The owner of Dino's said "because the city shouldn't be able to ban a legal substance on private property." but it's a public restaurant and bar. The thing about smoking that makes it different from a lot of things is that you force it on everyone else around you if you're doing it. If someone sits in a bar drinking non-alcoholic beverages and not smoking but is sitting beside someone who is getting trashed and chain smoking they're not going to walk out of the bar drunk but he may as well have smoked a pack of cigarettes and it wasn't even his choice, it's disgusting.

There would be a slew of "products" that shold be legal if will follow the logic of the owner of Dino's bar. He he he.

If someone sits in a bar drinking non-alcoholic beverages and not smoking but is sitting beside someone who is getting trashed and chain smoking they're not going to walk out of the bar drunk but he may as well have smoked a pack of cigarettes and it wasn't even his choice, it's disgusting.

This issue can be easily overcome if the government just backed out of it and left the decision up to the individual business owners. That way, if your above mentioned patron preferred a smoke free environment, they could take their $$ to a business that is smoke free. Likewise, a smoker could enjoy a drink and a smoke after a hard day at work in an establishment that allows smoking.

The solution is pretty simple.

the person that doesnt want to smell smoke could go to a bar where the owner of the bar doesnt allow smoking. it should be up to the owners to make that choice

Joe Porter

You make way to much sense.

if you don't like the smoke leave very simple just another cal. law threating the rest of amereica

Let me know how many smoke free bars/restaurants/pubs you know...especially a national chain!! Owners have been reuctant to go smoke free beacuse it is not yet PC enough. This law is late in its arrival and will not hurt business owners.........will the loyal customer(s) stop patronizing a place (for an extended period) simply due to this ban? I would hope not. Plus I believe this will attract the non smoker to new places.

dito pat n . way too much government . let the patrons and business owners decide .

Its not the governments decision to make, it is the owner of the establishment. We give the government too many liberties with our rights. Smoking is bad, we know this, but it is our decision to smoke or not. If the owner of the establishment wants to attract costumers that smoke, more power to them. If they want to open a bar caters to non-smokers then fine, but leave it up to us to decide and not the government. The patrons arent forced to be there if they dont like the smoke leave and go to a place that doesnt allow smoking. This is the right of the business owner not the responsibility of the government.

They instituted a smoking ban here in Springfield IL 2 years ago. My favorite bars were put out of business as a result! The day manager at George Ranks said her tips went from $200/day to $20/day. Dave, the owner, told me his other bar in Riverton, where there was no ban, kept Rank's open for six months before he had to shutter it.

Note the studies are for "bars and restaraunts". restaraunts are likely to have better business after a smoking ban; most people are nonsmokers. The sam is not true for bars, where 9 of 10 folks smoke.

Local bans are actually dangerous. Rather than walking to a neighborhood bar, drinkers will drive to the next town where they can smoke.

They should just outlaw tobacco. It is possibly the most adddictive substance on earth and kills most of its users. Marijuana is not addictive and is nonlethal. Either outlaw tobacco or legalize pot!

The thing about smoking that makes it different from a lot of things is that you force it on everyone else around you if you're doing it

Baloney! Stay out! That simple.

I personally think an owner of an establishment, should be able to make up there own mind!

If you Non-Smokers feel so VIOLATED,

GO TO ANOTHER FREAKEN BAR!!!

USA Freedom? A person should be able to do on his own property what he wants. If a visitor does no like the evironment then he should leave. How do we have the right to tell someone else what to do on thier own property be it a business or home especially when the owner is paying the property taxes and not someone esle. Same ole story of people trying to tend to other people's business when they need to take care of thier own business. If you can't take care of your own business or have enough money to take care of your own agenda then pass a tax or law so everyone else will be ordered to accomodate your needs or wants. Man, people sure want to tell everyone else how to live instead of tending to thier own. Ironic.

"If someone sits in a bar drinking non-alcoholic beverages and not smoking..."

Then wtf are they doing at a BAR! in the first place????? Having milk and cookies?? Good grief....

I agree with you. The government should stay out of it entirely. I think that the owner should be allowed to post a sign on his door if they are smoker friendly or not then leave it up to the individual to enter or not. I'm really having a hard time swallowing all the time and money the government has wasted on this issue. Now - the want to allow guns in bars?!!! Give me a break!

Who knows - maybe non-smokers will make up for the difference once the smokers are gone.

We've had non-smoking ordinances in CA for years. When I am in other states, I absolutely can not set foot in smoking establishments. I can not take the smell.

Smoking is very bad for people. I have a friend with throat cancer because he smoked for years. There is a tube in his throat and after chemotherapy for 5 weeks, his throat is burned so bad he can not talk.

Everyone needs to quit smoking.

Our government is banning smoking in a privately owned business that caters to the public. Only the owner has the right to say who can and cannot smoke in his place of business, not the government. The next step will be to ban smoking in your privately owned home. What if the government told what furniture you can have in your house? Or the type of car you can drive. Or how many kids you can have. How about since we are such an obese country what if the government banned all junk food? After all it is a health risk. Look out big brother is now truly trying to run your life. I thought this was America Land of the Free not some communist run country. So now what other personal freedom are they going to take away from you?

Just because a business is open to the public, it is still a private business that is operated by an individual at their expense. Until the public wants to subsadize every small bar and tavern with taxpayer dollars, the owner should decide what is acceptable in his/her establishment. If you don't like it, don't go there. I now go out of my way to stay out of businesses where these bans are in place, not because I need to smoke, but I will NEVER support places where government is telling a business owner what he/she must allow or not allow.

wrote:

The owner of Dino's said "because the city shouldn't be able to ban a legal substance on private property." but it's a public restaurant and bar. The thing about smoking that makes it different from a lot of things is that you force it on everyone else around you if you're doing it. If someone sits in a bar drinking non-alcoholic beverages and not smoking but is sitting beside someone who is getting trashed and chain smoking they're not going to walk out of the bar drunk but he may as well have smoked a pack of cigarettes and it wasn't even his choice, it's disgusting.

My reply to that is yes, it was his choice. By entering a bar that you know has smokers in it, that person has made that choice. So now, all we need is two bars right next to each other, one for smokers and one for non smokers. Can we say that we have gone backwards?

I am a smoker, have been for many years. But I do not walk up to a person who is not smoking and immediately blow my cigarette smoke in their face; however, non smokers have numerous times approached me -while outside- to stand right next to me while I smoke and cough and wave their hand in front of their face. My response is, "The air is cleaner over where you were, you didn't have to come over here. YOU MADE THAT CHOICE!"

Even if I am smoking in a crowd, I tend to try to go to the outside of the crowd a good distance away to have a cigarette. But to people who say I am polluting their space, I am putting off less pollutant with my one cigarette than your car - unless you are driving a hybrid or some other smart car.

So while yes, I choose to smoke, non smokers have a choice to - don't go to where you know smoking is allowed if it bothers you that much.

You want a 'healthy' BAR environment?

I would venture to guess that you're not at the bar for your HEALTH to being with. Want clean air - go to the local gym.

Personal choice. Individual freedom. And that means the choice and freedom to do what you want, even if it is "bad" for you and I don't like it. THAT is the point of what our supposed freedom is all about. I am free not to participate and I am free to NOT enter the bar.

I now propose we BAN unhealty food - nationwide! I am tired of fat and sickly people who do have an impact on me -- I pay more for health insurance and we all pay more in publicly funded medical programs because of it. BAN it. BAN everything.

PatN

wow we agree on something...ive always believed that!!

Rod i couldnt agree with you more too.. Ban everythinng lol and lets watch everyone go postal

As study showed businesses are not hurt after a ban, my concerns have always been long term effects of smoking cause more of a drain on our society than ever. As baby boomers who started smoking at a young age before knowledge of cancer causing effects, and 2nd hand dangers. I do believe in freedom to choose if you want to smoke, but, As these citizens turn retirement age, our tax dollars fund medical bills thru medicare and medicaid. I feel i am helping pay for citizens, self inflicted illnesses. If you choose to get lung cancer, then you should forfeit the cost you caused, trying to reverse a lifetime of abuse to your own body.

The owner of Dino's said "because the city shouldn't be able to ban a legal substance on private property." but it's a public restaurant and bar.

Actually, it's a private business that is OPEN to the public. Just like any other business, you, the public, has the right NOT to go into that establishment and endure the cigarette smoke if you do not like it. I mean, seriously, when are we going to let "the people" decide for themselves instead of deciding for them? What are we sheep?

I bet you they have a sign behind the bar somewhere that says "We have the right to refuse service to anyone". And they have the right to kick you out too. That's private property. They bought the building (or lease it), pay their taxes... PRIVATE. Why is it that everyone thinks that they have the right to ANYTHING these days??

((((( diamondduq..............The owner of Dino's said "because the city shouldn't be able to ban a legal substance on private property." but it's a public restaurant and bar. The thing about smoking that makes it different from a lot of things is that you force it on everyone else around you if you're doing it. If someone sits in a bar drinking non-alcoholic beverages and not smoking but is sitting beside someone who is getting trashed and chain smoking they're not going to walk out of the bar drunk but he may as well have smoked a pack of cigarettes and it wasn't even his choice, it's disgusting)))))

Diamond, it is their choice to be in the Bar, ................. people which do not smoke can go to non- smoking Bars, .............. duh tjere are'nt any when Bar Owner's have a choice.

I live in New Orleans and the "Very" few time I've been on the Casino Boats, the Decks that allow smoking are jammed full of people having fun and loosing money.

The Non smoking Deck is always almost completely empty, devoid of anyone having fun while loosing thier childrens inheritence, ........ opp's I mean The Left's Money that they plan on using to pay for everything they can think of, lol.

You want some "reality?"

Junk food costs more in health care than cigarettes ever will.

So outlaw fast and processed foods. Better toss sugar in there while you're at it. And if you get cancer, diabetes, liver disease, eczema, or heart trouble -- pay for it yourself, because your poor eating habits almost certainly caused it.

I am a bar owner and saw the effects first hand. Business did not increase due to the non smoking crowd beating down the doors, in fact we still haven't recovered fully (nearly two years). My business went from 1.5 mil to 1.2 in sales and due to the crap econonmy this year is looking even worse. The only thing that equals is less jobs and less EARNED government revenue. Bottom line, I feel for these guys who are just now going through this process.

It seems we have a perfect storm brewing, poor economy, price increases, and a meddling government. Two of these can't be helped in short order but the government imposing their ideals has got to stop. What I will say is if the business down the street was failing would I be likely to listen to their opinion on how things should be? Absolutely not!!!

What I don't get is the government breeds a tax cash cow ($1.00 per pack tax) and then slaughters it by banning the cow. They have done the same with reduced legal limit (.08%) and stepped up D.U.I. enforcement. I'm not sure if it's true or not but I heard through a legal source that it actually costs the government more money to prosecute a D.U.I. than revenue earned. So we are basically subsidising the legal system. I also understand the founder of M.A.D.D.has left the organization entirely. Ms. Lightner left MADD and is concerned that the organization that she herself created is changing its focus. "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

Until the day lawmakers stop creating problems to solve we will never get out of the rut this country is in. I'm done ranting now.

fieldtheory, you left out lack of exercise. FAT lazy people are the ones who are getting chronic lifelong diseases, so let's do what I recall China doing years ago - EVERYONE will have an exercise plan. EVERYONE will line up and do what they are told. EVERYONE will comply with what *I* think they should do, because clearly *I* know what is best.

*I* am fine with that - right up until *I* don't get to choose anymore and *THEY* get to tell me what to do or not do.

It is a dark and slippery slope we now tread in America.

The bar owners is right ,noone should have a right to ban a legal substance on private property,and yes it is private property(even though the public goes there),that they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,all bars and restaruants are this way.Second this law is only going to affect the hard working bar owners ,not the politicans who just want to do anything to get reelected.

The most comprehensive study ever done on secondary smoke was an English study that lasted for ten years and arrived at the conclusion that there was no significant difference in the study group who frequented palce where smoking was allowed and those who frequented places where smoking was not.

