Now, this is interesting:
Several downtown Champaign bars will remain smoke-free regardless of whether the city council repeals the smoking ban for bars and clubs this week.
Carlos Nieto, who owns six downtown bars, and Jon "Cody" Sokolski, who co-owns Boltini Lounge, 211 N. Neil St., both say they will continue to ban smoking inside their bars.
"We prefer it this way," Nieto said. "Our customers prefer it this way. It's had a positive effect on sales. It's good for business."
"We're not changing," Sokolski said. "We're not going back."
I've always been a proponent of both businesses owners and consumers having choices. I'm glad to see that some bar owners will remain smoke free voluntarily, and I still maintain that a smoking ban, local or statewide, is completely unnecessary, as I think market forces would have caused bars and restaurants to increasingly be smoke-free anyway.
Really fascinating how at Nieto's bars, business is up, and at Cochrane's bars, it's "killed business". I'm really curious which way it is.
It's probably true for both.
Neither owner has an incentive to lie, but both probably have bars that serve very different clienteles.
That's one reason why I've always argued that it's best to give both owners and consumers a choice.
You nailed it, IP. Not everyone is going to have a non-smoking crowd. Different venues, different people, different wants.
I don't have a single doubt in my mind that places like the Brass Rail and Huber's and others who have no ability to provide an outdoor smoking area for their customers suffered from this ban. Instead of looking to businesses to become smoke-free, *all* businesses were *forced* to go smoke free.
Now it will be a true matter of choice---for at least 7 months.
My favorite tidbit is how Nieto is worried that customers will be "confused." Basically, we're all stupid.
It would be nice if a campus bar or two stays smoke free, so students will have a choice as well as downtown patrons.
"It would be nice if a campus bar or two stays smoke free, so students will have a choice as well as downtown patrons."
If a lot of students want a smoke-free option, they can have one - by letting Campustown bar managers know, in large numbers, that they'd prefer to patronize smoke-free establishments.
This is marvelous news.
I concur with IP on the campus bars. IMHO, the best thing these students could do right now would be to go into the campus bars they like and go to already--in small groups would be nice. Ask them to stay smoke-free; take the time to order up a cold beverage while making the request. Write "please stay smoke-free for us" on a napkin and sign it. There are lots of ways to tell businesses what you'd like.
I think most bars really just want to be able to provide the kind of environment that the majority of their loyal customers want. And that's the key. Each bar has its own unique customer base. Different people have different desires. For some bars, smoke-free is working. For others, it's doing serious damage. And it looks like a distinct possibility that for a little while, we'll all have a choice in the matter.
Choice.
What a cool concept.
"I still maintain that a smoking ban, local or statewide, is completely unnecessary"
If you don't believe smoking kills, then you're right. The impact of an outright smoking ban in public places is positive on so many levels. Already some bars are seeing additonal revenue, so take any loss the cities thought they'd see out of the discussion. Now think of the money saved in stealthcare. (That's healthcare costs that we don't see as a result of smoking.) Add to that the positive image the cities will see from outsiders and the picture brightens.
Tom Bruno said it best: health trumps business.
"as far as health goes from second had smoke; I don’t need the government telling me what’s personally healthy"
Of course not. We already know smoking and second-hand smoke cost this community in so many way.Even if I don't go into a smoky bar, it affects my wallet!
Tom Bruno not owning a bar makes no difference. I don't eat meat but I think it's okay for the government to tell bar and restaurant owners to store their hamburgers at a certain temp. Get over the "government has not right" argument. The goverment has every right to keep its citizens healthy.
And, again, the OVERALL economic impact -- including stealthcare -- will turn out for the best. This, ladies and gents, takes forsight.
I'm more curious if Cochrane ever spends time in his campus bars. You know, the ones with lines out the door multiple days a week. I'm sure having only 15 people constantly waiting to get in instead of 20 is really killing his business....
Freedon is more important, Having smokers go home and smoke does change much and I don't agree that second hand smoke cause's the problems people say they do. Use a little forsight and plan not to go into a bar were they smoke.
Big government does not come cheap either.
