• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Who's city has gone smokeless?

mindretch said:
Off topic incidental unintended consequences:
Zantech will back me on this, Seattle now has a problem with cig butts. Everybody removed their outside ashtrays and now there is noplace to get rid of the butts except the sidewalk. So they are talking about a $500 fine for dropping a butt on the street. A Seattle cop's viewpoint, "I got murders, rapists and jaywalkers to catch. I haven't time for that kind of crap."

The law allows smoking no closer than 20 feet from any window or doorway...many businesses that have the space have made a smoking area 20ft away with ashtrays...however many dirty,nasty,lazy,self-absorbed smokers just let the butts fly wherever...and yes the law enforcement personnel have to enforce the no smoking and the littering law...the #s of smokers is declining and with any luck this won't be a problem in a few years when smoking is viewed as something only "users" do...

The way I look at it is that the government is not taking away your right to smoke only your right to make me smoke too...smokers say "well you should just go somewhere else if you don't like it"..but that's just juvenile bullshit ...why should I leave because YOU are DOING something that is offensive and I am doing nothing to offend you?....

Imagine with me for a moment that you had a......hummmm...oh ..A flaming bag of dog shit, and you walked into a restaurant, what do you think they would do?? call the fire dept? the police?..wrestle you to the ground?....so why should it be any different when you walk in with anything else in your hand that is ON FIRE and SMELLS like shit?.....ponderous
 
If this many people hate smoking, then there should be a good market for a smokeless bar or eatery in a town near you. Government is in TOO MANY places in society that market/social forces should take care of for themselves.
 
White94 said:
If this many people hate smoking, then there should be a good market for a smokeless bar or eatery in a town near you. Government is in TOO MANY places in society that market/social forces should take care of for themselves.

Like I said before the bars and restaurants are making more money now..but before they were against the ban...people fear change...back in the 60s and 70s a huge # of people smoked and most public places allowed it but now we have finally figured out how horrible it is and are slowly getting rid of it...I do not care for government controls ..however as long as I the government is providing healthcare (medicare/medicaid)to smokers and persons with second hand smoke illnesses I really don't mind if the government keeps the cost to my pocket book down by putting the hammer down on something so detrimental to everyone..

Why should a cigarette smoker be able to smoke anywhere they want and I can't legally smoke crack in my own home??that's not fair...I personally believe you should ba able to smoke whatever you want in your own home...but inflicting it on other people is not a "Right"....

Now if we could just get rid of government healthcare and legalize everything in your own home we would be all set........mmmm freebase Heroin..the stuff dreams are made of:biggrin:
 
Last edited:
well at least in Canada..with public healthcare..I totally support it ending it completely..because my tax money is paying for all these bums with lung cancer that started smoking before I was even born.
 
You have valid points, but I don't think they are well connected. In the spirit of clarifying what I think (not to be argumentative) let me just say a few things:

Not being able to smoke in a restaurant won't make those smokers quitters in all likelyhood. Unless you plan to make cigarettes illegal, which I would argue has the potential to be another prohibition. Besides, its not like people need convincing that smoking is bad for you.

On the other hand if restaurants WANT to ban smoking of their own volition, then that is fine. They own it, and can cater to whatever clientele they feel appropriate - like serving alcohol. Plus, if business goes up then they would be incentivized to do that anyways. I have no problem with that - but unless cigarettes are illegal then that should be a choice of the business owner IMO.
 
Ennesssex said:
I can understand the viewpoint that smoking affects other people than just the smoker himself/herself and this may justify the no smoking policy. However, this is a slipper slope argument where its difficult to draw the line where and when the government should not interfere on other issues. For instance, drinking, skin cancer (arguably the government may restrict the number of hours one can stay outdoors in the name of public health), obesity, guns and so forth. The point being, where does the government draw the line between protecting the general public's welfare/health and interfering with the public's choice.
The line is pretty clearly drawn between (a) your choice to do something that can harm YOU, and (b) your choice to do something that can harm OTHERS.

You can smoke in your own home every waking moment. And you can drink in your own home until you pass out, and do it every waking moment too, if you like. However, you can't get in your car when you are stinking drunk and drive down the streets where you will be a menace to others.

Are you suggesting that drunk driving should be legal?
 