This tudy was thown out the window for some reason and never heard from again. Smoking like drinking is a choice. Both have dangers associated with them It is your choice to find a bar or resetaurant that fits your needs and state nd local governments should back off

The statistics cited in the article are for a STATEWIDE ban in Massachusets. (The study also was during the boom in the economy, not during a recession.)

When it is a local ban, the customers go where they can smoke.

The article never asks the most basic question: "Why don't bars go non-smoking on their own?" There is a good reason why they don't: it DOES HURT BUSINESS.

The Chinese live longer than we do, but they have 1/1000 of the Doctors we do, and they SMOKE MORE THAN WE DO.

I would build a bar on the edge of town called "Smokies". Smokers are more fun than non-smokers.

Another option is to have a private club. With a $1 membership fee, the bar would no longer be open to the public. Everyone including the employees would be invited to the club. This type of arrangement has worked in serving alcohol in dry counties.

It is not illegal to smoke in a car. I would get a RV or travel trailer, or at least a Uhaul Cargo Van, and park it right in front of the bar. You'll need a little ventilation, but you can heat and A/C them pretty easily. The smokers get to stay dry and comfortable. I don't know if they allow you to put drinks in styrofoam cups and take them outside in Illinois. But I bet the smokers would enjoy it even if they had to leave their drinks inside.

What it comes down to is choice. And yet again, the Gov't takes your choice away. Freedom, where have you gone?

And if you don't want to be around smokers go to a non-smoking establishment. Quit forcing everyone else to fit your cute little idea of what's best for everyone.

Allow government to "dictate what you may or may do" and, eventually they will be watching all of us inside our own homes 24/7. I am a non-smoker, but I also feel that smokers have their right to choose how to manage their habits. Besides, with the state of our economy, does it makes sense for businesses to risk closing down due to lack of patronage? Think about it - it is goig to be either a win-win or loose-loose situation. I say, why don't we allow bars and restaurants to operate wit smoking and separate non-smoking areas, as pretty much they are doing now?

I'm tired of all the tree huging, hippie liberal, commi pinkos from CA trying to impose their beliefs on me. You have every right to say what you want and even protest in a peaceful manner. However when the goverment starts dictating a law that I can purchase a legal substance to which they TAX the daylights out of me for but then dictate that I cannot enjoy such purchase in a matter to which I want. You can have all the freedoms you want just as long as it dosn't offend other people. This is not freedom, it is dictatorship. I you dont like what is being said on the TV do you keep it there? NO you change the channel. If you dont like the view arround you do you stay where you are at? NO you pick up and move your behind. If you dont like my smoking PLEASE leave me alone and go else where. I work hard for a living and would like to enjoy the few vices I have left before the tree huggers deside they just don't like me and put a ban on where I can go publicly.

Correction, Diamond, it is a PRIVATE business open to the public, as in the public choosing to go there or not to. It is not a courthouse, nor a bathouse, nor a pool, nor any other municipal place actually called "public". It is in no way "public property". It IS private property and the smoking ban is unconstitutional.

The thing about smoking that makes it different from a lot of things is that you force it on everyone else around you if you're doing it

Baloney! Stay out! That simple.

A non-smoker could just as easily say the same to you. "Stay out of my clean air you carcinogenic exhaler of death". I was in Florida when they passed the smoking ban, the business at my favorite bar remained unchanged, the smokers smoked in an area outside and everybody enjoyed the clean air indoors. Of course it was a state-wide ban, so people couldn't just go to the next town over. I now live in Oregon and they just instituted a state-wide ban here too, so far there's no bar owners crying out about the change here.

To all who think because you smoke you have the right to do it wherever you please, stop acting butt-hurt about it, it's not a personal attack on you, but a nationwide movement to slow down the smoking rate in our country. Whether you care or not, this country has been plagued with medical problems for decades due to your deadly addiction. Why not use this as an incentive to improve your life and quit smoking? Then you won't mind a non-smoking establishment so much. In fact, you'll be like the majority of Americans who actually thinks fresh air smells good.

in that case outlaw drunk driving and narcotics. OOPS! more government intervention that doesn't work

Where does it end???? It won't and you will have no one but yourselves to blame for it. The smokers that tried to take a stand only to hear how it was ok to trample our rights since there are so many non-smokers, will be the only people that have the right to look around and say, "I told you so, so quit your complaining, afterall this is what you wanted."

If you have the "right" to poison the air I breathe, then i must have the right to stab you in the throat, right?

Eating fast food only affects the health of the one eating it (despite your stupid bathing suit comment). Second-hand smoke actually causes harm to those who breath it. The fact that you all consider it a right to do harm to others is why eventually you will lose that right. You're all selfish, and obviously not even intelligent enough to realize why you're ALL wrong.

You people are idiots, no owner of a bar or restaurant is going to volutarily make his establishment non-smoking, you essentially eliminating a whole segment of business, which means non-smokers have no choice but to frequent establishments where smoking is allowed.

Nettie, you can say it's private property all you want but the licences are public domain so by all means keep your properties private and the government will simply take away your licences and cite you for violations regulary for operating without a license. Last time I checked my lungs were more private property than any business open to the public.

"Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool"

I owned a bar in NJ for years and the best thing that happend was the ban on smoking. I thoght it would hurt my business but it didn't. People should have the right to visit an establishment with out having to inhale someone elses smoke!!! You people who say the rules should not apply because its a private business are nuts!!! Maybe we should go back to smoke pouring out of smoke stacks or companies pouring chemicals in our rivers because they're private businesses.

If you don't want to be around smokers, don't go to places that allow smoking. It should be every bar owner's right to decide if they want people to be allowed to smoke or not. People who do not want to be subjected to second hand smoke have plenty of places to choose from in order to go and grab a drink or a bite to eat. Smokers are running out of options. Smoking is still legal in this country, it seems to me that forcing people to step outside to smoke is infringing on their rights.

It's a legal activity and bar owners should be able to decide themselves if they want it in their establishment. I don't smoke, but believe the government is in our business way too much. If it's legal, it's legal

"Smoking is very bad for people."

Really Karen?! Whew, I'm so glad you told me, I had NO IDEA!

Morgan, I love the intelligent, well thought out not to mention sane response of stabbing people in the throat (that was a sarcastic comment, since you seem not to really care to read to indepth). Do not worry, whatever establishment you would frequent, would definitely be the last place I would choose to be seen in. Psycopaths are not really my cup of tea.

As for getting some facts straight, perhaps you should really check into what the effects of obesity does to one's body, let alone to the Health Care System and in the end the taxpayers. The list is endless, as is the amount of money it costs to pay for all of it.

I would propose that you possibly try checking into actual fact on what is right and what is wrong, before spouting off anymore and showing how completely clueless and unintelligent you are to the rest of us. Or perhaps you are too busy, shoving your mouth full of whatever fast food burger you choose while driving home from the bar after having too much to drink in a swimsuit you really shouldn't been seen in (isn't it nice when someone who doesn't know you makes wonderfully lovely assumptions about you).

Private property.  Legal substance (for now). This should definitely be left up to the bar owner.  Before our smoking ban (NM), there were plenty of bars a non-smoker could patronize.  If you don't like smoke, don't go to a bar where smoking is allowed.  Simple.   Whatever happened to choice?  Personal accountability?  Non-smokers, if you're feeling smug about this right being taken away, let's see how you feel when the next one applies to you and hurts you. 

If smoking is so bad then why is it legal?

Government sure does love the taxes it collects off of tobacco.

The key about that study is STATEWIDE BAN. When you leave it to a TOWN BAN that changes the entire story. I went to college in Fargo ND (which is now sadly smoke free.) West Fargo and Minnesota both went smoke free before Fargo. This DRASTICALLY affected business in the West Fargo VFW for example. There was also a bar in north Fargo, Labby's, that was smoke free from the beginning and they did quite well because they had a nitch for those that like to drink but not smoke.

Bottom line when you leave it to the "regulars" at a bar they generally smoke and help alot more, in terms of revinue for the bar, than the health crowd a.k.a. those that go to drink sodas or water.

ten years ago after getting out of college myself and a friend opened up a bar in a small town which lies an hour north of denver, co and 25 minutes south of cheyenne, wyoming. as of january was our ten year anniversary and for 8 of those ten years we had to allow smoking it was just a must if we were to stay in business. even if the town had inacted a smoking ban we would have lost business but and its a big but,...when the state mandated all bars statewide to be non-smoking that was our out. since all bars were the same there were no alternatives that allowed smoking and its been smooth sailing since. also absolutely no customer we have except those who say play softball on occasion in wyo. travel across the border to smoke and drink. besides the extra miles to get there, plus its way to dangerous and risky getting pulled over driving across the border just to get a smoke with your beer. most of my customers simply go outside to their cars, sit smoke and come back in. a simple solution with the least impact on everyone. whiners about the ban have no legs to stand on with their "business" will be hurt arguements, our state and bars like mine are proof of that.

released in April 2005 found that sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of a statewide smoking ban, disproving predictions that the prohibition would inflict serious damage on the hospitality industry.

The Harvard study has merit - if the entire area (or entire state) around the establishment also bans the practice. In this case however, the patron has nearby options if he/she wants to smoke. That's what makes this particular situation unfair to these bar owners, and causes the conclusions drawn in the study to lose their validity.

I live in NYC where smoking in bars and restaurants was banned several years ago. The bartenders made all the same arguments back then about how they were going to lose business, but in the end it didn't happen. At worst people will still drink but then step outside when they want a smoke.

Meanwhile, everyone else will go home without smelling like an ashtray. And the bartenders themselves will less chance of getting lung cancer due to years of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Several self reported "bar owners" say after the ban, business was great.

But why didn't they do it on their own? Before the ban.

Because it does hurt business to ban smoking.

In Elkhart the bars WILL suffer because of the ban.

So they will have to go statewide. Because people will find an alternative to the local ban.

Well if they take away an alternative, then where is our freedom?

Like I mentioned in 1.30 there are creative workarounds. Treat the smokers well, they are the MAJORITY in bars. Make them a special patio. Don't allow non-smokers out on the special patio. Guess where everyone will want to be? The Smoker's Patio.

People are allergic to peanuts, so now will we have to have non-peanut only resturaunts? And fishless seafood places because even the smell can make fish allergy people sick?

First, wow what a poorly written article. Where is this? Where's Elkhart? What arethe laws of the surrounding, states, cities, counties?

If they are the only city in the area with this ordinace, I can see the problem the bar owners have. It should be done state-wide to be the most effective

I am all for it. When are the rights of the non smoker going to be recognized. Why should we stay home and not have fun because that smoke makes us sick. It is not about rights its about health anyway. Second hand smoke is just as bad. I look froward to the day i can go have a drink with friends and not have to breath that vile disgusting smog in the air of establishments. It is our time now. Take those Nasty Toxic things outside. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CLEAN AIR.

The bars in Maryland are smoke free and there hasn't been any mass closings. The fear has no basis in fact.

1. They have banned smoking in bars and restaurants in Iowa. But in Iowa casinos one can light up while playing your favorite game (with the exception of the small non-smoking portion of the casino.) The state realized eliminating smoking at the casinos would cut into their gambling tax revenues.

2. Secondly, eliminating smoking in restaurants and bars was for our benefit, making us all healthier and reducing the cost of state health care. Reading between the lines, if we reduce public smoking we should reduce taxes because we're all better because of it? Reduce taxes? I haven't seen any tax reductions yet and I'm not holding my breath either.

3. The state of Iowa raised the cigarette tax by $1.00 a pack last year hoping to persuade people to cut down or stop. I imagine some smokers have become ex-smokers and good for them. What has happened tax revenue wise is they have more revenue from cigarette taxes. I guess the state hit it big with that tax increase.

