You Can Take My High Life...

[AustinHoya03]

...but you'll have to pry the Marlboro Lights out of my cold, dead hands. It's bad enough Austin just enacted a smoking ban -- now it may be completely impossible for me to re-live smoky nights at The Tombs, where the girls always looked better through a haze (and HL goggles). Don't sign that bill until after the weekend, Tony!

www.thehoya.com/news/011306/news8.cfm

[CTHoya08]

Similar laws have been in place in New York, Connecticut, and I think New Jersey and possibliy a few other states for a couple years now.

[CAHoya07]

I believe California was the first state to enact a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. It's more of a public health thing. I mean, just think if you were a waiter or waitress for 8 hours, and had to ingest all the cigarette smoke from people all night? It's a health risk, and it's also just flat out annoying.

If you really want to smoke, just do it outside, and spare everyone else's lungs.

[Jack]

cahoya07 said:

I believe California was the first state to enact a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. It's more of a public health thing. I mean, just think if you were a waiter or waitress for 8 hours, and had to ingest all the cigarette smoke from people all night? It's a health risk, and it's also just flat out annoying.

If you really want to smoke, just do it outside, and spare everyone else's lungs.

Funny thing is, bartenders and waitresses I know typically put far more smoke into their own lungs willingly than through any second-hand smoke. I know not everyone can get another job, but why is there an exception being made for cigar bars and houka bars? I am not a smoker and I will enjoy smoke-free bars, but I don't think it is right to legislate this kind of stuff- if the demand for smoke-free bars was as high as people claim, then more places would do it voluntarily.

As for the Tombs, I am not sure if they are licensed as a restaurant or a tavern. Taverns get a full year to comply, so your Marlboro Lights may be safe for now.

[SFHoya99]

Public smoking bans are fantastic. Now, it is a little worse in cold-weather cities, I'll admit, but most smokers I know in SF actually like the law. One, just like everyone else, they don't reek of smoke coming out of a bar. Two, more than one has told me the best place to meet folks is smoking outside the bar -- strangers always standing around together.

I suppose if you are just a huge smoker -- there's always a cigarette in your mouth -- then it is an issue. But most smokers I know are more of the "every forty minutes or so they disappear for five minutes" type.

California was by far the first state to legislate.

[AustinHoya03]

Full disclosure: I don't smoke anymore, I just have fond memories of lighting up at The Tombs, so this really doesn't affect me. I'm not personally a big fan of smoking bans, but I seem to be in the minority, and that's fine.

And yes, California was the first state to ban smoking. To my knowledge, they are still the only state to have banned indoor smoking -- the rest of the bans are city ordinances. You may have killed the Marlboro Man on the left coast, but y'all also killed the music scene in Los Angeles, to hear some tell it. Then again, the music scene in El Lay more or less died when GNR broke up.

One of the consequences of the smoking ban here is that's it's difficult to go eat dinner anywhere that has an outdoor patio. I've never been a fan of smoke with my quesadillas.

[AustinHoya03]

Nevermind -- there are 10 states with statewide smoking bans, including those CTHoya listed. My bad.

[SoCalHoya]

You think "Febreze" maker Proctor and Gamble lobbied against these bills? That was the only reason I ever used it, and now I don't have to! Washington just approved its own ban, which also prevents smokers from getting within 25 feet of a window/entrance!

[washingtonhoya]

socalhoya said:

Washington just approved its own ban, which also prevents smokers from getting within 25 feet of a window/entrance!

They (local and county authorities) still need to do a better job enforcing the ban, however. There are certain parts of the state where that ban wasn't, shall we say, well-received.

[TBird41]

I can't wait. The bars in Minneapolis are smoke free. It was beautiful to be able to go, have a few beers, play some darts and not emerge smelling like smoke.

And this way, I won't have to do laundry as much, since my clothes won't stink after leaving the Tombs (which requires me to change clothes every day! I can't afford that much laundry, I'm a college student!)

[TigerHoya]

I don't smoke but I prefer letting property owners make a decision about their own property and letting the free market work things out.

[Cambridge]

I am a former (still occasional smoker) and I'm for the ban...why? Because of what SF said, seriously, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Deleted]

I "grew up" in the smoking-heavy bars of Buffalo. Lots of places complain to this day about the ban and how its killing their business. A few famous Buffalo eateries have even cited the negative impact of the ban as the primary reason they've closed down. Basically, it was all I knew - people smoked in bars, you dealt with the smelly clothes, the extra-strong hangover from second hand smoke... no big deal.