"If you don't believe smoking kills, then you're right. The impact of an outright smoking ban in public places is positive on so many levels."
To me, it's got nothing to do with the health risks.
Even without a smoking ban, secondhand smoke is easily avoided by those who want to avoid it. If enough people had wanted to avoid it, more businesses would have already gone smoke-free voluntarily. Businesses are, after all, in the business of making money and meeting their customers' wants and needs.
A smoking ban is entirely unnecessary - this isn't rat feces in the food or unwashed hands - every potential customer could easily determine whether a business allowed smoking, and could easily take their business to establishments that didn't.
A smoking ban is entirely unnecessary because people are perfectly capable of avoiding secondhand smoke without the government's help.
But, we've been through these arguments a million times. Now, with more bars (a majority?) remaining smoke free, people will have more choices and be able to avoid secondhand smoke if they so choose, while others can smoke if they so choose. I believe in letting business owners and customers choose.
But I also believe this argument has gone on for way, way too long, especially here locally. So I've said my piece - you can feel free to insult me or agree with me - it's your choice.
I'm pleased to see that there will be a free market in Champaign for seven months. It is a unique and noble experiment. Maybe it will encourage other communities to stand for their rights next year.
The decision of the Nietos and Sokolski is a shrewd (albeit obvious) marketing strategy. There should be several Class A licenses they can snap up next year to build more creative class lounges. The working class can go drink and smoke in their garages after their bars close. It's just as well, they can't afford creative class martinis anyway.
Good lord, Eggs....even when you get what you want for 7 months, you're complaining that "they" are still after the "poor, downtrodden working class", determined to keep them locked away into their garages.
Neither owner has an incentive to lie, but both probably have bars that serve very different clienteles.
I don't think this is true. There is plenty of reason for a business owner to misrepresent her/his profits. I have no idea if it is the case here.
This comes up everytime, but I can never remember. Do you all not believe in any sort of government health regulation of private business whatsoever, or is smoking somehow special?
"I don't think this is true. There is plenty of reason for a business owner to misrepresent her/his profits. I have no idea if it is the case here."
Business owner A has seen increased revenue post-ban: Why would they lie (say they're losing revenue when they're not) in order to push a policy that would reduce that revenue?
Business owner B has seen decreeased revenue post-ban: Why would they lie (say they're increasing revenue when they're not) when the truth helps them push the policy that garnered more revenue?
That said, Occam's Razor: the most likely explanation is that different bars serve different clienteles and are having different experiences relating to the ban. Why do people assume that those who oppose them politically are lying, even though lying would make no economic sense for them?
This comes up everytime, but I can never remember. Do you all not believe in any sort of government health regulation of private business whatsoever, or is smoking somehow special?"
Did you even read my comment? I said:
This isn't like any other health regulation, as people can easily determine on their own which establishments are smoking-allowed and which aren't. It doesn't work that way with undercooked chicken or unclean conditions in the kitchen.
CHOICE!!!!! HOORAY!!!!
Health codes on things I cannot readily see for myself, good! Restrictions of legal activites on private property, bad. Freedom of choice for patrons to choose for themselves, priceless..
Thank God some bar owners are sensible and forward-thinking enough to keep their establishments healthy,
The rest of this debate is the usual nonsense. In this argument, there are the people who get it and the people who don't get it. The people who don't get it want to "go back to the way we were."
"Good lord, Eggs....even when you get what you want for 7 months, you're complaining that "they" are still after the "poor, downtrodden working class", determined to keep them locked away into their garages."
And your point is?
Let's have a going away party for Wenalway tomorrow after work at MOM.
My point is that even when you "win", you still complain that you're "losing"....
"Good lord, Eggs....even when you get what you want for 7 months, you're complaining that 'they' are still after the 'poor, downtrodden working class', determined to keep them locked away into their garages."
And even when you get what you want, you're complaining it won't take full effect for seven more months. Good Lord, Arvid.
It's got nothing to do with health risks? Where have you been?
Did you even read my comment? I said:
To be honest, no. Sorry about that.
