Smoking and Beer

[hops99]

Just curious what everyone's opinion out there is relative to beer and smoking. The anti-smoking movement seems to be growing exponentially across the U.S., and it is having an effect (some postive, some negative) on thousands of bars and brewpubs out there.

For me, I abhor cigarette smoke in general (it literally makes me sick), so I certainly don't want to choke on a cloud of that crap while I'm spending my hard-earned cash to have a new craft brew at the bar. I don't think I can fairly taste a beer when the air is thick with cig (or cigar) smoke.

However, I still believe that it should be up to either
(a) each individual bar owner
(b) the voting people of a given county/city/state

to establish respective smoking rules. I think the perfect scenario for everyone is to have clearly delineated smoking and non-smoking areas in all bars/brewpubs so that all customers can enjoy a brew. What does everyone else think, and what do you prefer?

[skahtboi]

Originally posted by hops99

However, I still believe that it should be up to either...

...(b) the voting people of a given county/city/state

to establish respective smoking rules.

I thought that was the way it was done. In Texas, you will find everything from no smoking in any public building to smoking/non-smoking sections available in bars and restaurants, and nearly every imaginable combination in between. It is decided by each city or township based on popular vote.

[Stodbrew]

Personally, I enjoy being able to go into a bar or restaurant and not have to deal with smoke. Here in CA, as of the 1st, I've heard you can't even smoke withing 25 ft. of a building entrance. Which pretty much means you have to stand in the middle of the street. That's a little too extreme, I think.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by hops99
I think the perfect scenario for everyone is to have clearly delineated smoking and non-smoking areas in all bars/brewpubs so that all customers can enjoy a brew. What does everyone else think, and what do you prefer?

For me, "clearly delineated" would have to mean a room with an airlock for the smoking section, and maybe even a seperate entrance. I don't even want to be NEAR that stuff, and call me a whiner if you like, but I don't even like walking through it to get to the nonsmoking section.

Now, I admit having mixed feelings about telling bar owners how to run their business, but this is truly a health issue - it's not simply an inconvenience, and it's not just "a little bit of smoke smell". It's far more toxic than the stuff I'm trying to drink! The servers shouldn't have to put up with it either unless they're drawing hazard pay. YUCK!

BTW, do you suppose that if I went to my employer and asked for a "fart break", they'd allow me 5 minutes like they do the smokers? I'm sure I wouldn't smell any worse than they do afterwards... Or maybe a cuddle break, where my wife would come in and we could make out in the corner? Or how about THIS (let's REALLY get politically incorrect): how about a bible study break? Why can't I have my 5 minutes to do with it what I want just like the smokers do?

Sorry, but the soapbox was vacant... :D

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by Stodbrew
Personally, I enjoy being able to go into a bar or restaurant and not have to deal with smoke. Here in CA, as of the 1st, I've heard you can't even smoke withing 25 ft. of a building entrance. Which pretty much means you have to stand in the middle of the street. That's a little too extreme, I think.

You'd think so, but then again, think about how many times you've seen people standing in the doorway of a "non-smoking" establishment smoking their cigarette! Why bother going outside if they're just going to blow their smoke back into the building?

25 ft. might be extreme by about 5 ft., but I'm sure that as long as smokers are considerate about where they do their smoking it won't even be an issue.

[wortchillergoal]

The non smoking law has been in effect here in the Syr. area now for a few months. No smoking in any public building. One bar has appplied for a variance and been approved. The county decided that a bar that could prove hardship because of the law could be exempt. They still would have to have a seperate smoking area with no smoking permitted at the bar.

As this law was coming into being there were a lot of news stories. Down state NY had the law start before upstate. The news reports were saying that bars and restaurants were enjoying as good as if not better business than before the law. One bar here has closed because of money lost to law.

I am not a smoker. I do not like this law. If things like this can get passed because of the efforts of The American Cancer Society, how long before MADD gets bars closed completely.

People have a choice. We make a choice to drink beer. Some people make the choice to use drugs. There are people that will tell us that these are bad for our health, well drugs are, and seek to outlaw them.

[Tweek]

I quit smoking a little over two years ago. I remember when the laws started around here I was against them. but now I really like the absence of smoke in the bars. I can truly taste waht I am drinking without the interference of the smoke. There are still owner operated places that you can smoke in and I have gone in a few just to see. I couldnt hang out for long. As far as drinking when I smoked, well I still liked to drink good beer and wine, but I can taste it way better now that I quit.

[Bryant]

I am a smoker though I hope to find the courage to quit one day before too long. I have been building myself up for it.