Bottom line - I don't smoke, don't care to. My biggest concern is how the state is eliminating the people's choice. If you do not like smoking, stay away from it but don't limit my choice if I believe otherwise. One of the state's biggest contention about eliminating smoking in bars and restaurants was the employee had no choice but to work in an environment they didn't care for. Well, don't apply at a smoking establishment if you don't like smoke. If you don't care for smoking, just stay out. Post the sign if an establishment is smoking or not then exercise "your" rights not the government's choice. The government can school us all they want about smoking, drugs, cancer causing agents, etc., but the premise this country was built on is freedom of choice and I see that premise being eroded away.

As a smoker, I can say that my dining and drinking habits have changed since smoking has been banned in my state. My husband and I used to thoroughly enjoy a night out at our favorite restaurant. Dinner began with drinks and appetizers and ended with dessert or after dinner drink . These enjoyable dinners would last more than two hours sometimes!! A cigarette afterwards was part of the experience for us. This ban leaves me feeling as though I should rush through dinner and get out of there fast. I miss those evenings out sometimes but I don't like feeling like I am not welcome anymore. So now we stay home and grill and keep our wallets closed.

Why should the government (local or other) be able to tell us what we can & can't do? I'm tired of hearing about all the "secondhand smoke" bull@!$%#! Yes, smoking is bad for your health but that should be your personal decision. Why not ban alcohol? It's not okay to smoke but you can drink as much as you want & go out & kill yourself or someone else with your car!! At least smoking doesn't impair your driving ability. It's all politics. I say if you don't like it go somewhere else! And I am not a smoker, my husband is.

aren't the woman smoking in the picture attractive? not! don't mind me - I am one of those horrid "ex smokers" who is so glad that I finally kicked the disgusting, terrible habit.

I quit smoking on 8/27/01 - 2 weeks before 9/11 - and have not picked up a cigarette since.

I have a lovely complexion now and can breathe.

I live in Texas where you can still smoke in bars but not in most public places.. Bars are notorious for drinkers & smokers.. I think that alcohol & smoking are associated. I don't smoke myself but I have some friends that still do. My solution would be to make a designated smoking section in the bars where people (smokers) can congregate & have a cigarrette without offending anyone. We all pick our own poison.

In CA , Santa Monica, Calabasas, and Bubank have taken it a step further by banning smoking from many outdoor places. Restaurants with patios no longer allow smoking. (as an example) It is definitly a slippery slope that allows gov't to take away more and more freedoms.

Most smokers prefer to enjoy their beer and a smoke at the same time. They also go good with your morning coffee.

Most restaurants and taverns are open to the public. That does not make them public businesses. A statewide ban would be less cumbersome on a business because all businesses would be affected equally. Why are government bodies enacting legislation that limits the decision making of individual business owners with regard to something that is currently legal? Shouldn't they focus on the tobacco industry? If that is the problem, outlaw it. Oh, I forgot the tobacco lobby has too much money. I'm a non-smoker that believes a business owner has the right to make decisions independent of public opinion.

This ban leaves me feeling as though I should rush through dinner and get out of there fast.

Actually, that is your addiction causing that rush to leave. Why is your behavior due to addiction someone else's fault? Look around at all the folks who don't smoke the next time you go to that restaurant. Are they rushing through their meal to go get a drug fix? Maybe they are enjoying it more as well since they can actually taste it.

You need to think about this.

Businesses are still PRIVATE PROPERTY!! Yes, it exposes smoke to everyone but, the reason we, in the industry call them guests is because they CHOOSE yep, I said it CHOOSE to go in. If a non-smoker goes to a smoking establishment and sees it is a smoking establishment they have the CHOICE (welcome to america comrads) to go in or not go in. These 'non-smoking nazi's' don't pay the business owners taxes, leases, employees' or anything else. Yes they contribute to paying them by being customers but they didn't go through the process of establishing the business and here is the harsh reality..................If non-smoking were popular, there wouldn't need to be laws banning it!! Business owners are a savy bunch, if the FREE MARKET wanted non-smoking and a smoking businesses failed to attract business, how long would it be before that owner went the way of non-smoking.

As far as the study done in that area, I live in Nevada and I double dare a university to study what the smoking ban did to our businesses!!

Final thought - When I was growing up I always figured that people would get smart and realize that with freedom comes personal responsibility and that the choices we made were our 'crosses to bear' instead people think that freedom is a pretty word and that we (americans) are to stupid to make our decisions and therefore some group of pinheads get together and make our decisions for us (like we shouldn't smoke).

Just for the record I am a NON-SMOKER!!!! But I am still an AMERICAN who believes in FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!!!!!!

Read cchipsters comment, he sums it up quite nicely. Businesses are private property and smokers / non-smokers alike have the right to choose whether they frequent an establishment that allows smoking. Tell me if I'm wrong, but we've had seperate sections for both groups in many establishments for years. What's wrong with that? By the way, I CHOSE to quit smoking 9 weeks ago because the recent rise in taxes were more than I was willing to pay. Still, I wouldn't impose my CHOICE on anyone else that wasn't ready to quit. No more socialism, return to the republic.

I love it. Smokers are feeling like they are under attack. I know ....let's attack fat people! After all, they are the only group left that it is politically correct to discriminate against. As one person stated, "Fat-lazy people are more of a health care burden than smokers." Seriously...not one lazy skinny smoker out there? How easy it is to get off point when feeling under attack. I'll eat, you smoke, and guess what? One day we will both be dead!

• All smokers can choose to smoke or not they make the choice
• People do not have a choice to breathe

My family chooses not to be patrons of smoking establishments even when they are conveniently right next door in town. That establishment loses out on ours and many others business. BUT, that is the owners choice, I think they lose out by this old school way of thinking with so many more non-smokers out there now with $7/pack prices and the proven health risks. I feel smoking is a right due to freedoms in this great country until it infringes on others rights without reasonable control. I actually work in a shop that allows smoking while working and I think this is a Heinus infringement of my rights to breathe clean air but I am must suck up the cancerous air like the others if I wish to keep my position.. Possibly this will not be an issue much longer if the politicians screw with the economy much more. Peace Out

Does it mean that there will less drunk drivers on the road since business is down in the bars? Maybe the business is up for other establishments because that money is being spent elsewhere.

Some bars have outdoor patios where smokers can smoke.

Anyone who complains about smokers forcing their smoke on non smokers in bars is being hypocritical at best. That works both ways. You say the smokers its the smokers choice to go to the bar or restaurant and not smoke. By the same means it is the non smokers choice to go to the bar that has smoking. This is all about control. If you don't want to be around smoke, go to a non-smoking restaurant or work in a non smoking environment. Quit forcing your beliefs, morals, and standards on everyone else. It is the non smokers choice as much as it is the smokers choice. I quit smoking years ago but do not preach for or against it. It is the individuals choice and right.

we have had this law in Canada for a many years now and businesses were all complaining they would lose business...and they have not lost any business. People do not have to endure second hand smoke and smokers can go outside to smoke...many bars have made patios just for smoking. You say that it is a non-smokers choice to go to a bar that does not allow smoking, but before this law all bars allowed smoking, so where this choice was not available. Smoking is not something people are forced to do, it is a choice to damage your health by smoking....so why force others to inhale it? Smokers all said they would not go to any bars that did not allow smoking...this is a threat, they are powerless against this law, so what else are they going to say? Now when you go by any bar or restaurant in Vancouver, you see smokers outside having their smokes...and business did not suffer. People still like to go out for a drink or dinner, whether they smoke or not. Smokers are not staying home now that they cannot smoke in restaurants or bars..they just have to get up and walk a few steps and head outside to the patio to have their smoke..they could use the exercise!

Karen Los Angeles

1. here's thought - you don't like bars in other states that let people smoke - then why not stay in California

2. guess when you stopped smoking you decided to continue on being judgemental of peoples appearance

3. what relationship does 9/11 have to do with the fact you quit smoking? If I stopped farting on 7/11 should I say it was 4 months before 9/11?

4. glad you were able to stop smoking (believe most who smoke would like to say the same)....must say something about you that the first good side effect of not smoking was that you now have a lovely complexion..

now since you have extra time on your hands from not lighting up how about lecturing people on not eating chocolate cake......since I'm sure we are getting to the point more people are dying from being lard asses and the related diseases associated with it.

You people talking about business picking up at bars that don't have smoking are not talking about the back street hole in the wall dive bars I'm thinkin of. These type of bars are not all of a sudden going to attrack a bunch of non smokers. There are WAY more of these types of bars than the other Chilis, Applebee's type. And saying they should just quit anyway is stupid! How about you just quit eating fattening food? You and the government should not be able to tell me what I can eat or not eat and weather I can or can't smoke a legal substance! If you can go drink in a bar and drive away trying to kill me and my family then people should be able to smoke in the same establishment! They are both poisoning your body so whats the difference! Drunk drivers kill people EVERY day! And kill their own bodies and cost the health care system billions so why just pick on smoking???? I guess when they try to take away drinking you will complain! Its next! If you think people will allow drinking to go unhindered while smoking is continually attacked you have another thing coming! If you allow them to intrude into peoples lives in one thing they will do it in others! Bars should be able to say if they allow smoking or not and people can choose from there! By the way, I don't smoke! We just should not let the government get control of every aspect of our lives till we have no rights left! Let businesses decide on their own and they will reap the benifits or suffer the loss!

As long as cigarettes are legally made and sold in this country, the bar owners should be allowed to decide for themselves, as well as the rest of the hospitality industry. Instead of telling people it's ok to buy them, but not use them, the government should shut down the cigarette factories, and ban the manufacture and the sale of tobacco products. (Which of course they will not do, because the government makes too much money from us.) If they won't do that, then they really have no right to tell a bar owner what he can or can't allow in his bar. The law of supply and demand applies, non smoking bars and restaurants will attract customers that want to be there, and smoking establishments will attract the ones who want to be there. With smoking establishments right outside the city line, the only thing they have accomplished is striking a death knell for the bars within the city, their employees, and oh, yeah, the taxes they would have paid not only on revenues, but on the alcohol consumed there, all going out of town.

This was a big issue when it was original banned in California back in 1998. The main issue was the employees who needed employment ,didn't smoke, but were being forced to by their employers patrons. The bars here in California are still packed and it is a much more heathy and enjoyable atmosphere. It is time for Indiana to catch up with the rest of the country and start leading healthier lives.

Not if we don't show up at all.

From someone that went through this early on in New York, Many bars here ended up going out of business because the laws were so restrictive. I used to smoke, but I never liked going in a smoke filled room, but to drive these folks out of business was the wrong thing to do. Just a furhter restriction imposed by government-I've always believed that we should always be able to 'Vote with our feet'. This removes that choice from us, the people actually paying the bills.

Spikeguy, that is not true. I live in NY and before this law came in effect, bar and restaurant owners were crying foul. Turns out business actually picked UP due to us nonsmokers. We no longer had to worry about the smoky conditions, so to the bars and restaurants we went. Bars and restaurants are doing better than they did before. If they went out of business, it's because of bad food/service. Nothing more.

Government is overstepping and taking rights away from people who go to these establishments and their owners. If you dont want to go to a bar that allows smoking then dont go. Its also interesting that they always lump bars and restaurants together and they do it for a reason. Bar revenues are plummeting and bars are going out of busisness because of smoking bans. Restaurants on the other hand are having busisness increase making it sseem like its revenue neutral when its not.

Delaware was the second state to pass a state-wide ban. Very few bars went out of business, partly because many people reacted the way I do. I hated going to bars before the ban; I'm a recovering nicotine addict (clean for 30 years), and I couldn't stand the smoke in those places.

Now I go to my local tavern for dinner at least once a week. They never got my business before the ban; now they get it.

And, to those who claim that this is trampling on their rights, what happened to the rights of non-smokers, including bar employees, to breathe non-carcinogenic air?

Actually if the patrons smoke less(at $8 a pack) they will have more to spend on food and beverage.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Smokers will still smoke the same amount. However, because of the "8$ a pack", they will most likely change to a cheaper brand and step outside to smoke. This will also minimize the amount of time spent sitting at the bar possibly spending more money...I am a smoker, So to this I say "Thank you for helping me save money at the bar!!"....