I think this is where it helps to quit arguing whole points and break it down more. What is it exactly that you are proposing? I don't believe that it's necessarily easy to determine whether a place is or isn't smoke-free. What do you want, signage, the assumption that all places are smoking unless told when entering the establishment? Vice Versa?
One reason why we get so little done in these discussions is that people tend to choose sides rather than work with the nuances of their arguments.
We have pretty similiar positions--there is neither an overwhelming need for regulation of business, nor a complete absence of such a need.
We just disagree on where workplace safety issues come in and we may disagree on the balance between caveat whatever it is and informing the customer, but maybe not.
So all the "nanny-statism", slippery-slope, and smoking is evil arguments hold little relevance and neither of us should be defending either.
This decision by Nieto and Cody is brilliant. They will attract more students from campus and Eric Meyer will be left scratching his head. A non-smoking campus bar would be packed, as they are in Bloomington, Indiana.
At Indiana University there is no distinction between campus and downtown and the have enjoyed an 18% increase in sales since Monroe County went 100% clean-air.
Statistics are available from the Monroe County, Indiana government.
I don't believe that it's necessarily easy to determine whether a place is or isn't smoke-free.
- If you go inside and you smell smoke, then either one of two things is true:
#1 - The establishment allows smoking.
#2 - The building is on fire.
Interesting comments above about choice versus no choice. Somehow lost in the shuffle is any discussion of the free market forces at work with respect to which bars will survive. Maybe places like the Ice House were already doomed to extinction because of changing demographics. Maybe competition from the ever increasing numbers of bars was already driving the bottom end performers out of business. Maybe restaurants like Taffies were already feeling the pressure of competition from the many alternatives available to us in C-U.
As for dropping the ban for 7 months it seems like the Mayor is determined to use the time as effectively as he can in making us consume secondhand smoke. And let's not forget the restauranteurs and bar owners brought a lot of these negative feelings about smoking on themselves by not offering true smoke free alternatives in their businesses. The "no smoking" sections in virtually all of these places were demarcated by invisible lines in the (smokey) air
Uhm... am I missing something or does all this become completely irrelevant in a few months when the state wide ban kicks in?
"I think this is where it helps to quit arguing whole points and break it down more."
I don't think that the argument here can be broken down much more simply, Xian. It's free market versus more government control.
"What is it exactly that you are proposing?"
Free market.
"What do you want, signage, the assumption that all places are smoking unless told when entering the establishment?"
The people for more government control could require an 11 X 14 sign with a skull and crossbones on it with "DANGER - KILLER SMOKE INSIDE," on it to be placed on smoking establishment entrances for all I care.
"Uhm... am I missing something or does all this become completely irrelevant in a few months when the state wide ban kicks in?"
You're missing something. See past discussions about private business rights.
"My point is that even when you "win", you still complain that you're "losing"...."
Thanks for explaining. Your debating methods are so subtle I didn't even realize you were debating.
"business rights" is just another way of saying "we're still not happy about having to let Irish, Colored, and Foreigners into our bar".
"To be honest, no. Sorry about that."
That's OK - I shouldn't have been so crabby.
"I think this is where it helps to quit arguing whole points and break it down more. What is it exactly that you are proposing? I don't believe that it's necessarily easy to determine whether a place is or isn't smoke-free. What do you want, signage, the assumption that all places are smoking unless told when entering the establishment? Vice Versa?"
I think it's very easy for someone who wants to avoid secondhand smoke to avoid businesses that allow it. If they walk into an establishment and either see or smell tobacco smoke - which is easily detectable by humans, as all the testimony at Council meetings about stinky clothes verifies - they should leave, and as they leave they should politely tell the manager why they're leaving.
If enough people had done that in the first place, more places would have been smoke-free voluntarily sooner.
And, again, I'm not arguing this is a slippery slope - I think smoking bans are different than other health regulations because people can determine easily on their own which establishments don't meet their own personal standards for health, vis a vis tobacco smoke. Most other health regulations cover things that the consumer cannot easily avoid on their own.
- If you go inside and you smell smoke, then either one of two things is true:
#1 - The establishment allows smoking.
#2 - The building is on fire.
Wow, I hope this was an honest mistake and not attempted snark because you wouldn't look too good. There's a whole other possibility right?