Anyway, I think places like bars and brewpubs should respect the smokers and non-smokers equally. Though it is impossible to keep absolutely all smoke away from non-smokers without banning smoking or making two seperate entrances in the particular establishment, I think the bars and pubs could do a much better job of creating a "smoking room" or something to that effect as opposed to being a smoking or non smoking establishment or having a "smoking section" that really is in the same room with the non-smokers.
The "smoking room" would work well in my opinion. The establishment use negative ventilation in the smoking room and positive ventilation in the other areas. The only source of air flow for the smoking room to draw from would be a single open doorway where the patrons would actually enter and exit the smoking room from.

Bryant

[Herb Ninja]

I occassionally smoke an off-topic cigarette, but i'm not one to support smoking in public places. Inhaling smoke of any kind can be damaging to your health, nobody should be forced to do so. I believe people should be able to smoke whatever they want, privately, as long as they hurt nobody but themselves. I support the pub/bars right to choose non-smoking and smoking and the patrons can choose to come or not, but must obey the owners rules while on private property. People that smoke in non-smoking areas further to create a bad image for smokers and I do not support such people. Freedom & Responsibility. Peace, HN-

[fretlessman71]

PRECISELY! "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."

[toneyc]

I personally feel that fossil fuel exhaust is far more harmful than cigarette smoke. It takes one pound of coal per hour per hundred watts of electricity. How many millions of tons of coal, diesel, gasoline, and other fossil fuels do we burn every day? Cigarette smoke isn't even a drop in the bucket.

:)
Toney.

[Richard English]

Quote "...I personally feel that fossil fuel exhaust is far more harmful than cigarette smoke...."

To the environment, maybe. But to the individual it's quite different. Cigarette smoke goes directly into the smoker's lungs carrying all its poisons which then are deposited on the surface of the smoker's lungs and thence into his or her bloodstream and organs

The poisons in other emissions, while clearly extant, are diluted many thousand - or millions - to one by the atmosphere.

The numbers who die from atmospheric pollution in a non-smoking environment are far fewer than those who die from smoking (around about 1 in 8 smokers as I understand it)

[newportstorm]

Originally posted by toneyc
I personally feel that fossil fuel exhaust is far more harmful than cigarette smoke. It takes one pound of coal per hour per hundred watts of electricity. How many millions of tons of coal, diesel, gasoline, and other fossil fuels do we burn every day? Cigarette smoke isn't even a drop in the bucket.

:)
Toney.

I'm with ya. But until they make electric/hydrogen/propane vehicles that are affordable, won't explode in a fender-bender or have even a smidgen of style, I'll stick to my "gas-guzzling" Honda. ;~)

Seriously though, I abhor cigarette smoke at any time. But especially when I am trying to eat or drink and actually appreciate the flavors. If people want to kill themselves with two packs a day in their car, home or on a park bench...light 'em up. But keep it to yourself. I love the fact that I can go out in Boston and not have to shower and do laundry as soon as I get home. One town here in RI (the most affluent one) banned smoking in bars/restaurants amidst much bitching. But after the few weeks of publicity calmed down, I've heard nary a peep.

Cheers!

[Jeff]

In Lincoln, NE smoking was banned in restauraunts (business's that over 60% of income comes from food) by a resolution from the city council. So in effect this was not passed by a vote of the public.

In the end I am very much for smoking bans. The above resolution started out as a total smoking ban, and then changed so that beer gardens were okay, and then to smoking rooms, and then to the piece of garbage above. It is unfortunate that the city council allowed itself to be influenced by bar owners with unwarranted fears.

[fretlessman71]

Personally, I hate smoke. Fundamentally, however, I have a hard time completely justifying telling people how to run their business. I'd love to see a nationwide ban on smoking, but I also have to admit that this is a very personal preference. There are, however, reasons to do this other than catering to my own preferences.

I've mentioned this above, but I am curious as to how my fellow board members (doesn't that sound official?) feel: Any place that you work that forces you to be near toxic fumes and chemicals usually requires you to wear this safety device or that deterrent or SOMETHING, whether it be a mask, a smock, gloves, slip resistant shoes, whatever. Why is it that people who work in places that permit smoking don't have to wear some kind of mask? I humbly submit to you that cigarette smoke is at the very least worse than at least ONE of the chemicals that has use requirements and proper procedures for disposal. It seems to me that the only reason nothing is done is that people who smoke don't want to quit (for the most part... present company excepted, Bryant), or if they do, they don't want to quit bad enough to admit the harm done to themselves and others. They are basically ready to sacrifice their health and the health of those they come in contact with while they are smoking... and all for their own personal comfort. This is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I don't mean to offend, but if you're offended by what I'm saying here, I challenge you to take a very long hard look at yourself and see if you can properly justify your habit and the effect it has on you, your family, friends, co-workers... and anyone within a 25-ft. radius of your lit cigarette. (Or anyone you walk past after you've put it out - did you realize we can smell stale smoke all over you afterwards? Especially women, who have a much better sense of smell than men... is that the impression you want to give the ladies? YECCH!)