And, to those who claim that this is trampling on their rights, what happened to the rights of non-smokers, including bar employees, to breathe non-carcinogenic air?

It's not about the Right of the smoker to smoke within an establishment or not. It's about the right of the Establishment owner to make that decision...

Common people open you minds and actually "see" what is being said/typed and not what you think you see....

Why can't non-smokers just stay out of smoke friendly places? Take some personal responsibility, If you don't like violent movies then don't watch them. You don't like heavy metal then don't listen. You don't like cigarette don't go to places where people smoke them. I don't like being run over by a car so I don't walk in the middle of the road. Mabey we should ban cars?

live in NY and before this law came in effect, bar and restaurant owners were crying foul. Turns out business actually picked UP due to us nonsmokers. We no longer had to worry about the smoky conditions, so to the bars and restaurants we went. Bars and restaurants are doing better than they did before. If they went out of business, it's because of bad food/service. Nothing more.

Maybe where you live BJs. Where I live, not so much. So much is dependent on geography. Certain parts of New York State are so much worse off economically than other parts.

When they shove this kind of crap down our throats, we as citizens have a right to exercise civil disobedience. Could you imagine the little pencil pushers in the enforcement of these laws telling a biker to put out their cigarette? Squish goes the little bug. To hell with laws that allow freakin a$$holes to tell hard working, tax paying citizens what to do. Take those laws and show your mommas how to suck aigs!

I am sick and tired of listening to smoker's telling me to go somewhere else if I do not want to breathe their second hand smoke. I used to work in a bar as security and had to breathe that crap every night. I still enjoy going to a bar and listen to live music but I do not want to breathe the second hand smoke. Since smokers obviously do not care about my health or my opinion, then it should be perfectly acceptable for me to not care about their health. So when I walk up to you and punch you right square in the f**kin mouth don't get mad, because I don't give a s**t. Hey, go somewhere else if you don't like getting punched out.

You little wimps want a place to go with no smoking? Go to church with the other hypocritcal Nazis.

Doug see now you are getting it. Someone makes a choice to smoke or speak their mind and you make the choice to punch them in the mouth, then someone might decide to stomp the crap out of you back. It's all action and reaction and consequences of both but atleast they are OUR choices not the lawmakers.Did you not know that it was a smoking bar before you got your job?

Again, too many of you are missing the point.

Any restaurant or bar owner can, with no government intervention, ban smoking in their establishment. I live in Columbus. The State of Ohio has a strict smoking ban. BEFORE the ban went into effect, we had restaurants and chain drinking establishments who ALREADY had banned smoking. Their private property - Their business - THEIR choice. That's a good thing.

The small mom and pop neighborhood bars and grills, independently owned and operated, are the ones who suffered after the ban went into effect It didn't have that big of an impact on TGIFridays, McD's, or any other big time food or drink corporate chain. It DID all but kill off the small guys.

I am tired of hearing the anti-smokers complain and try to fend off the argument that if they don't like smoke to go somewhere else - as though smoking in a private establishment "violates" them. It is private, just like my home. NONE of your business what I do or do not allow.

You have freedom of choice. Patronize the establishments who cater to YOU. Those that are successful and make $$$$$ stay open. If nobody likes it, it closes. THAT is free enterprise. THAT is freedom to make your own decision with your own property and your own business, and as a patron YOUR choice to spend your hard earned money there - or not.

I understand publicly banned smoking - in publicly funded buildings supported by TAX dollars. I DON'T understand anyone else's legal ability to impose their choice on someone else's private enterprise. THAT is completly un-American.

It opens up a pandora's box of banning anything and everything. So all you "ban-fans" beware. The brown suits are coming for you next. Government will be telling you what is good for you, healthy for you and what you can and can not do - because you just don't know what's best for you and clearly can't make your own choices.

Well said Rod

Doug you say you were forced to breath that crap every night. That's B.S. you made the CHOICE to work at that bar! No one was holding a gun to your head telling you to work there! So stop your yapping and get off you butt and get a job where smoking is not allowed! I'm sure you knew when you took the job that it was a smoking establishment. Oh and by the way I used to smoke, but quit after 30 years. I think the goverment should stay the hell out of my business! I'm smart enough to make my own choices.

Bungle, what I am trying to say (maybe not as good as I could) if I came up and punched you in the mouth, I would be causing you some discomfort and physical pain. You didn't ask to be punched just as I am not asking for the discomfort and physical problems from breathing the smoke you generate as a smoker. You made the choice to smoke. It's common knowledge that smoking is bad for you and others around you. Therefore you are intentionally trying to do me harm. Would I not have the right to defend myself? Of course, I wouldn't go up and just hit someone. But as a non smoker in a bar or restaurant I am not doing anything that is intentionally trying to hurt you.

I have lived in cities with a smoking ban and those without -- I greatly prefer those with a ban.

That being said -- all those who claim it is not the government's arena to enforce this ban are making a false assumption.

You are assuming some faceless bureaucrat in a far away place made this decision.

In fact, the article states very clearly the ban was made by the LOCAL city council with a unanimous vote. If anybody clearly has the authority to regulate a local drinking establishment -- it is your local government. These are people from your community whom are elected by local citizens to implement your will.

If you have a heartache about the city council's decision -- actually go out and vote in the next local election for someone who promises to overturn the ban -- it is that simple.

Amen, Rod. When Big Brother comes knocking on the "ban-fans" door, I will sit back and laugh when they start crying foul and ask them how they like it now!

morefeet1956

I did not say I was forced to breathe that crap everynight. I said, I had to breathe that crap everynight. I just couldn't tell my lungs to stop working. Your right, no one held a gun to my head. By the way, I do believe I was getting off my ass to work a second job in that bar. I still don't like smoking and I am going to keep going to bars and restaurants and saying my opinion. We all know heroin and cocaine are no good. Are you saying you should have the choice to do those drugs also? Even out in public establishments (restaurants) where children can be influenced?

I don't smoke But I have to agree with alot of the posters saying Govt. needs to step back, Business owners should decide. There is now a ban proposal in some states to stop smokers while driving, not sure of the details on this but you can imagine Homes are next !

Why raise the cig tax to cover this bogus health plan if stopping smoking, smoking is legal, makes no sense other than now they can cry no money coming in so need to to tax something else !

Heroin and cocaine are illegal substances. They are not taxed to the nth by the government to pay for children's Health Care, among other things. Make smoking illegal if the government is so clearly concerned about our health and the health of those around us. Then you non-smokers can really start crying when your taxes are raised to make up the deficit. Again, I would just sit back and laugh. While the government is at it, let's ban the fools that ride their bikes on busy streets, effectively blocking traffic because they are violating my right to get were I need to be in a timely matter. Let's ban all the food that make so many people obese in this country, cause not only are they raising my Health Care costs, I really truly have the right not to see some of them in a swimsuit. So let's put on restrictions to whom can buy what kind of swimsuit and who cant'. Then let's create a new tax based on a person's BMI.

Where does it end???? It won't and you will have no one but yourselves to blame for it. The smokers that tried to take a stand only to hear how it was ok to trample our rights since there are so many non-smokers, will be the only people that have the right to look around and say, "I told you so, so quit your complaining, afterall this is what you wanted."

The 65-35 percent clause should be put into affect. Toledo did the smoking ban before the State made it mandatory. People of the city went to other towns that weren't banning. Then they went 65-35 and brought back their patrons. The State and bible thumpers took it all away. If someone opens a bar that bans non-smokers that's considered illegal. But the other way around? Bunch of asinine shytters!

I am sick and tired of listening to smoker's telling me to go somewhere else if I do not want to breathe their second hand smoke. I used to work in a bar as security and had to breathe that crap every night. I still enjoy going to a bar and listen to live music but I do not want to breathe the second hand smoke. Since smokers obviously do not care about my health or my opinion, then it should be perfectly acceptable for me to not care about their health. So when I walk up to you and punch you right square in the f**kin mouth don't get mad, because I don't give a s**t. Hey, go somewhere else if you don't like getting punched out.

HAHAHAHA! Good one. I think I might just whip it out and start peeing on some smoker. "Hey! If you don't like having people piss on your feet, don't stand where I'm pissing!"

in colorado its $5 a pack, taxes vary by state.

Doug I actually admire that you did what you had to do to provide for you or someone else I really do and I do think that most bars do lean towards smokers leaving few options for non-smokers. To me it seems that one could make alot of money having a smoke free bar as a niche supply to the demand. But there is a difference between being punched and standing in the way of a punch thrown. Just my opinion but I think a better way to fix all of this is for non-smokers to start non-smoking establishments and let the consumer choose but not let government choose for us. It's a spirited debate that stretches beyond where to smoke and where not to smoke.

Bungle, you are absolutely right. It is an issue of choice and should stay there in as much as tobacco products are legal. It should be left to choice. If one does not wish to be exposed to the smokers' environment, go elsewhere. If the business owner does not want smoking in his/her establishment, then make the bar/restaurant non-smoking and cater to non-smokers.

Doug Anderson speaks like a true, short sighted individual. If you want to open a business pay all your dues and then make it non-smoking for your pleasure...........I would agree with you but....................as stated by so many others it isn't about smoking or non smoking, it is about freedom of choice and the choice of the business owner to allow something to go on in his/her establishment that is legal. I don't like smelling like cigarettes either however, if I want to go to the popular spots, I deal with it......yet another choice...................ISN'T IT GREAT TO BE AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know what's really funny all the comments about if you don't like the smoke don't go to smoking places. Well just this last year the town I live in made our whole town non-smoking. Now for the first time since I've lived here I can go eat at Ihop. I couldn't ever go before because of asthma you see smoke was one of the things that triggered my attacks and it could have killed me. My husband and I love to go out for breakfast and we never could because Ihop was the only place that served it in our town. So you see it's not anyways that easy to just go to the places that were non-smoking. Actually most places allowed smoking so we had very little variety about where we could go. That's something someone can't help and I wasn't trying to take anyones rights away. I just wanted the same one's.

Back when smoking was banned in bars here in California I was against it even though I'm a non smoker. Now I think it's great. When I go to Nevada I miss the non smoking bars. You can still smoke in some bars here. Bars that have no employees can still allow smoking. I avoid those places. One time, years ago, I was in Virginia and asked to be seated in a non smoking section in a restaurant. I was told that I could not smoke anywhere I wanted. LOL>

fieldtheory

smoking cigarettes causes cancer and other diseases. there are very few smokers that never get cancer.

eating junk food is also a cause of illness and disease.

being lazy and fat is also a cause of illness and disease.

1.Actually, studies show 20% of smokers develop cancers. That is higher

than the general population but it's not 'most'. Smoking isn't good, of

that there can be no question. Just get your facts straight.

2.I am an ex-smoker and, I agree, smoke is an irritant. However, if it

bothers me, I either leave or I don't go into the place in the beginning.

I don't feel it's my place to criticize a smoker if I go where it's allowed.

3.Earlier, someone mentioned an English study of 10-years' duration which

failed to show any harmful effects from second-hand smoke. A similar

U.S. study was buried by the National Health Service over 20 years ago

as it failed to reinforce preconceived conclusions. The study purportedly

showed a person would have to be in a smoke-filled room for over 200

years to receive the same amount of exposure as a smoker received in

one cigarette. Again, smoke is an irritant but the dangers of exposure to

second-hand smoke have been vastly over-stated to make an invalid

point.

4.I will sit in an environment of smoke any day before I'll tolerate perfume.

Perfume makes me SICK, especially while I'm eating. Does anybody plan

to enact a ban on perfume? Actually, perfume can be dangerous to a

person who is intolerant of it, to the point it could cause death.

There are a lot of well-thought out missives in this posting, on both sides.

I have to say, though, I believe the 'government-stay-out-of-my-business'

side has the better arguments. George Carlin has an HBO special done a

couple of weeks before he died called 'It's Bad For Ya' in which he talks

about 'rights'. That part of it should be must-listening for all who approve

of certain bans, including smoking.