But after a few years of smoke free bars, I gotta say... I'd hate to go back. And like my main man 'Bridge, I enjoy the occasional cancer stick or robusto. But I like the alcohol-only hangover and not having to wash my coat every other week.

[TBird41]

cambridgehoya said:

I am a former (still occasional smoker) and I'm for the ban...why? Because of what SF said, seriously, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

As Lois Griffin once said, "If she smokes, she pokes". A wise woman that Lois Griffin.

[tgo]

the tyranny of the majority strikes again in this country. why is it the governments' role to make rules on what legal pursuits a private business can allow their customers to partake in?

a couple things about california, when they passed that law, the restuarant industry took a nose dive- was that good for the service industry who now was making less money and getting fewer hours at work?

in california, when the ban passed, there were already many smoke free establishments and by now, i am positive that all restuarants would be voluntarily smoke free because as this thred shows, most people want it that way, however, there are many bars that would do well as smoking allowed bars since there is a large portion of the population that enjoys that type of environment and another portion of the population that would be indifferent, then your servers that were concerned about second hand smoke could avoid these few bars and the overwhelming majority who dont care would work wherever they made the most money.

the real story here is why is smoking still legal? if the nanny state can tell you that you have a right to be in a bar without smoke (why do you have a right to come to the business i own and dictate the terms underwich you use my services?) they why cant they tell you that you cant smoke at all. which will set the stage for telling you when you can use your cell phone or monitoring how much junk food you are allowed to eat or whether or not you can consume alcohol-wait this is already happening...

Most states outside the tabacco growing south would outlaw smoking all together if it went to a popular vote since the majority loves to assert its will over the minority, but of course our state governments are addicted to the sales taxes they impose on smokers as well as the payoffs they recieved from the settlements with RJ Reynolds and the like so the powers that bill wont allow that extreme, but it doesnt make this loss of freedom any less ridiculous.

careful what freedoms you give up in the name of the common good, you might not like the society that results when these ideas are taken to their logical conclusion.

[CTHoya08]

A lot of states already have laws banning cell phone use while driving.

[tgo]

cthoya08 said:

A lot of states already have laws banning cell phone use while driving.

exactly, but why? should we also ban people from eating their mcdonalds while driving or doing their make up or disciplining their child or checking a map for directions? these all cause just as much if not more of a distraction as talking on the phone, are people prepared to lose all these freedoms? Look at the FAA. Right now it is deciding whether or not to allow cell phones on planes, why is this a govt decision? when it was for the safety of the plane then the rule made sense, but since that appears to no be longer the case, then let the airlines listen to their customers and make their rules based on what the market wants. if people will purchase a trip based on being able to do business or chat on the plane or if the presence of people chating on the plane will hurt business, then airlines will act accordingly. i am not completely certain but i seem to remember that airlines banned smoking on their own, i know this is true of international flights but not sure of domestic, that is how these things should work, not because the govt stepping in and made it happen.

[CTHoya08]

I think the cell phone laws are stupid too. I guess I misunderstood your post, thinking you weren't aware of them.

[SFHoya99]

I don't really think there's a lot of justification for the anti-smoking rules, tgo, but I still think they are great.

There were a lot of non-smoking restaurants in California, but virtually no bars. It was almost a product that people didn't know they wanted...and a product suppliers didn't think would work.

I don't think the service industry suffered one bit because of smoking laws, either. Amazing, how that timing coincided with a country-wide recession. I've never once heard a smoker say they weren't going out because of the ban.

That said, I do have a little libertarian in me, but hey, I like the bans. Frankly, I think most libertarians are not conscious of the fact that there are many "freedoms" that don't impinge on my freedoms. Cigarette smoke is not only damaging to my health but also gives me terrible headaches. So if me and a cigarette smoker want to go to a club to watch a ban, whose rights are more infringed upon?

As for cell phone laws, well, talking on a cell phone in a car has been statistically proven to cause more accidents. So...um...yeah, I mean, that sucks for you and all, but I'd rather LIVE than have your cell phone talking ass plow into me. Same with drunk driving laws, speeding laws, reckless driving laws, driver's licenses, whatever.

Every right impinges on someone else's right to do something else.