White94 said:
On the other hand if restaurants WANT to ban smoking of their own volition, then that is fine. They own it, and can cater to whatever clientele they feel appropriate - like serving alcohol. Plus, if business goes up then they would be incentivized to do that anyways. I have no problem with that - but unless cigarettes are illegal then that should be a choice of the business owner IMO.

like I said ..People fear change...the bar/restaurant/bowling alley owners obviously had no idea that the ban would be good for them otherwise they would have supported it...they are looking pretty dumb now....
 
zahntech said:
The way I look at it is that the government is not taking away your right to smoke only your right to make me smoke too...smokers say "well you should just go somewhere else if you don't like it"..but that's just juvenile bullshit ...why should I leave because YOU are DOING something that is offensive and I am doing nothing to offend you?....

Imagine with me for a moment that you had a......hummmm...oh ..A flaming bag of dog shit, and you walked into a restaurant, what do you think they would do?? call the fire dept? the police?..wrestle you to the ground?....so why should it be any different when you walk in with anything else in your hand that is ON FIRE and SMELLS like shit?.....ponderous

Well said....and BWAHAHAHA on the dog poop paragraph....nicely done.
 
zahntech said:
like I said ..People fear change...the bar/restaurant/bowling alley owners obviously had no idea that the ban would be good for them otherwise they would have supported it...they are looking pretty dumb now....

Sunday, January 29, 2006
Spokane Spokesman Review
Bars say business gone with smoke
Lobbyist tells owners not to expect much from Olympia
Kevin Graman
Staff writer
January 27, 2006

Amee Anderson came to Spokane all the way from Dayton, Wash., hoping there was some way to bring customers back to the Lonesome Dove.

The bar she co-owns with her father-in-law has fallen on hard times, since Initiative 901 banned smoking in public places and within 25 feet of doors and windows.

"Compared to last year, it's about half," she said of her clientele. "There may be 20 people in, and all but four are outside smoking. It's like the majority of business is going outside."


More than two dozen bar owners and managers gathered Thursday afternoon at P.J.'s Bar & Grill on North Monroe to bemoan the effect Washington's new clean indoor air law is having on their trade and to hear whether there was any hope the law will be modified this legislative session.

They didn't like what Dave Wilkinson, of the lobbying group Hospitality Partners, had to tell them. With less than a week to introduce non-appropriations legislation, there are a couple of bills in the works, he said.

Their chances of passage? Slim to none.

"The legislators are scared to come out for any kind of modification because all of them (in the House) face re-election next year," Wilkinson said.

One such measure, HB 2502, granting bar owners a waiver if they can prove the ban has caused them a 10 percent loss to their business over 30 days, was going nowhere faster than the other, HB 1559, allowing smoking rooms, provided they are vented to the outside.







Washington's smoking ban leads puffers to Idaho
Clarkston bars worry law might shut them down

The Associated Press
Edition Date: 01-21-2006
CLARKSTON, Wash. — Washington smokers facing a ban on lighting up in bars and restaurants are taking their habit — and money — to Idaho.

"I've had regular clientele tell me right to my face they're going to Idaho to smoke," Tony Salerno, owner of Hogan's in Clarkston, told the Lewiston Tribune.

Washington voters approved Initiative 901 in November, which bans smoking within 25 feet of doorways, windows and air intakes of public places and workplaces. It took effect Dec. 8.

That has left some establishments in Washington near the Idaho border having to compete with bars and restaurants in Idaho that allow smoking.

Salerno measured out a spot where people could stand and smoke, but that caused the sidewalk to be littered with cigarette butts and garbage. He said lunch and dinner crowds haven't increased enough to replace patrons that went to Idaho. Now he's trying to bring in more customers with music on additional nights.

"Trying to survive on one good night out of six isn't going to cut it," he said.

Smitty's Barrel had to let go of four employees, said manager Kelleigh Fowler.

"We're almost going out of business, it's been so bad," she said. "Our biggest money night is New Year's Eve, and we had 10 people in here and did less than $300 in business from opening to close."
 
White94 said:
Not being able to smoke in a restaurant won't make those smokers quitters in all likelyhood. Unless you plan to make cigarettes illegal, which I would argue has the potential to be another prohibition. Besides, its not like people need convincing that smoking is bad for you.

On the other hand if restaurants WANT to ban smoking of their own volition, then that is fine. They own it, and can cater to whatever clientele they feel appropriate - like serving alcohol. Plus, if business goes up then they would be incentivized to do that anyways. I have no problem with that - but unless cigarettes are illegal then that should be a choice of the business owner IMO.

I couldn't care less if they quit or not. I do own Altria stock and have for years. :) I just don't want to be inhaling the crap and letting it get all over my body and have it burn my eyes. Puff away in your car or your house....just don't throw your bloody butts on the sidewalk or on the freeway.

And I have to bust your balls for this one.....incentivized? :tongue:
 
No hard feelings, bust away. I don't smoke and it is just an opinion. Everyone has a right to one. If I don't want to smell like smoke, I just don't go to places like that.