Seghile Seghile

A revolution over smoking rights. Geez, that demeans American freedom in its extremism. And it's sieg heil, sieg heil!

As a bar owner, even I get it. My bar is a public place. It is segregation to tell non-smokers that my bar is now a smokers only bar, if they don't like it go to the non-smokers only bar down the street. If you don't see the discrimination in that idea then you probably don't see any harm in having a whites only bar or a blacks only dance club. The person that pointed out that public smoking is unlike other activities in a bar- because by simply being present a non-smoker is forced to participate in the activity.

I see your point nycpub,

But it is also segregation to tell smokers its a NON smoking bar now..is it not?? Personally I would think opening more restaurant/bars of each would be a happy solution, plus be profits for those who took on which ever group, The Govt. wants the bucks elsewise they would make it illegal to buy Cigs.

karen,

I really don't think its about health, It is another way to Tax something else down the road and control the people, people are making jokes about breathing air, that polluted air will be taxed at some point, I am sure it will be to clean up the Pollution the Govt. has allowed for years.

Cancer comes from numerous things, Diabetes as well as many other illness, Heck tainted water causes cancer, Movie "Erin Brockviech" ring bell ??

Johnrix - No, PLEASE don't say more. I could barely understand your first sentence! It seems the country has gone to hell with poor grammar and spelling skills, too.

Some places sell memberships and have become clubs to allow smoking

Brilliant! I`m sure many bars and restaurants would like that bit of info. 1 dollar membership to enjoy American freedom. I will remember this and pass it on to some frinds of mine. Thank you.

Another thought-instead of banning it, why not require advanced air removal and filtering systems? When I first moved here, I went to a restaurant that had a separate room with a door that had real seals on it that was for smokers. I'm sure there's somewhere in the bureaucracy that could regulate that.

There is a difference between a private club and a public business establishment. If you want to smoke, smoke. Just don´t subject me to that nasty smell, especially when I am eating. I don´t like to smell like an ashtray. Everyone has the right to smoke, as long as they do not subject other people to the smoke. There is no prohibition to forming a private club that allows smoking. As far as profits are concerned, more people do not smoke than do smoke and businesses have more traffic if people can sit down and have a few drinks and not leave smelling like an ashtray. Many smokers are offended when some kid is blasting rap music in the car next to them. Does the kid have the right to subject you to his very loud hip hop? Smoke all you want to. Just keep your nasty smell away from me.

Here in IA, there's another loophole that's becoming increasingly popular. If an establishment makes more than 80% of their revenue off of tobacco products, smoking is allowed. 'Cigar Bars' are popping up all over the place. They generally advertise 1-2 free drinks with the purchase of so many cigars or a carton of cigarettes. That way, the revenue from the smokes stays higher than the revenue for the alcohol.

A lot of these establishments are locating themselves in stripmalls and opening restaraunts right next door to the cigar-bars. Naturally, the cigar bars have carry out menu's for the restaraunt. So a person can enjoy a burger, a beer and a smoke after dinner.

It's a pretty slick deal, actually. A great show of American ingenuity. Hat's off to these entreneurs!

Marty,

I understand what you are saying but the laws in your state must be different than here in Indiana. I am not sure exactly how this ban in Elkhart reads but in other Indiana cities such as Fort Wayne the ban also covers private clubs. There are no exemptions. There is absolutley no smoking anywhere. There is no way for a business owner to choose to operate a smoking establishment. If private clubs were exempt from the ban I would agree with you. Our "no exceptions" ban started about 2 years ago. It is a city ban. The county approved a much smarter ban. The county made all restaurants non smoking. All "21 and over only" business owners were given the choice to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. This had to be posted on all entrances to the establishment. The newspaper posted these totals after 3 months of FW's smoking ban: City-28 bar closures, 48% drop in bar receipts for bars that remain open. County-4 new bars, 56% increase in bar receipts. If the smoking ban in Elkhart is similar to ours I feel very sorry for the bar owners in the city of Elkhart. The numbers from the city of Fort Wayne speak for themselves.

Marty, no, if I can't smoke, the brat shouldn't be allowed to subject me to his rap music. Studies have shown it fries brain cells.

In fact, if I'm tense from nicotine withdrawal and am subjected to his rap music, I'm liable to beat the crap out of him.

We tried to do that in California and we were stomped on. They even banned smoking in the Elks and Moose lodges, losing many many members which in turn affected the local charities. Those are private, members only clubs, and why was California able to do this, with the local politician's help? We smoked at bars in our area for almost 2 yrs. after the ban until someone came up with the idea to hire one man to go from bar to bar and shut down any of them where smoking was being allowed. My non smoking friends will no longer go out to the bars because their friends are losing their own rights. Our bars are closing down very fast.

You can quite easily go outside and have all the fresh...indeed fresher air as a matter of fact...you want. Honestly you'll be ok after the initial shock wears off!

Amen!! There's all the fresh air you want outside!!

Actually, New York's law says that if there is a roof (on your outdoor patio), staff cannot serve you (this law was passed on the understanding that New York was saving the 'Wait Staff' people across the state from 2nd hand smoke exposure).

I work with the owners of many of the local watering holes and food establishments-if you think this law has not hurt their bottom line (and continues to), then you are not in the business.

Spikeguy, your dead wrong. You want to rationalize your desire to smoke. The bottom lines of businesses improve when people can enjoy a clean atmosphere. The businessownersyouworkwith are blowing smoke up yours.

Amen Marty. I know for a fact that business picked UP after the nonsmoking laws came into effect.

SGary, I work in a manufacturing business, and our state put in a statewide smoking ban just last year. Since then our bottom line has gone downhill as well, just like your NY establishments. There HAS to be a correlation between our manufacturing revenue and the ban on smoking.

It couldn't be the general economy of our nation that has taken dollars away from entertainment venues, since people generally don't have as much to spend.

huh?

Marty and BJs,

Besides being insulting with your comments, which violates the CoH here on Newsvine, you are incorrect. You know what they say about making assumptions. I don't smoke. I once did but have not in quite a while.

So, tell me, where exactly has business picked up. Specify towns and/or cities where you have proof that business has picked up, additionally, describe the proof that you have. Try to be rational-this is not about me but the article at hand.

Exactly how are we being "insulting"? I know the CoH here, and I don't see any violation, unless of course you think simply disagreeing with you violates that - and um, no it's not. It's called DEBATE. Look it up.

I do not agree with you that the smoking ban has hurt the bar/restaurant business. Every one I've gone to has been packed. I live in Western NY - any more detail from me will not be coming. I don't know you and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to.

Since you seem to have "proof" - why don't you state YOURs? Hm??

Let Tyler decide who's violating. That's not your job.

Spike, marty and bj are just pushing their agenda. I'm sure they don't have one bit of proof or fact to support their claims. They are a part of that crowd that says it's our way or no way, there can be no compromise.

Lincoln, NE passed a smoking ban a few years ago. recently this ban moved to statewide (goes into effect in the next month or two i think). This bill passed in Lincoln because the anti-smoking crowd swore that with clean air they would patronize the establishments more.

Lincoln's bars and restaurants were forced to create smoking patios adjacent to their buildings in the hopes of staying open. most of these provide a windbreak from 3 directions, and some included TVs, Radiant heaters, and other amenities so the business could try to persuade their smoking clients to continue to be patrons. Most pool halls were forced to close due to lack of business. many restaurateurs got out of the business after the first couple of months, or they sold the business to someone else who wouldn't be concerned with the revenue drop. There was also a brief phenomenon of bars opening up just outside city limits in order for them to allow smoking.

That is the effect of a city, not state ban. This was before the recession, and the fact of the matter (at least here) was that after a brief spike in non-smoker business, establishments lost revenue because it became more comfortable for the regulars to buy booze at a liquor store and then head home where they could smoke, while the non-smokers didn't change their patronage habits like they had said would happen.

years later, bars still are around, but don't bring near the number of customers that they did prior to the smoking ban because most smokers won't go anywhere except liquor stores and home, and the non-smokers continued to stay at home.

i'm a smoker, while my mother has severe asthma and is susceptible to smoke. i've always tried my best to not bother others with my smoke because that is the polite thing to do, so i generally segregate myself from others when enjoying a smoke. after this long, i'm accustomed to going outside in order to have a cigarette, but i've greatly enjoyed trips to Scottsbluff and Sioux Falls where no smoking ban means i can have a drink and smoke at the same time. my wife and i quit patronizing businesses because of the smoking ban, and now just save money by buying bottles and drinking at home with our friends (don't have to deal with all the egomaniacs that populate this country that way as well).

The arguments stating that bar revenues increase when smoking bans are put into effect are not valid in the case of Lincoln, NE, which actually had to invest more into each business in the hopes of retaining their smoking customers.

gday67,

Thanks and you're right-a little asshat-ery is part of everyday on Newsvine anymore.

BJs-Let's see, There's a place on Lockport Road east of Shawnee Road (I forgot the name) was pretty much a douche-you might know him-his bar is now closed. The Meeting Place in Bergholz on Niagara Road shut down, just recently re-opened as a place called Martinos after a couple years being empty. Scooters in Wheatfield shut down. Tuesday's in Cambria is just hanging on by a thread. This is how business has improved? I'd hate to see what you call a business slow down.

BJ's: Marty's comment was actually a CoH violation-I should have seprated that. Your comment was just inaccurate.

BJ's Not to worry about hanging out together here in Western New York, you don't seem like the kind of person I'd spend time with-but if anyone ever needs a BJ, we'll know where to find you.

Well, I'm sure BJ would be relieved to hear that. For those who say those opposed to smoking in public places are "pushing their agenda and it's their way or the highway". Really? Your blowing smoke into our faces seems like you're doing just that. Again and we will keep repeating this until it enters your thick skulls - your smoking rights end where our noses begin.

I am one of those who get violently ill from second hand smoke. I was exposed to it throughout my childhood and a good part of my adult life. People wondered why I was always ill. Well - when I'm not exposed to the smoke, I'm just fine. When I am exposed, my asthma picks up and I get hives all over. I cannot breathe, I cannot see (eyes swell up) and I have to remove myself from the exposure. Before the smoking ban in NYS - I couldn't go anywhere. Now - I can go to a bar or restaurant and be able to enjoy myself. There are thousands of people like me who are just as thankful.

Smoke at home if you must. When you develop lung disease / heart disease - do us all a favor and just do yourself in. I am sick and tired of paying the medical bills (medicare/medicaid) of those who abused their bodies with cigarette smoke.

Have a nice day. :)

Oh, one more thing - any bar or restaurant that closed due to the smoking ban - newsflash - they s*cked. Poor food, poor service - the only thing they had going for them was smoking.

I know of NO bar or restaurant in my area that closed BECAUSE of the smoking ban. In fact, many new ones opened.

Well, reading your other posts, it is obvious your are another short-sighted individual. First, it isn't about smoking or non-smoking. This debate should be about the bigger picture - freedom of choice. It is short-sightedness that has this country in its current state of affairs. Second, with regards to medicare.........there was this really big court action where states won lots of money directly due to medical expenses generated by smokers and almost every state has raised taxes on cigarettes to cover medical insurance and expenses generated by smokers. (I hope I stated this simply enough or to take one of your phrases..................DUH). When a poster/blogger resorts to insults and demeaning language, it tends to illustrate that a logical arguement is beyond that persons ability. When confronted with facts, they tend to fall back on insults and hostility. Those are the people that need our sympathy. Don't let freedom slip away on a one issue topic.

Sure, I like the fresh air myself when I smoke, but not when it's 110 degrees outside and a cold beer is waiting and getting warmer inside. Nor do I like sitting out in the rain. And as for patios? They are banning smoking there too in California. They are talking about banning smoking in your cars, and already have banned smoking when you are driving with a child under 16 in the car (that does not bother me, except on long trips)

If you have a covering over your OUTDOOR patio you can't be served??? Well does a roof count indoors??? OMG, that's the funniest thing I've heard today. Thank you for my daily chuckle, and this time I didn't have to watch CNN. LOL

They wrote the law to save the wait staff from second hand smoke (noble enough) but the law is that restrictive. They consider a roofed patio to be 'indoors'.

