette balanced on an ashtray. "I'm not losing my customers." The Tribune and WGN-TV found patrons smoking at several Chicagoland bars, defying the Smoke-free Illinois Act that has prohibited smoking inside public places since Jan. 1, 2008. Bar patrons and owners seen smoking indoors had varying explanations for ignoring the law. At Boem Restaurant in Albany Park, where one visit found the room filled with smoke, the bar's owner said the place was booked for a private party, which exempted it from the law. But it doesn't, officials say. The public can lodge complaints against establishments that skirt the law, triggering a site inspection. Violators face fines that can grow steeper with each infraction, starting at $250 for a business and $100 for an individual smoker. "We think it would become very expensive to continue to rack up fines," said Kelly Jakubek, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Public Health. "That would become very burdensome." Health officials say smoking-ban scofflaws are the exception and that indoor smoking in public has drastically decreased over the last two years. Jakubek added that she hopes Indiana and other states that allow indoor smoking in public places pass a ban similar to the one in Illinois, evening the field for competitive business owners such as Carroll. "There are always some bad apples out there who will try to get around the law," said Tim Hadac, spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health. "If you look at the big picture, compliance is widespread." For example, in Chicago, which has its own smoking ban similar to the state law, an accused violator gets several warning letters, then an inspection. Last year, there were 603 complaints and 24 inspections, which led to nine tickets. So far this year, those numbers were down to 286 complaints and 18 inspections, resulting in four tickets, Hadac said. He said data showed warning letters generally spurred compliance. Soon "it will be as socially unacceptable and even unthinkable to smoke in a bar or restaurant as it currently is in a movie theater," he said in an e-mail. Katie Lorenz of the American Lung Association in Greater Chicago said she was disappointed that some bars weren't complying; she added that the secondhand smoke harms employees and non-smoking patrons. "This is a health issue, and it affects every single person who happens to be in the bar," she said. "What's in the best interest of everyone is to not inhale those toxic fumes." Sabrina Lockett, a veteran restaurant worker with asthma, said she lost a friend to cancer, and he didn't smoke. She said she regretted that all bars don't follow the law. "I wished it was passed sooner," she said, saying the law may have saved her friend's life. But some smokers say they'll support any tavern that gives them sanctuary. Laura Pugh said she contributes $5 a month to Crowbar's smoking fund, considering it akin to membership fees at a private club. If she couldn't smoke there, Pugh said she'd probably go to a bar in Indiana. "I respect Illinois law," she said. "However, I feel that if an Illinois bar wants to allow smoking, there should never be a problem if it's willing to abide by the fine." Angie Leventis Lourgos is a Tribune reporter; Jackie Bange is a reporter for WGN-TV. eleventis@tribune.com Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune LINK.... Pass a law you really can't enforce. Stoopid! Pass a law that doesn't allow a legal activity. Yeah, I'm a smoker and had no problem w/ Airlines and restaurants banning smoking. But before the law was enacted did any bar do a "Smoking Ban" on their own??? I think not. This is a no win argument. I'm done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 And there are the Bars that ignore the law and have a can for donations to pay fines! The air was hazy and the ashtrays were full on a recent night at the Crowbar Inc. tavern on the Southeast Side, despite Illinois' nearly 2-year-old indoor smoking ban. LINK.... Pass a law you really can't enforce. Stoopid! Pass a law that doesn't allow a legal activity. Yeah, I'm a smoker and had no problem w/ Airlines and restaurants banning smoking. But before the law was enacted did any bar do a "Smoking Ban" on their own??? I think not. This is a no win argument. I'm done. I actually know of several bars in WI did that moved to being smoke free. They did much better afterward. Now that is a very small example and may/may not be indicative of the industry. For example, I know that the hardest hit industries by the smoking ban in IL have been casinos . . . which Il depends on for tax revenue along with the taxes on cigarettes . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 It's a legal activity but it negatively impacts everyone else. so are they banning alcohol sales at bars too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I actually know of several bars in WI did that moved to being smoke free. They did much better afterward. Now that is a very small example and may/may not be indicative of the industry. Most of those will be bar / grills or bar / restaurants. Very different to regular bars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 so are they banning alcohol sales at bars too really? u really dont see the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 the other thing i love....... you go to a still allowed to smoke place and they have the non-smoking section. like there is some friggin invisible wall stopping that poopy. the air 5ft over is so much cleaner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 really? u really dont see the difference? Enlighten us. Please include the effects of drunk driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) I actually know of several bars in WI did that moved to being smoke free. They did much better afterward. Now that is a very small example and may/may not be indicative of the industry. That has to be rare. I know of none in or around Chi that did that. Vegas passed their law 2+ years ago and the rules make no sense. Examples: Why can't i smoke in the airport? Because they serve food there. They serve food in the casinos, but I can smoke there! Yes, But you can't smoke in a restaurant in a casino. BUT THEY HAVE A RESTAURANT!!! There are different rules for them. So I can't smoke in the airport because they have restaurants, but I can smoke in a casino even though they have a restaurant. Correct? Yes. That makes no sense. You are correct. That was a conversation I had w/ a casino exec. I don't condone smoking, but owner's of a business should have a choice. Have them put out a sign that says that this is a smoking or non-smoking establishment (Bars only). Have them install air scrubbers. Sorry, but when the gubment installs a law they really can't enforce and/or de-legalizes a legal substance, I have a problem. I also know I am holding onto a position that is impossible to defend. Oh Well! Let the owners decide what is best for their business. Let the patrons decide whom they will frequent. And let the pieces fall where they may. Edited December 14, 2009 by rocknrobn26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) Enlighten us. Please include the effects of drunk driving. Well, I can drink two beers in a restaurant and not negatively affect others. I can't smoke two cigarettes without negatively affecting others. Every person who smokes in bothering or potentially harming other people every time he lights up. A small fraction of people of crashing into people while drunk. Now....the short-term effects of the drunk driver can me much more tragic but the percentages are much smaller. Maybe like an airplane crash kills everyone aboard but it's still safer to fly than drive Edited December 14, 2009 by Puddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Well, I can drink two beers in a restaurant and not negatively affect others. I can't smoke two cigarettes without negatively affecting others. Every person who smokes in bothering or potentially harming other people every time he lights up. A small fraction of people of crashing into people while drunk. Now....the short-term effects of the drunk driver can me much more tragic but the percentages are much smaller. Maybe like an airplane crash kills everyone aboard but it's still safer to fly than drive OTOH, if you light up in a bar where the others are either smoking or want to be there knowing there is smoking going on, which is all those of us on this side are advocating, then no-one at all is affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Enlighten us. Please include the effects of drunk driving. smoking can be harmful to both the person doing it and others around him/her. same goes for drunk driving. pretty simple to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 smoking can be harmful to both the person doing it and others around him/her. same goes for drunk driving. pretty simple to me. Your post that I enquired about said "really? u really dont see the difference?". Now you say they're the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.