What if you don't smell smoke?
I don't think that the argument here can be broken down much more simply, Xian. It's free market versus more government control.
See Gordy? This is exactly what I am talking about. Some people either are not clear on their own arguments, or they are in favor of an utterly free market-rat droppings, children falling into the vat, whatever.
""business rights" is just another way of saying "we're still not happy about having to let Irish, Colored, and Foreigners into our bar"."
Well, no.
But I'm sorry that you think calling people racists helps persuade people of the merits of your position over theirs.
"Wow, I hope this was an honest mistake and not attempted snark because you wouldn't look too good. There's a whole other possibility right?
What if you don't smell smoke?"
I think smoke is easily detectable by both smell and sight. If you diagree, I'm not sure anything I'll say will be able to convince you.
"See Gordy? This is exactly what I am talking about. Some people either are not clear on their own arguments, or they are in favor of an utterly free market-rat droppings, children falling into the vat, whatever."
True. But if you want to ignore them, then feel free to do so. There are extremists in every thread, and I've been spending less and less time engaging them.
Some of us feel a smoking ban is an issue unto itself, and we're able to discuss it seperately from other health regulations.
Well, no.
But I'm sorry that you think calling people racists helps persuade people of the merits of your position over theirs.
Any extreme free market position is going to be complicit with inequities in the society whether the person debating the issue is overtly bigoted or not. This is not really a fair response to a fair criticism of an extreme position.
Like it or not there is no existing capitalist system where people are able to devote 100% of their decision-making to maximizing their profit margin.
I think smoke is easily detectable by both smell and sight. If you diagree, I'm not sure anything I'll say will be able to convince you.
Huh? I was talking about lack of smoke. Walking into a place with no detectable smoke is not a protection from someone lighting up. If you are talking about smoke as a simple annoyance, fine, but what about a serious health concern?
"But I'm sorry that you think calling people racists helps persuade people of the merits of your position over theirs."
At the time of the civil rights struggle, most business owners simply argued that while they themselves were not racist, their regular customers preferred whites-only bars, and would leave in droves if "those people" were let in. Why would the public come to their bar or restaurant and be forced to associate with Negroes when they could stay at home and eat and drink with their own kind.
Generally, on this site, name calling appears to be accepted as long as your side is the one calling names. "Nanny-stater" seems to be the most popular.
Even if he ban gets reversed, it was nice to give the bar owners a chance to see that there is a marketplace place for non-smoking venues.
The smoking ban has provided folks who cannot, or prefer not to be exposed to secondhand smoke a choice. This is a choice that they did not have before the ban took effect if they wanted to go out. I must respectfully disagree that any bar would have went non-smoking voluntarily, it was simply an unneccesary risk that was too large to take before the ban. Why step off the ledge when you dont know what is down there, especially if you dont have to? Now that some businesses have found their bottom line looking better, it is a no brainer for them to not go back. I wholeheartedly agree that different establishments have been effected by the ban in different ways and that just because one place is doing better, that does not mean all places are doing better. It is a relief however to see that this situation has yet to cause any businesses to close and that the overall city revenue as a result of these businesses is holding strong regardless of what happens at the meeting tonight.
Most business owners argued that they themselves were not racist, but that if they allowed minorities into their establishments, all of their regular patrons would desert them. They wanted the right to keep minorities out because they themselves were best able to judge what their business should and should not allow.
Namecalling seems to be a valid tactic when they serve your side of the argument. "Nannystater" comes to mind a lot. "Nazi" also works. "Anti" (whatever) also works.
Eggs, it's not really fair to call all of Nieto's bars "creative class lounges." Jupiters, Cowboy Monkey and Guidos have reasonably priced and good food and $1.50 pints of PBR. Three people can order a large pizza at Jupiters, have a pint or two and get out of there for about $25. Try and find some other place where you can do that! Highdive and Cowboy Monkey are music venues for the younger crowd..
Soma and Boltini , well, yes, those are creative class lounges.
"Huh? I was talking about lack of smoke. Walking into a place with no detectable smoke is not a protection from someone lighting up. If you are talking about smoke as a simple annoyance, fine, but what about a serious health concern?"