Can I still throw my gum on the sidewalk though? :wink:
 
SilverStone05 said:
I couldn't care less if they quit or not. I do own Altria stock and have for years. :) I just don't want to be inhaling the crap and letting it get all over my body and have it burn my eyes. Puff away in your car or your house....just don't throw your bloody butts on the sidewalk or on the freeway.

And I have to bust your balls for this one.....incentivized? :tongue:


1 entry found for incentivize.
in·cen·tiv·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-snt-vz)
tr.v. in·cen·tiv·ized, in·cen·tiv·iz·ing, in·cen·tiv·iz·es
To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate: “This bill will help incentivize everybody to solve that part of the problem” (Richard A. Gephardt).


Currently there are 12 bills before the Washington state legislature (//leg.wa.gov) expanding the ban including HB 2038 Enacting a complete statewide smoking ban. A fast and slippery slope indeed.
 
I'm sure that bars along the border could have a problems..all the news stories I have seen/read say that there was a dip in business right after the ban went into effect but months later they are doing better than before in metro areas..in outlying areas it may be another story...But that doesn't change the fact that we as a nation have made poison illegal (Cystalmeth,heroin,cocaine,MDMA,ect ect) these drugs mostly harm the user, Cigarettes harm anyone near....this is a short term issue anyway, at the rate smoking is dropping in this country this won't even be an issue, not long into the future


Smoking ban fears prove unfoundedBY JASON HOPPIN and MARYJO SYLWESTERPioneer PressNearly nine months after restrictions took effect in the bars and restaurants of the Twin Cities, a Pioneer Press study finds that the local hospitality industry is doing just fine. Smoking bans in the Twin Cities do not appear to be the economic disaster many predicted.
Overall, the hospitality industry continues to grow despite claims that bans are hurting individual bars and restaurants. Sales throughout the metro area, including Hennepin County, increased during the second quarter of 2005 over the year before, according to a Pioneer Press analysis of taxable sales reported to the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
The data provide one of the first hard looks at the economic effects of smoking bans in the area's bars and restaurants, a debate often fueled more by rhetoric and anecdotal accounts on both sides than by fact. Among the newspaper's findings:
• Fears that a patchwork of regulations would lead customers to seek smoker-friendly bars and restaurants appear to be largely unfounded. There was no significant decline in food and liquor sales in any of the counties or cities where smoking is restricted.
• Several popular destinations, including downtown Minneapolis, Uptown, Dinkytown and parts of St. Paul, did better after the ban went into effect than the year before.
• Despite claims of widespread bar and restaurant closures in Minneapolis since the ban, there now are more liquor establishments in the city than when it took effect.
• Food and liquor sales in suburbs and counties without smoking restrictions are strong, but that trend existed even before the bans went into effect.
 
Last edited:
:smile: California's new Smoking law passed in 1994. :smile: http://www.cigargroup.com/calif.htm

"Just after the state outlawed smoking in bars last January, the University of California-San Francisco studied 53 city barkeeps.
Before the law, three-quarters of them suffered from lung ailments. After the law, symptoms for 60 percent dropped away completely."
Here> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/20/bartender.smoke/

-j-
 
I don't have a problem with state and local governments banning smoking. It seems to me this is a perfect application of states rights. I would hate to see the Feds get involved though.
 
While I do love the fact that you can't smoke in restaurants anymore in WA, I don't understand why we can't allow the establishment owners to decide if they want to cater to smokers or non smokers. Hell, why not have both? Or maybe its because non-smokers are like women; they always want to be included even if they don't agree or like it:biggrin:

just my 0.02
 
mindretch said:
1 entry found for incentivize.
in·cen·tiv·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-snt-vz)
tr.v. in·cen·tiv·ized, in·cen·tiv·iz·ing, in·cen·tiv·iz·es
To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate: “This bill will help incentivize everybody to solve that part of the problem” (Richard A. Gephardt).
QUOTE]


i stand corrected.
 
In Norway smoking in bars/club and so on got "banned" for approx. a year ago.

Because there is no smoke-smell there anymore, you almost only smell farts :biggrin: :biggrin: lol I'm not kidding...


But it is a great victory for people that work there, and for non-smoking people who were inhaling the toxic smoke that other was responsible off. I am a smoker, 5-6 sigarettes a day, but I am happy for the non-smokers and the workers.
 