In fact, one friend who's business is till to this day staggering along, I was going to suggest to her to have a 'serving window' people could walk up to, but that would require moving the indoor bar to the other side of the room or building a free standing bar by the window to serve those on the patio. Of course, her business has been so badly impacted by this ban, she can't afford to do major renovations.....

If you have a cigar bar and it's advertised as such, then there is no rhyme or reason to have smoking banned from such an establishment. Anyone who is anti-smoking would be stupid to try.

There are exceptions to this law, even in NYS. This is one of them. Private clubs are another. They can smoke themselves into the grave for all I care.

I'm NOT anti smoking, but:

1. Not smoking in hospitals- With technology on the uptick, smoking could actually spark explosions starting in one patients room. ie: oxygen.

2. I'm tired of hearing that it's the radical left that is imposing this on everyone! There are a lot of Republicans that are behind these bans, if not more so.

Al most people don´t want to smell like you do. That is why they want you to go outside and smoke. You don´t let your dog pee on your carpet do you? Let your dog pee outside, you go smoke outside and your house will smell a lot better.

That's DEMOCRACY at work for you. The rights of the few trampled by the majority.

Demos (Mob) Cracy(Rule/Law) in other words Democracy is Mob Rule.

Let's turn the US back to a Constitutional Republic.

Dink. It is not Nazism to attempt to protect the public health. As a matter of fact, public health is one of the few elements in our country that should be monitored nad controlled by our government.

cigarettes are the only product that, when used according to manufacturers' directions, lead to death. Fewer than 1 in 5 Americans smoke, so you see where this is going. Your right to smoke ends at my nose. I was in the restaurant industry for more than 37 years, and NEVER saw a bottom line do anything but increase when I banned smoking; there are 4 times as many non-smokers as smokers, so I'll stick with my successful model- please the majority of your customers. I smoked 3 packs a day , but quit 18 years ago, and it is a public health issue. You have no right to make me inhale your poisons. Health inspectors regulate bars and restaurants, and smoking is a health issue. And, no, this isn't a left or right issue- it's a health issue.

I believe bar & restaurant owners should be able to choose between smoking & not smoking & not be dicatated to. Liquor causes more health problems for the imbiber, not to mention getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking and maybe causing injury or death to others and his/her self also desctruction of property.

Also, I don't think the city, state or federal government should be involved in the choice of an individual to have an abortion or legalizing gay unions. Too much "government" can be disasterous to what should be an individuals choice.

I don't see this any differently than banning open containers of alcohol in some places. One of the examples listed above was when the 'Nazis' disallowed smoking in hospitals. Are you allowed to walk around drinking a cocktail in the hospital? Can you drink alcohol while driving your car or walking down the street? There are regulations for all kinds of legal substances, so trying to state any restriction on smoking in public places is totally unheard of an unjust doesn't make sense to me.

as a bar owner of ten years, after cleaing the sports items and tv's for years and seeing the disgusting yellow brown goo that came off i wanted to be nonsmoking but couldn't for business reasons. i couldn't pull it off, our town couldn't but the state could and did two years ago. it was the best law they passed in decades. no business impact because everyone is affected. now when i clean the television screens and sports items on display, the only thing on the cleaning rag is dust...no nasty yellowish goo. which also means that my lungs and those of my employees have been saved from hundreds of hours of breathing and being coated by that goo. sometimes there are issues only intervention at the government level can fix, and this was one colorado's legislatures did good on.

Now there is a bar owner who understands... Hey Mikenz - did business pick up after the ban?

Your ability to go out with friends that smoke does NOT trump my right to not smoke. The added costs to the healthcare system caused by your smoking friends gives the public the duty to regulate the problem. Your health will suffer as well. I stopped going to bars several years ago because I was tired of the smoke filled rooms. I now live in an area where there is no smoking in bars, and- guess what- their business INCREASED after the ban, because people who wouldn't go to a bar w/ smoking got to go out again. I have been in the "business" for 37 years, and have NEVER seen a bottom line go down due to a smoking ban- I've seen plent bottom lines go UP when bans are in place...

America is on to DemoNazis. Put it to a general vote and see if you get away with it!

a nuber of studies that the goverment don't want you to know about say that the none smoker cost society more in the long run then smokers and the over wieght poeple cost the most so when is the goverment going to start to tell use what we can eat and how much.

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?????

Several years ago Clark County Nevada banned smoking in bars unless a window/ wall seperated food serving from the bar, then you could smoke at the bar. Many bars were not set up to serve food, thus there revenue took a plunge. Now the bann is going to be lifted do to gaming revenue drops. There you go... it really was'nt about health after all was it?

chris7613

If health is your argument, we should ban fatty foods, motorcycles, and skiing. I also think your lying about owning a bar. Business is not going up in bars that ban smoking. Pinch yourself and wake up.

i'm a bar owner in colorado, sports zone tavern in milliken, go to the sec. of states website and look up the name and corp info. when i eat i a monster burger dripping with cheese and sauce, bacon and all the good stuff, i DON'T make the guy next to me eat one too. when i ride my bike which i've spent years and hundreds of hours and dollars customizing i NEVER pick up an unwilling stranger and make them ride behind me(well there was a girl hitchhiking once but thats a long story;) if i get the time which is sadly only about once a year, i love to head up to steamboat and skii, if i hit someone even by accident i am legally responsible and can be held financially and legally accountable. i haven't hit anyone thankfully only an occasional tree once in a great while and they don't have lawyers. the only reason our smoking ban worked was because it was applied state wide. boulder however with a totally different demographic had one first, just boulder and they actually did get more business but that was because they weren't aren't your typical crowd. so for the most part any smoking ban must be universal in coverage or it will hurt the bars covered and generally speaking help any close by that aren't covered. in closing i smoke occasionally and i always just step outside, no big deal for me or my customers especially since i spend far more time at my bar than i do at home, which hopefull will change someday. oh and i go outside to smoke at home too, nobody smokes in the house. no more time to be a part of this no win arguement i have to get ready and head off to the bar as i fondly call my self created prison ;)

The right comes from the same place as drunk driving laws. Protection of the public health. I smoked for years and quit when I realized how much money I was giving to tobacco companies to make my life less appealing and shorter. Keep on smoking, sheeple.

I smoked for years and quit when I realized how much money I was giving to tobacco companies

It's not the tobacco companies that are getting your money. It's the federal and state government. The Federal excise tax on a pack of smokes is $1.01. State excise taxes vary. In my state, it's $1.36. So that's $2.37 out of every pack of smokes I'm paying in taxes. A pack costs me roughly $5.20. By the time you take out a chunk of that for the local convenience store, a chunk for the trucking company that delivered them and cover the expenses of making them....the tobacco companies are making very little profit on a pack.

Here's a link to the various state excise taxes:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/Cigarette.htm

I wish people would quit accusing "evil, big tobacco" of things that simply aren't true.

Read the released "internal" memos from the tobacco industry discussing how to increase nicotine levels so as to increase addiction; marketing to youth, etc....I call this very evil and un-American! The taxes are meant to discourage smoking as much as they are to raise revenue. If tobacco addicts were all "cured" tomorrow and the tax revenue from tobacco dried up- well, then we'll see incredible savings in healthcare. Sooner or later all of the smokers will die off, then it won't be a problem. I'm sorry if you're too weak to quit. I smoked 3 packs a day for about 20 years, and I quit cold turkey- hard, but well worth it.

Tobacco un-American Jeff? Was Tobacco not THE major cash crop that helped build this nation? It has nothing to do with weak or strong, but personal choice. Beleive it or not there are people who actually ENJOY smoking. I am not one of them so I find smoke-free places which isn't hard to do.

Perhaps finding smoke-free places is not hard for you, but I live in a rural, low-income area with a high per-capita of smokers, so no places will choose to offer no-smoking. Luckily I have means to travel 20 miles to go to resturants with no smoking and bars with much less smoking. Perhaps I should pick up and move if I don't like coming home from the local bar reeking of smoke after just one beer. However, I am in a pretty high income bracket for our area and I think the community would miss their increased revenue my husband and I bring through income and property taxes to supplement those living on assistance who are smoking it up in the local bars. Fortunately, our state has just about completed the process to implement a state-wide smoking ban so I can start distributing my money back to the local establishments.

Take your money and go to a country that likes Tyrants!

Tyrant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions of a deme. The word "tyrant" then carried no ethical ...

Put that in your bonnet and smoke it!

Fortunately real Americans are coming back to retake their Freedom!

What a great outlook! Now, we just need to get them to quit or die....

HA HA!! Like they care! I don't smoke but your a douche! I hate people that force their lives and opinions on others it goes both ways!!! Why the heck would you want to hang out in bars anyway? I bet most of these people that are complainining about smoking in bars gets toasted and drives home from that bar trying to KILL my whole family! Or you spend your time stuffing your fat face with doughnuts so you can die from clogged arteries!!!

Jeff... better idea, why don't you just kill them.

What do you really know about second hand smoke. Nothing. Only what these biased anti smoking studies told you.

Prove to me anyone died of second hand smoke. The second hand smoke thing is SOOO thin in it's arguments. There are so many other airborne carcinogens in the air you breathe and to say you developed cancer from a specific one with no facts is simply a lie. Radon gas in a home causes lung cancer, maybe we should ban that too.

Who decides whose rights take precedence in this debate? We have the rights of the nonsmokers, the smokers and the business owners at risk. The ONLY fair way to do this would be to allow the business owners to choose if they want to be a smoking or nonsmoking establishment. Why do the nonsmokers assume they are right to tell people that wish to smoke that they should stop? Yes, it's bad for your health to smoke, we all know that but why should a govt that brags about freedom make the choice for you. These laws banning smoking are unconstitutional and should be struck down. It is discrimination through and through.

The research is factual- empirical. There is NO DOUBT as to the dangers of second hand smoke- it's at least as harmful as the "first-hand" smoke. This is easy research- don't form opinions by what you hear from others- research and develop your own opinion- don't just copy someone else's, and don't "get" your opinions from talk show hosts, etc. You don't "get" opinions; you develop them. This is a public health issue- there are many things people think are "rights" when they are actually priviledges- driving for example. Smokers add to the taxpayers' cost of healthcare. That, too, is a FACT.

I don’t like to be insulting, but your reply is just stupid. “What do you really know about second hand smoke. Nothing.” ? Really? !! I know that when I’m around anyone smoking my eyes burn, it’s harder to breath and afterwards I stink like hell. Are you so self-centered and absorbed with your addiction to smoking that you are incapable of seeing and understanding how offensive and damaging it is to others?

“Only what these biased anti smoking studies told you.” ? Are you really this retarded? The tobacco companies have been proven to be responsible for so many lies and deceit with bogus studies and dishonest advertising it’s unreal. The only reason smoking is still legal is because how much money and power the tobacco companies have.

It’s not an opinion, it’s a proven fact that second hand smoke is harmful. One of the most important reasons for a law is to protect an individual from being harmed by someone else’s actions, and that’s why I agree with smoking bans. If you want to suck in carcinogens and harmful toxins that’s your choice, I think you’d be better off without it but it’s your choice and that’s fine. But when you exhale those toxins any one around you is forced to breath them as well, and that’s when it’s not ok anymore. If I’m in a public place, a restaurant, a grocery store, a hospital, a bar, where ever, I don’t want to be subjected to your harmful habit.

That, too, is a FACT.

You are definately full of sh.......oops....facts today huh? Better find some people who are not as well informed to talk that baloney to.

Your statement that smokers add to taxpayers cost of healthcare? Where did you hear that. The reverse is true - smokers die younger so they use less medicare and social security bennies. BIGGER PROBLEM is the heavy weight people who get diabetes, high blood pressure, chlosterol, etc. THEY COST THE SYSTEM BIG TIME. That is a FACT.