I'm talking about people being able to avoid secondhand smoke. I thought you were, as well.
Avoiding secondhand smoke isn't hard - if you smell it or see it, either leave and take your business elsewhere, or do not enter in the first place.
"I must respectfully disagree that any bar would have went non-smoking voluntarily, it was simply an unneccesary risk that was too large to take before the ban. Why step off the ledge when you dont know what is down there, especially if you dont have to?"
Market pressures were never tried, because the activists thought that pushing for all-encompassing legislation was easier. So we'll never know.
"At the time of the civil rights struggle, most business owners simply argued that while they themselves were not racist, their regular customers preferred whites-only bars, and would leave in droves if "those people" were let in. Why would the public come to their bar or restaurant and be forced to associate with Negroes when they could stay at home and eat and drink with their own kind."
I'm amused that people laugh off slippery slope arguments as being too broad and too alarmist, but that you're comfortable making comparisoins between banning people from entering an establishment because of their race with allowing people to choose whether or not to patronize businesses that allow smoking. I'm sure that's perfectly reasonable.
"Generally, on this site, name calling appears to be accepted as long as your side is the one calling names. "Nanny-stater" seems to be the most popular."
I'm sorry you feel that way. Generally, I don't mind if people attack positions. Nanny-stater fits that criteria. So does "shill for the tobacco industry," which is a popular one to be thrown at me. I'm don't think calling someone a "racist" is attacking a position.
Huh? I was talking about lack of smoke. Walking into a place with no detectable smoke is not a protection from someone lighting up. If you are talking about smoke as a simple annoyance, fine, but what about a serious health concern?
Given the volatility of the issue and the importance of it to customers on both sides of the fence, I would expect bars to put a sign on the front door, whether required to by law or not. The presence of ashtrays--or lack thereof--should be a good second-glance indicator.
Like some of us have been saying all along: we have all kinds of different people living in this city, and different people have different needs and desires. Bars, like any other businesses, need to make decisions up front as to which general group of people they want to attract. And attracting those customers means being up-front about what you have to offer. Smoking is (or should be) just another variable.
The hospitality industry runs on relationships. No bar would last long at all enticing people to come in under false pretenses. So expect the smoke-free bars to proudly advertise "We're still smoke free" while the bars that choose to allow smoking will be equally proud in posting the "You can smoke here" signs.
I'm talking about people being able to avoid secondhand smoke. I thought you were, as well.
Avoiding secondhand smoke isn't hard - if you smell it or see it, either leave and take your business elsewhere, or do not enter in the first place.
Right, so you are saying that a paying customer might have to leave mid-meal if someone lights up in a place that they believed to be non-smoking?
As I referred to before, having a nose does not allow one to tell the future.
I'm amused that people laugh off slippery slope arguments as being too broad and too alarmist, but that you're comfortable making comparisoins between banning people from entering an establishment because of their race with allowing people to choose whether or not to patronize businesses that allow smoking. I'm sure that's perfectly reasonable.
Once again, utterly unfair. The poster was responding to a post that said that free market values were the only issue involved. Surely you can see how this example fits into an extreme free market situation. If the poster did not condone these extreme cases, they should not have taken such an extreme stance.
I mean, c'mon Gordy, if I say "Life expectancy is the only issue!" surely you would expect people to come back with extreme examples of long-life/poor quality of life situations, right?
Calling someone a "racist" is certainly attacking a position--i.e. supporting discriminations based upon race. Furthermore, I don't see where anyone was called a racist. I only see where someone pointed out that extreme free market business rights would allow owners to determine their consumers based on race.
"Market pressures were never tried, because the activists thought that pushing for all-encompassing legislation was easier. So we'll never know."
I must disagree with this also. That was one of many prongs in the attack of the CPPFT. This is from their web site (http://www.cu-smokefree.org/old.html)...
How to Get Involved
"I must disagree with this also. That was one of many prongs in the attack of the CPPFT. This is from their web site"
Thank you - but I personally asked the CPPFT to try a boycotting movement, and their spokesman told me that seeking legislation was their objective as it was easier (I think it may have even been in a discussion on here, so it's probably still around somewhere). So I'm going to disagree, regardless of what their website say.