Incentivized..heh..I always thought that was a made-up word from marketing classes at b-school. Just like Strategize :p

Anyway, I think if a bar loses business because of the smoking ban they need to re-evaluate their value proposition, becuase "you can smoke there" is no longer an option. Build a lcensed patio, or a contained smoking room, if they are not options you may want to find a new location.
 
The question about a bar loosing business was a big question here too. But after a short period of time when people got away from the bars, they all came back :) The business-level is back to normal now :)
 
Last edited:
Government's don't say you can't smoke. They are just creating a safe environment for non-smokers. Our legislators are here to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people. Which means the majority! Yes, our legislators can come up with some pretty funky bills and amendments, but that's a different thread.

Many smokers continue to smoke in the presence of their own children, even though they know it could harm them. It is annoying to go to an amusement park and have a smoker with a lit cigarette in the face of a child. A child that may not even be their own. That child has rights too. Just because they can't vote doesn't mean they don't have rights. Disneyland has designated smoking areas. Do you think the smokers are only smoking in these area - hell No! Because the smoker feels it's their right to smoke and damn everyone who opposes them.

Smokers use the defense "my right to smoke is being infringed upon". No one is telling them they can't smoke. They just can't smoke where it will affect others. Can a smoker control the dispersment of emmissions that are emmitted by cigarettes, pipes and cigars - Uhhh NO! They think just because they exhale their smoke towards the sky everything is all well. Hardly, the fumes coming off the lit end still contains tar, nicotine and other caustic chemicals.

If second-hand smoke wasn't so dangerous it wouldn't be an issue. IMO- Smoking laws should be enacted in all 50 states. It's a fact that smoking causes heart disease, cancer, lung diseases, reduced immune functionality, and other medical problems. Smoking also indirectly causes increased medical costs for non-smokers from incidental respiratory illnesses. Now, smoking is affecting more than people's health, it is also affecting them financially. So, exactly where has it been proven that smoking is good for anyone?

Discalimer: This is my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the owner, management or volunteers at NSXPrime.
 
satan_srv said:
Anyway, I think if a bar loses business because of the smoking ban they need to re-evaluate their value proposition, becuase "you can smoke there" is no longer an option. Build a lcensed patio, or a contained smoking room, if they are not options you may want to find a new location.

With all due respect, I have to disagree with your position on smoking ban(especially in bars). Why should the bar re-evaluate their value? Why shouldn't the individual contemplating on going to certain bar evaluate their value? If bar is smoking allowed, then the individual has to decide whether to go to that bar. He/She certainly has the choice.

Same as you, I am also a law abiding/tax-paying Candian citizen, and one that happens to light up a cigarette from time to time. You may not be aware, but price of the cigarette in Canada are approaching or exceeding $10. Greater than 50% of that is the tax imposed on my filthy habit, because the state deems it is the cost of the damage to the society incurred by smoking. I am definately fine with that. In purely economical stand point, if my habit caused society certain problems, I am willing to pay to fix it through tax on the cigarette.
I understand that most of you do not smoke, and has negative view of it and I agree. However, the choice should be in the hands of people who decides to smoke as long as they are responsible. As is common in any group of people(be it a group of NSXers or smokers), most of us are responsible in what we choose to do and only few of us are so-called "bad apples." Case in point, I smoke on my way to work in the morning. In my walk few blocks to the company building I try my best in staying out of people's way, respecting your right to not inhale the fume. I put it out and throw it in the garbage can near the building so it wouldn't look messy near the entrance. Should I NOT be allowed to smoke even if I do not cause any harm to the others?
If not, then why should some of you turn blind eye in people who decides to forego installing or by-passing catalyst in the exhaust? IT certainly has environmental effect as your exhaust is literally exuming toxic gas in to the air and further causes what some people would regard as noise polution(I am not picking on people who decides to let their NSX's beautiful exhaust roar and breath freely, this is just an example.)
What about the cost to the society due to obesity? It certainly costs Canadians billions of dollars every year(or so newspapers say) in health care, and obese people are NOT paying obesity TAX to cover the cost, are they? In that case, then, Chocolate should be banned, fast-foot should be banned and all the food that has more than 1% fat should be banned, shouldn't they? Further, let's imagine an extreme situation where yourself or your significant other is 8 month pregnant and need go somewhere on public transit, and all the 2 person benches are taken by obese people who takes both space so you/your SO can not find a seat. Then is this considered harmful or costly to the society? I would certainly consider it harmful to the health of my SO. So then obese people should be banned.(I'm not saying they should be. I respect their choice in lifestyle as long as they don't cause my family direct harm.)

So then, What the hell should we as a society do?
I think a little understand and respect for other people's choice would go a long way, in my humble opinion.
 
Back
Top