If the govt really cared for your health,they'd ban the tobacco companies,but noooo...far too much money coming in to politicians thru tobacco lobbyists....same with alcohol,prescription drugs,the war on drugs and big oil.......all are harmful and dangerous.....and all pay the government for their right to kill people....our freedom is what the politicians and fat cats say it is.....they want us all to disagree...keeps us from banning together and regulating them(which is what the founding fathers were thinking when they said the Constitution should be revised every 20 yrs or so(look it up)....We are ALL sheeple folks,wake up... keep fighting amongst yourselves....its what they want

Ok, I'll give you that Inuthat2 - Go ahead and smoke all you want to. We don't need people like you polluting the gene pool.

:)

Those who can't take a joke - chill.

Dmaninlowa: Prove to me anyone died of second hand smoke. The second hand smoke thing is SOOO thin in it's arguments. There are so many other airborne carcinogens in the air you breathe and to say you developed cancer from a specific one with no facts is simply a lie.

How can you be so ignorant? I suggest you educate yourself. One of my best friends died at age 34 of lung cancer. He had elevated levels of nicotine, cotinine, carbon monoxide in his lungs, all evidence of him being a smoker. Only that my friend never smoked a day in his life. He died from second hand smoke. Need any more proof? Read this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Christopher Reeves wife also died from lung cancer and she never smoked a day in her life it was from singing in clubs. My grandfather also died from lung cancer and he never smoked but both his parents did.

You've got it wrong. We're not talking about smokers rights, we're talking about business owner rights. You should of been a politician.

I'm tired of breathing diesel fumes, shut down everything that burns diesel.

Speaking of business owners rights. You are saying that if it's legal then it is their choice to allow it. So, going by your reasoning - in states where med. marijuana is legal we should allow everyone in the bar to get high because the owner says its OK for a (poss.) couple of patrons. How about something even more "interesting": sex is legal, so clear off that restaurant table boff like dogs in heat, no problems there, right? Tell that 10 year old at the next table to look the other way. There are many things that are legal to do, but you are not allowed to force or subject your right to do it on others or in the presence of others. Grow Up and stop whining. You want to smoke go do it, just dont shove it down someone else's throat.

Hey- I call this kind of common sense a "duh"- how could anyone disagree?! Well done.

Dan why would someone bring a 10 year old to a place that is known to have open sex on tables? As long as you know what you are going into you have no one to blame but yourself.

I want to go to this bar!!! Sounds like a blast. Booze, buzz, smoke and smut! Oh, wait, I guess that would be just about any gay bar I have ever been to. lol. Lucky me!!!

you know what, You CAN smoke in public and not get arrested but if you urinate in public you will be arrested.

ahaha. I wish someone would piss on me now with their well-formed argument.

Then stay out of the bar if you dont like it.

stay home if you want to smoke; your right to smoke ends at my nose- you have no right to inflict your addiction on others. Fewer than 1 in 5 Americans smoke, so you lose. As a restaurant/bar manager for 37 years, I have NEVER seen my bottom line increase as quickly as it did when the health department banned smoking in rest/bars in my area.

jeff milligan - your quite rude. Your rights DO NOT trump another person's whether that person is a smoker or not!!! Get over yourself.

To me... This is the bottom line of the whole argument. One side says "Stay home if you want to smoke" and one side says "Don't go to the bars if you don't want to breathe the smoke." Their has to be a winner and a loser and I hate to break it to all of you but we live in a country where MAJORITY rules. Laws are passed by majority rule. Presidents, mayors, and governors are elected by majority rule. In a country where 1 in 5 people are smokers..... majority rules.

I used to work in tobacco prevention... my mother is a chain smoker since she was 10. I know both sides of the issues. I understand the arguments for and against it, however, once the ban is passed it needs to be followed. Bar owners, restaurant owners, business owners are all subject (by state law) to follow the orders of the Local Boards of Health. The public is assured that our waiters and waitresses will wash their hands after using the restroom, will wash and disinfect the dishes we will eat off, and if the oridinance says we will be assured of Clean Indoor Air - then it needs to be provided. We don't have the right to pick and choose which laws we follow. Your arguments need to be presented to your local law makers and stated at Boards of Health meetings (which are all open to the public).

I live in a county where smoking was banned and some bars have not complied. I have not patronized those establishments and have taken my business to the places that have. And I watch as each establishment gets taken to court and fined for their lack of compliance. The places that are smoke free are still busy and none have closed - and these business owners are not throwing away money paying court fees and fines. I have been to cities (Charelston, SC) that have banned smoking and the bars and clubs are always packed.

I know there will never be end to this issue and I know the arguments will continue... but thats my two cents.

Bravo for you going to non-smoking establishmants wise choice "FOR YOU". So the bottom line here is that it is ok for non-smoking bars to be left alone by law makers while they pick on establishments that will not comply? So it takes choice away from one side and gives it to the other? How is that fair? You bring up a good point with the handwashing. That is a regulation not an outright BAN. It's fine that you don't want to be around smoke....neither do I but frankly I am sick of the government taking my right to choose for myself away.

OGFY,

At least smokers are contributing to the tax base and the majority of smokers have jobs with insurance. Those "fat asses"as you call them are costing ALL tax payers thousands of dollars every year. Your rights don't supersede anyone else's rights.

I hate it when I am trying to pump booze (toxic chemicals) into my body so when I drive away from a bar and try to kill you and your family and my liver all at the same time and have someone blow smoke at me! That would just suck!!!!!

Could you please show some facts supporting your argument that the majority of smokers have jobs with insurance (I am a non-smoker with a good-paying job/insurance/taxpayer)? Also, when I had to purchase my own insurance before I got my good-paying job if I was a smoker I had to pay a higher premium, now why would that be? If it were up to me, co-workers who are smokers getting the same insurance as I do should pay more for it to bring my premiums down. As far as the fat-asses, I agree with you there. Taxes on junk food should also be raised. Sadly, people do not always do what is best for them until it hurts them in the pocketbook. This comes from a person (who is not a fat-ass, works out and is in good health) with a vice for Doritos and would be glad to see the prices raised to help me from buying them - I am not so high and mighty that I couldn't use a little help with my willpower and do not feel my rights are above anyone else's.

Stay home huh? Guess what, both of my next doors neighbors smoke and guess what else: Neither of them smokes inside their home, because they don't like their homes smelling like ashtrays. So what do they do, they go in their backyards to smoke, infringing on my right to enjoy a smoke free environment in my own backyard. So no, I can't stay home either unless I don't go outside and make sure all my windows are closed or else I am forced to smell their damn smoke in MY backyard and MY house. So I would much rather go to a bar where luckily here in Florida we do have smoking bans and enjoy a smoke free environment there.

Oh you are so ignorant. Woe is me, pity me! "I have to stay inside my house with the windows shut tight and put on a breathing mask while I hide in my closet"! Jesus Christ. Have you thought about what is coming out of your mouth? Unless your yard is the size of an anthill, you're just one of those people who thinks you "smell" things when you see them and has a panic attack right away. (Fake) "cough cough". Also, I'm sure the chemicals that come out of all of our cars are having more of an effect on you than your neighbors "cigarette smoke", as are factories, etc. What a bogus argument.

most laws dictate how far from a public entrance a smoker has to remain, so if they're all huddling around the door, they're probably breaking the law. Their rights to smoke end at my nose- no one has the right to inflict their habits/addictions on others.

does that include personal hygene? I find more people offensive that way than smoking.

Hey jeff.... how about we just cut your nose off then we won't have to see your stupid little motto anymore.

Thank you gday for saying what I wanted to say 20 paragraphs ago!

There would be far fewer health issues if people quit smoking. There is not one redeeming thing about it: People are paying loads and loads of money to poison themselves to death, and a lot of those people don't have health insurance. So who pays for their hospital bills when they inevitably develop emphysema, cancer, heart disease, etc.? The taxpayers. Let the smokers foot part of the bill, since they're the ones who are going to need the health care down the road.

You've missed the thesis of my comment, Tom. I don't disagree with you and my comment was 'off-topic' a bit, I'm wondering where the government is going to find money for these 'legacy' health issues that will continue for decades if not generations and also the 'other places' all this tax money is going-the way government works is, if you take money out of the stream that fills a particular pail, then the money will have to come from somewhere else to fill that pail.

If everyone were to quit smoking the savings in smoking-related health costs would help make up for the revenue loss. Oh, and we ARE the government- it's not us vs. them- if you feel that way I wouldn't be surprised if you were a non-voter. We will see various costs and budget overruns for the forseeable future, thanks to Bush et al, but they would be there whether or not we spend more now, so lets fix some things- like healthcare!

Spikegary .. if everyone stopped smoking .. they'd change their tune and you'd start reading journals and hearing news media speaking about how smoking isn't as bad for you like it use to be.

Smokers put in a ton of money for other peoples healthcare.

And I agree with the poster somewhere above. ...Pot should be legalised to puff/eat/vaporize and to grow your own few plants for personal use.

we ARE the government? I have a cat named dog Jeff.

Spike, they are not trying to get people to quit. At the same time they are taxing cigarettes to the point of insanity, they are subsidizing tobacco companies which are adding more and more addictive nicotine to the cigarettes, with the full knowledge, read complicity, of Congress.

They are, as the saying goes, cutting a fat hog in the a**, while doing all they can to keep the controversy at a pitch so that the 4 in 5 non-smokers will support them in taking away personal rights and excessive taxation. But don't worry, one day those 4 in 5 will get caught in some other government scheme and will learn the meaning of what goes around comes around. When you let your government misbehave because it doesn't affect you personally, you get what you deserve in the end.

Jeff @ 17.3,

Once again, making ASSumptions about a commenter instead of speaking to the article. I do vote every year. I voted via absentee ballot during my 21+ years in the U.S. Air Force. Where I live is a huge state with a fairly corrupt government over 300 miles from where I live. I vote, not along party lines, but along the lines of my conscience. There was an election back in November-it was on TV and everything-President Bush et al are no longer in power-try to jump into 2009, o.k.?

I asked a simple question about taxation and how to fill that void before you brought your uninformed opinion out.

In 2005 an comprehensive anti-smoking law went into effect in Italy, a country where prior to the ban only about 5% of restaurants and bars even had non-smoking sections. Although 83% of all Italians voted in favor of that law, there were those who had the same arguments against the ban. Less than 4 years later, however, studies showed an 11.2% reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years. Now even some prior opponents support the law. So, yes, there will be less revenue from taxation but that will be offset by the decrease in health care costs. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

The economy in the toilet is the reason for their problems. Or it may be bad marketing, or maybe all their smoker customers died. I have been in the rest/bar industry for 37 years and have NEVER seen a bottom line go anywhere but up after such laws are enacted. Fewer than 1 in 5 smoke, so I'd rather please the 4 than the one...and the public health issue....

Anyone who thinks that they can draw useful data from a 7-month-old smoking ban is very naive.

You should get your numbers from places like California, Colorado, Arizona, New York, Delaware. Wanna go overseas? The UK, Ireland, Bahrain, Denmark, Aregentina, so, so many more.

It's a movement, and it's driven by the people, by majorities. I lived in California when the ban was enacted, I lived in London when the ban was enacted there, and I lived in Denver when it happened here, and it was a movement of the people. Meanwhile, the smokers - the minority - had all the same tired arguments that I'm seeing on this board. It's all the same everywhere, everytime, and nothing I have heard you utter here, Al, is original... it's the just the gasping desperation of an addict.

You'll die a smoker, and you have that right, but the vast majority of humans LOVE IT when they can go to a restaurant and then not come home smelling like smoke. And the majority is what counts in our country. Get used to it.

P,S The special rules for casinos, as you outlined above, can't be defined as "ironic". Allow me to define irony for you: It's a when a man argues against a smoking ban by admitting that there are places in his home state where he can still go to smoke (the casinos).

the vast majority of humans LOVE IT when they can go to a restaurant and then not come home smelling like smoke. And the majority is what counts in our country.

Then I encourage you to patronize establishments who voluntarily support your choice and agree with your opinion. I do NOT support that attitude that you should be able to impose your opinion or desires upon a business owner and the owner of private property who chooses to do otherwise.