"Right, so you are saying that a paying customer might have to leave mid-meal if someone lights up in a place that they believed to be non-smoking?
As I referred to before, having a nose does not allow one to tell the future."
Yes.
If someone is so concerned about the health risks, and they were completely fooled into thinking a smoking-allowed established was non-smoking, then they should leave, and politely (or even angrily, if they were fooled) explain why they're leaving.
Or perhaps, if they're so motivated to avoid smoke, they could simply ask being being seated? Again, avoiding secondhand smoke isn't difficult, if one wants to do so. If one wants to dream up fanciful scenarios where someone is tricked into being exposed, then we could be here all day. But common-sense says that anyone who wants to avoid it can do so easily.
There are many common idicators that one might be inside a smoking-allowed establishment:
It's really not that hard.
"Calling someone a "racist" is certainly attacking a position--i.e. supporting discriminations based upon race. Furthermore, I don't see where anyone was called a racist. I only see where someone pointed out that extreme free market business rights would allow owners to determine their consumers based on race."
Fair enough. There's enough rhetorical excesses on both sides of this debate.
Nowhere in all the discussion and debate on this site about the smoking ban did I see the suggestion of a trial period. No, I'm not claiming to have thought of it either, but it would have been very interesting if the council had come up with the idea of perhaps a six-month mandatory trial period during which the bar and restaurant owners would consider patron and employee input, bottom line impact, and other factors. In a way, that's what happened anyway if the council repeals the ban tonight, even if for only seven months: if my count is correct, then a minimum of 7 of 17 downtown bars have chosen to remain smoke-free.
While you quantum physics types start quoting Heisenberg et al in order to point out some obvious issues with collecting data this way, I'll counter with the possibility that if everyone involved understood it was a trial period with a stated purpose, then we might expect both the quantity and quality of data collected to be high.
Thank you - but I personally asked the CPPFT to try a boycotting movement, and their spokesman told me that seeking legislation was their objective as it was easier
To confirm this I did find a post from May of 2005, although much of the comments had been deleted. I would suggest that even though MV was not focusing his efforts on organizing this, it was still being done by some folks but lets be honest, if someone cant patronize an establishment because of health issues, are the owners going to pay any attention to what they come in and suggest if it may mean a substantial change in the way they operate? I believe they would continue to operate in the way that best suits their interests and cater to their existing clientele. How much sway can a bunch of non-customers have with a business, no matter how many or how organized?
"How much sway can a bunch of non-customers have with a business, no matter how many or how organized? "
I would argue they can have quite a bit, if the owners is interested in expanding their base of customers and growing their business. It wouldn't have worked with all bars, but a concerted effort would have worked with some.
Unfortunately, it was never seriously tried. If the CPPFT had spent their thousands of dollars on a boycott campaign instead of a lobbying and election campaign, I bet it would have worked in at least a few instances.
Fortunately, now both owners and customers have choices.
If the CPPFT had spent their thousands of dollars on a boycott campaign instead of a lobbying and election campaign, I bet it would have worked in at least a few instances.
Since Jan 31, I have had exactly two people tell me how pleased they are that the ban lets them come out and enjoy our bar. I'm as gracious as I can be in response. "Cool!" I say with a smile. "Please come back often. Tell your nonsmoking friends about us!"
Two people.
Meanwhile, a day doesn't go by that I don't hear complaints about the ban.
So when it comes down to deciding whose wishes drive our policy (assuming we will soon be allowed to make this decision again), I'm inclined to listen to the people who are actually sitting in our bar while talking to us.
I'm genuinely pleased that Carlos & Cody are committed to staying smoke-free. I hope the CPPFT come out in droves to support them.
If it is acceptable to refer to the CU Smokefree Alliance as CPPFT (Coalition to Protect People from Themselves), can I assume it's just as acceptable to refer to bars who promote smoking as LOD (Legion of Death)?
Wow, I'm surprised that you got even two nonsmokers in after word got out how you treat them. Did Tom stumble up to them and tell them to crawl back under their rocks too?