If all non-smokers and anti-smokers would simply NOT patronize establishments where smoking is allowed then the free market would take care of it. The establishments, either non-smoking or smoker friendly, would naturally survive or go under based upon their own business success. THAT is what America and free enterprise is supposed to be about.

Finally, it is not always the majority that counts. There are instances where personal choice and personal freedom allows an individual to make choices and behave in a manner the majority does not condone. When you take away that individual's right to exercise free choice, you jeopardize your own. Someone is lurking in the wings, just waiting to tell YOU how to behave, what you will do, what you will not do and how you will run your privately owned enterprise.

Since most anti-smoking proponents argue that business will increase with a ban, then allow the owners of all businesses to make that choice - freely. With NO government intervention. If it really does work then the market will prevail and establishments WILL become non-smoking of their own volition.

You're right that majority doesn't count in all cases, and you made a good point. I was wrong about that. In this case, however, it seems clear to me that the opinion of the majority is what drives this legislation, from coast to coast in our country, and around the world and back. I don't think that this movement would have any momentum if it wasn't back by most people.

The article says the Elkhart council voted 9-0. That's unanimous! I can't see how these nine, presumably everyday, average people would all be in on a conspiracy to defraud businesses on their community. I have to believe that they think they are doing what is best for their community. All of them, not one dissenting voice.

And you see this kind of thing going on around the globe.

As to your suggestion that people should not patronize establishments that allow smoking, I've heard that argument from the very beginning of this movement, but no one seems to be buying into it. It's too simple, it doesn't work. It doesn't work, Rod.

It means that: A) Everyone non-smoker who loves to drink in a bar has to stop going to bars. I don't want to stop going to bars, Rod!; and B) Non-smokers have to find bars that don't allow smoking. They don't exist, Rod! Not in the many places where I have lived, and that is because a non-smoking bar has no chance of competing with the smoking bar across the street.

And I never made any comments about whether business slows or increases, so I'm not sure who your last comment was directed towards. However, I am of the opinion that, as with anything major change, some business will go under (because they catered to a smoking crowd), and others will rise in their place. This is my opinion only, I have never seen any numbers that I trust, on either side of the argument.

Rodger I live in Pueblo Co And I don't remember voting on a smoking ban just big brother telling us what to do.

Oh my gosh... There are already MULTITUDES of laws and regulations that ANY business owner has to follow before he/she even opens its doors! There are tax laws, employment laws, laws for advertising, buying merchandise, selling merchandise.... and if the business is already a bar or restaurant that establishment already has to comply with other board of health regulations... So are you saying the restaurants don't have to comply with the regulations that they sell clean and properly cooked food? The people who touch the food and serve the drinks don't have to wash their hands? The business doesn't have to keep the food properly in storage?

That is an enterprising idea....

To say that the Government does not regulate what you do in your own home means that you can not get in trouble for doing or selling illegal drugs out of your own home right? WRONG. The government should limit what they regulate, and I do not agree with some state laws, but the fact is they regulate everything. Not just business.

tobacco is NOT a legal substance- it is a decriminalized substance- like alcohol, etc. Many laws regulate it- who can purchase, etc. Tobacco is a regulated, controlled substance.

When was tobacco ever ciminalized? What drug level was it?

Well yes, obnoxious drunks and screaming infants are definitely irritating. But they won't kill you; cigarettes will.

And if you are claiming that businesses are hurt by losing the patronage of smokers, I counter with this: many people will START going to smoke-free bars and restaurants, after avoiding them for years so as not to have to breathe other people's cigarette smoke.

I am a former smoker (pack a day for 18 years), so I have seen both sides. I prefer this one, for sure (six years smoke-free as of this week--yay!).

I never said they'd kill you. Geesh, i just said they were irritating just as others have said smoke is irritating.

People that don't read and anaylze what they are reading is irritating as well, but i'm sure you won't kill me either. So I'll add a " ignorant or non-ignorant" section to my list LOLOL

And reformed smokers are the worst advocates of all. They are like "born again christians." I was once a sinner, but now I've seen the light!! PUUUUHHHLLLLLEEEEZZZZEEE.

And let people go to smoke free bars and restaurants, such is their choice. The same being my choice to go to establishment that allow smoking. CHOICES!!!!!!!!! I've made mine, others have made theirs, fine and dandy. And I never said business were being hurt by going non-smoking. They just lose the clientele that do smoke, which they probably make up by those who don't smoke.

I wanna smoke, so lead, follow, or gimme a damn light!!!

Go to any motel and ask how many smoking and non smoking rooms available, youll always find vacancies in the non smoking rooms but all smoking rooms will be full, same with restruants that have non smoking sections, even bingo halls, the non smoking sections are always almost empty while the smoking section is over flowing with customers. If you dont like my smoke, simple, leave. I dont go to non smoking resturants because I like a smoke after I eat. If youre going to get rid of smoking, get rid of the squalling brats parents bring to resturants plus add a no farting section and a non bather section and a heavy perfume section. Lets see whitch section fills up first.

Being in the restaurant/bar business for 37 years, I can tell you that since fewer than 1 in 5 Americans smoke, I won't miss your business, but I WILL enjoy all of the new customers I'll get by having a smoke-free environment! Your loss, since you are limiting your options as to where to go. Oh, I used to smoke 3 packs a day, and quit cold turkey about 15 years ago, but I could always get through dinner w/out a smoke. If someone sitting at the next table is eating I doubt they want to smell your habit.

That's great jeff milligan. About this 1 in 5 smokers and how it will only benefit your business. I almost think you are trying to make yourself believe what you're saying by repeating it.

" I won't miss your business, but I WILL enjoy all of the new customers I'll get by having a smoke-free environment! "

So .. you have allowed smoking, up til the ban, all this time in your establishment? Why? You could have made it non smoking at any time and reaped all these wonderful benefits years ago.

Isn't it amazing how huys like him miss that side of the argument? Miss or just plain ignore it? Or maybe he's just a dishwasher and not in a decision making capacity.

Hey Jeff, was it a restaurant or bar you worked in? There is a big diffrence!!! Here in Elkhart, which I believe is what this article is refering to, we have the option to drive ten minutes extra to go to a smoking bar in the county. As bars have already started switching over, my friends and I have started going to pubs in the county. Some of us smoke, others don't, but we all still want to hang out together. I am sure glad that my non-smoking friends aren't a bunch of whiners like I see in here. Additionally, here in Elkhart, we can't smoke within fifteen feet of the door, so no outside patios, nothing. If a smoker goes outside, they are now subject to a public intoxication charge.

The comments today have been great and entertaining on both ends and I’m compelled to respond. I am not a cig smoker and hate the smell and inconvenience of smoke at a bar or lounge. I live in NJ not far from NY. Both have had bans on smoking for several years now. And all bars that I frequented pre ban have the same crowds and volume post ban. Now NY is notorious for bars coming and going, but it’s not because of smoking bans. Actually there was a point when NJ still allowed smoking and NY (right across the river) didn’t. The bars in NY were just as crowded as the NJ bars back then.

I understand the argument that non-smokers should just go to bars with non-smoking rules. But that would only be valid if those bars existed before bans were put in place. I knew of none in the NY/NJ area before the ban (perhaps some existed in other cities that allow smoking in bars). So in order for my friends and I to hit a pub or bar we had no choice but to be around smoke when we went out to a club, bar or lounge.

From what I understand the smoking ban in NY was put in place for the employee’s benefit working at the bar, not the customers. It was viewed in the same light as working in a building with asbestos – a no go.

Now I smoke cigars from time to time. But I only do so on the golf course, cookouts or other outdoor activities. I know that a cigar has a powerful aroma, and for most an unpleasing one. So when I do light up I’m very considerate of those around me and won’t if I know there are people who just hate cigars, even outside. I can still have fun without them, but then again, I’m not addicted to nicotine either.

Bottom line is that when you smoke you can not do so without directly impacting those around you physically. For that reason I feel it’s an action that should not be allowed in places open to the general public. A bar or lounge or club that required memberships are a different story and I’m not sure if the law should step over that line or not.

Maybe one day they’ll invent a devise that will capture all smoke expended immediately so as to eliminate its impact to the person next to you. But until then is it really that hard to step outside for a few minutes to smoke a cig?

Sorry for the long response…

I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who brought up being around heavy drinkers, rude cell phone users, crying babies in movies & restaurants, etc.

Smoking is NOT the ONLY irritating and/or 'health issue' subject that needs addressing. I recently missed out on the most suspenseful part of an entire movie due to a crying baby (no, it didn't effect my health, but it ruined the movie for which I paid $12 to watch). Few weeks ago, I had to wait an additional FIFTEEN minutes in a grocery store line due to a woman using her cell phone while trying to also check out a large cart-full of groceries -- this made me late for an important appointment! Two months ago, I was walking from my car to a store when a drunk adult male tripped & collided with me, knocking me down & giving me a sprained ankle....yes, I called the police & NO, I'm not suing the drunk as he is homeless & has no $$.

Are ANY of you posters aware of the damage done to ALL of our lungs by vehicles in large cities & metropolitan areas? Do any of you know what URETHANES are & where they're found (they're extremely carcinogenic & are found in many of the things we all use daily -- Google it if you want to know more). Do any of you know the carcinogenic damage done to all of us by petrochemicals? If not, Google that one, too.

Lastly, get real people -- government at all levels does NOT care if smokers quit....they care about the millions of $$ they're racking up in tax dollars! This long debate re smoking/non-smoking is endless & unwinnable.

Zapain, I am so glad to see someone bring up the topic of cell phones and the stuff they talk about is so RIDICULOUS, "I'm on my way to the mall", "see you in fifteen minutes", and "she said this and she said that", come on, GET A LIFE, who cares!!!! It's like look at me, I'm important!!!

with an I.Q. like that I'm surprised you could type that simple statement...

Because not everyone who goes to a bar wants to smell smoke. I used to smoke 3 packs a day, quit 15 years ago, but even when I smoked the bars were way to smokey to enjoy. Sorry for your losses to tobacco, but that's another reason for steeper regulations- to reduce public health-related costs- not just medical costs- lower productivity, lost work days, etc.

Why not lett the busniess owner decide? Thats way too simple, and doesn't involve government regulation in your life!!!

Wake up and smell YOUR rights slipping through your fingers.

Jeff,

I have seen you post quite a bit on here and in post 11.3 you state you quit smoking 20 years ago. in 21.4 you state you quit 15 years ago. in 24.3 you state you quit 18 years ago. You sir, are a liar. If you lie about this, what else have you lied about? You are no longer a credible voice in this debate. Sit on the sidelines and just read from now on.

How dumb are people, we're not talking about smokers rights, we're talking about business owner rights.

We are not the only one with rights, BUT, we do have them just as you non-smokers do. DUH!

Don't give them too much credit for thinking or having common sense- they smoke, remember? How smart can that be? And- I used to smoke 3 pks a day- quit 18 years ago...

Your last comment said 15 yrs ago, can I give you a light?

Jeff, we get it you don't like smoking! As someone posted earlier it's always the "I used to smoke" reborn people who complain the loudest. You seem a little over enthused about this whole subject, as you have posted on almost every single comment. Now your saying that people who smoke aren't very smart. Obama smokes as far as I know, are you saying he isn't a smart person. Relax, take it easy or your going to have a stroke.

Actually he quit... but my guess he smoked in private situations and didn't impose his will to smoke on others.

Jeff,

I have seen you post quite a bit on here and in post 11.3 you state you quit smoking 20 years ago. in 21.4 you state you quit 15 years ago. in 24.3 you state you quit 18 years ago. You sir, are a liar. If you lie about this, what else have you lied about? You are no longer a credible voice in this debate. Sit on the sidelines and just read from now on.

They are not the only ones with rights, but they DO have rights. I don't want to be around smokers, and I don't eat in smoking restaurants - but since tobacco is legal they have the right to smoke it, and a business owner has the rights to establish the rules in his/her place.