Fortunately, now both owners and customers have choices.
In this we are in complete agreement, at least if the mayor gets his wish tonight...
So when it comes down to deciding whose wishes drive our policy (assuming we will soon be allowed to make this decision again), I'm inclined to listen to the people who are actually sitting in our bar while talking to us.
This was exactly my point also. Why change, when what you are doing is working for you. It just makes sense to cater to your customers and not some random folks who pop in to comment on your business practices without even spending any money.
Thank you for you civil response on the racial issue.
On the other issue, I apologize, I wasn't trying to dream up scenarios, but was thinking of a situation in particular where I made a reservation for my family at a restaurant and just as we were ordering, a patron lit up in front of my pregnant cousin. There were no "no smoking" signs, but also no ashtrays, nor anyone smoking. There was no solution to be had, so we had to leave and walk in our large party including senior citizens and try to find a place that took us.
We found a place and had a great meal, but it's not a fanciful idea to think that we might have ordered a couple hundred dollars worth of food and found ourselves in trouble in the middle of the meal.
Unless, of course, you work there. I've never understood the tendency to spin this as a "freedom" issue. It's always been a clear workplace safety issue in my mind.
Possibly through confirmation bias. In other words, if a business owner is convinced the ban will decrease business he may perceive a decrease in business, even though one doesn't exist. Which is why, frankly, I don't trust many of these assessments of whether the ban has had a negative or positive impact. Even if you looked at gross receipts after the ban was passed, they are only relevant in comparison to something else. But what do you compare them to to determine if business got "better" or "worse"? Business the month before the ban, when the weather was worse? Business a year ago that occured in an economy that might have been different a year ago?
"If it is acceptable to refer to the CU Smokefree Alliance as CPPFT (Coalition to Protect People from Themselves), can I assume it's just as acceptable to refer to bars who promote smoking as LOD (Legion of Death)?"
Doesn't bother me a bit.
"On the other issue, I apologize, I wasn't trying to dream up scenarios, but was thinking of a situation in particular where I made a reservation for my family at a restaurant and just as we were ordering, a patron lit up in front of my pregnant cousin. There were no "no smoking" signs, but also no ashtrays, nor anyone smoking. There was no solution to be had, so we had to leave and walk in our large party including senior citizens and try to find a place that took us.
We found a place and had a great meal, but it's not a fanciful idea to think that we might have ordered a couple hundred dollars worth of food and found ourselves in trouble in the middle of the meal."
Did you ask the smoker to stop or ask the management to ask them to stop?
"Unless, of course, you work there. I've never understood the tendency to spin this as a "freedom" issue. It's always been a clear workplace safety issue in my mind."
I understand, but I respectfully disagree.
I like to refer to the Legion of Death as Lung Resistance.
They may win their first victory -- ever -- tonight.
Viva Lung Resistance!
100% clean air? No smell from the south farms, Kraft, car exhaust, Big trucks, Chemicals, Power Plants and on and on. I think you will have to go to the north pole and live in a bubble to get 100% clean air and then you will have to hope the Polar Bears aren't eating something that doesn't agree with them.
Did you ask the smoker to stop or ask the management to ask them to stop?
Yes, but the person was a regular, and "always smoked with dinner there".
"Yes, but the person was a regular, and "always smoked with dinner there"."
Then I'm sorry it was an unpleasant experience for you. I hope you let the manager know why you were leaving so they can take that into account in the future.
It still doesn't change my fundamental point - it's not hard to avoid secondhand smoke, if that's your preference. In your situation, you could have asked before being seated if smoking was allowed.
And, in seven months, you won't have to think about whether to choose your restaurant or bar based on whether they allow smoking. Nobody will have that choice anymore.
Xian, I would like to point out that many who favor free markets believe that less government intervention will lead to fewer deaths, more racial harmony, etc. All of your statements above are based on your belief that a free market will lead to more inequity, death, injury, and overall bad things than would a more government controlled system.
So an extreme free market position is not complicit with inequities in the society. From my perspective, anyone who wants more government intervention is the one who is on the side of suffering and inequity. But I realize that you think government intervention is a good thing, so I don't go around accusing people of wanting minorities to be kept down and things like that.
I would like to point out that many who favor free markets believe that less government intervention will lead to fewer deaths, more racial harmony, etc.
The 1800's and early 1900's are perfect examples of how the free market and less government intervention led to fewer deaths, more racial harmony, etc. We should be demanding a return to those halcyon days of yore.
Xian, I would like to point out that many who favor free markets believe that less government intervention will lead to fewer deaths, more racial harmony, etc. All of your statements above are based on your belief that a free market will lead to more inequity, death, injury, and overall bad things than would a more government controlled system.
So an extreme free market position is not complicit with inequities in the society. From my perspective, anyone who wants more government intervention is the one who is on the side of suffering and inequity. But I realize that you think government intervention is a good thing, so I don't go around accusing people of wanting minorities to be kept down and things like that.
I understand all that, but there is no evidence to support your extreme viewpoint. I would wager that there is not even a single other person who posts here who believes in ZERO government intervention, and history very strongly condemns both that extreme and the opposite one--complete government control. Which is, after all, the actual equivalent to your philosophy, not my philosophy of some government intervention.
I'm not into too much intervention--I'm mostly free market. I just believe in the economic school that considers "externalities" rather than just waving them away as irrelevant.
child labor worked pretty well before big government butted in. we got a lot of work from those 9-year-old *******. all this government interference has forced us to have fire safety, shorter work week, disability benefits, safety breaks, pollution control and a thousand other inconveniences. i own my workres, i can do what i want with them
EDITED BY IP to remove unnecessary profanity.
We're not talking about externalities here, unless smoke from a bar is damaging the property of people who do not voluntarily go in the bar. So I assume that by "intervention" you mean government telling someone what they can and cannot do with their property, or possibly taking it away, because it is believed that the property can be used in a way determined by somebody else to be better. In my view, government exists to protect the property rights of citizens.. to make sure they are entitled to all that they own and nothing that they don't own.
Anonymous.. all those things you talk about have come at a certain cost. Are you sure that the cost was not more than the benefit? And why do the French not appreciate their even shorter work week? How ungrateful they are to their government!
I assume that by "intervention" you mean government telling someone what they can and cannot do with their property, or possibly taking it away, because it is believed that the property can be used in a way determined by somebody else to be better.
Absolutely I believe in the former, and as I said, I think you would be hard pressed to find a single person here who doesn't believe in such intervention in some situations.
Not sure where the latter fits in. If you mean intangible property like "wealth" taken away by the society that provides the infrastructure and security to attain it, sure. If you mean taking over property so that it can be developed to make more money, no I'm totally against that.
I don't think that's too weird either. Is there anyone else here who really doesn't believe in any sort of taxation.
Anonymous.. all those things you talk about have come at a certain cost. Are you sure that the cost was not more than the benefit? And why do the French not appreciate their even shorter work week? How ungrateful they are to their government!
Hmm, not really sure what to say about this. I suppose that the trains always ran on time under Mussolini, right?
Shall we have the nerve to delve into actual facts? The following was generated by a pro-smoking group, but it still identifies the scientific studies it summarizes, so i assume they aren't just making this stuff up:
http://www.socialsmokers.org/ets_study_tables.html
This differs quite a bit from the propaganda bandied about as if it were the gospel truth. It also likely explains why the tobacco companies have won just about every second-hand lawsuit ever filed and why there are almost no worker's compensation or occupational exposure claims filed by workers claiming injury from smoke exposure on the job. If you believe the propagandists, these claims would have driven insurance companies into bankruptcy left and right.
This is the kind of information that comes into evidence in courtrooms; the unsupported opinion of the Surgeon General does not, unless he is qualified as an expert and the court finds adequate foundation for his opinions.
Exactly. You probably won't find alot of college kidsat the VFW and you don't see many veterans at KAMs.
now that the smoking issue has been settled can we address the real health hazard and start fining fat people? I'm tired of paying more for health care because of all these fat slobs. Once we nail them we can move on to the ugly people (you know who you are)