And if THAT'S not enough to get you to stop, just think about how much better your beer will taste once you've finally given up smoking for good! :D

[Jeff]

Funny that you bring up the idea of cigarette smoke being a hazardous chemical. During the debate in my area about banning smoking and advocacy group ran ads that went something like this: A new hire shows up for the first day of work at a restaurant. The manager asks if they have their apron, pad of paper, pen, etc. And then hands them a gas mask and tells them they will need it. It was actually pretty funny.

[fretlessman71]

Too true, I'm sure!

Congrats on your 100th post!

[S.F.B.]

I would say let the bar, brew pub, restaurant or whatever choose to be smoking or non. Then let the public decide for itself to frequent the establishment it prefers.

I am not a cigarette smoker. I do, however, enjoy the occasional cigar with my drink. I like to go to a bar where I can enjoy both with my friends. When I am out with the wife and kids I go to a nice family friendly, non-smoking place. My life my choice.

I think the politicians need to get out of the business of telling businesses what to do.

[wortchillergoal]

Fret, I hear you man. Now as I put forth the follwing thought, please remember I do not smoke.

I know there is a huge movement to ban smoking and the health benefits justify this. Yet, has anyone thought about the lost revenue in taxes and wages. I know that there would be savings in the health related fields but would they balance out the losses. I don't mean to devalue human life with this statement. It does seem to me that some people would suffer in the economical upheaval that would follow. I feel that the groups that would like to snuff out smoking should also be responsible for replacing lost jobs and tax monies. I support a complete removal of smoking over a long period of time so that adjustments to our financial health can keep up with a smokeless society.

Please forgive me for such a cold take on this matter. I have seen many situations that are helped through tax dollars that must draw some of their base through taxes on smoking products. If I could be shown that no one would be adversely affected financialy, get rid of smoking now. If that can't be done, then it must be attacked very slowly.

[fretlessman71]

So let's get started!
:)

[fretlessman71]

By the way... the only real jobs that would be lost would be those directly related to the industry (i.e., workers in the plant, reps). Restaurants have shown that on average they don't lose any money in the long run in study after study. If there are programs that require the use of tax dollars to function, this would be a very good time for them to try to find other means of funding themselves. The idea of keeping a dangerous product on the market simply because someone benefits from the sales tax revenue doesn't hold water with me.

[Brownbeard]

It is my opinion that the gov't has no business telling bar owners how to run their business. If the bar owner chooses to lose your business by allowing people to smoke in the establishment, that he has probably poured his entire life into, that is his choice. I like cigarettes and beer. I think there may be no finer combination in all the world. I do not support in any manner forced gov't mandates on my health. And all the talk about second hand smoke is just that. There is very little evidence to support the second hand smoke myth. The anti-smoking groups that suggest thousands of people die from second hand smoke are misleading. What they do is take every non-smoker who has died from any sort of lung disease, including asthma, and chalk that up as a second hand smoke related death. I intend to open my own bar someday, I would be very irate about a city council telling me I cannot allow my patrons to engage in a perfectly legal activity. Bottom line, if a bar allows smoking and you don't like it, tell the owner and leave. I am sure he will consider your suggestion. Remember, more people smoke than voted for the president of the united states. I say we put the smoking ban to a big nantional vote right away. So we can put it to rest once and for all. They did the same thing in Iowa City, the council decided to pass a smoking ban, thankfully, the state of Iowa deemed it unconstitutional.

[Richard English]

Quote "...There is very little evidence to support the second hand smoke myth...."

In fact there is. Only a year or so back there was much debate in the UK about this issue, prompted by the death of a well-known entertainer, Roy Castle, who died of lung cancer contracted through "passive" smoking. Although he was a non-smoker he spent much time in his earlier years in night clubs with their notoriously smoky atmospheres.

The statistics about smoking-related deaths are readily available to anyone who chooses to look them up; sadly for both their and our health most smokers choose to ignore them and hide behind facile statements like "...you have to die of something - you could be knocked down by a bus tomorrow...". I have noticed, though, that the perpetrators of these kinds of statements still cross the road carefully with their eyes open - so they try to minimise that risk, at least.

Let there be no doubt about it; smoking kills people. One in eight smokers will die from their habit and, whereas it could be argued that this is their right, they do not have the right to poison others around them.

[wortchillergoal]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
By the way... the only real jobs that would be lost would be those directly related to the industry (i.e., workers in the plant, reps). Restaurants have shown that on average they don't lose any money in the long run in study after study. If there are programs that require the use of tax dollars to function, this would be a very good time for them to try to find other means of funding themselves. The idea of keeping a dangerous product on the market simply because someone benefits from the sales tax revenue doesn't hold water with me.

Yes, but how many are there? Also. would people of third world countries feel a loss also as the market place shrinks? I agree that it is a harmful product. There are those who would argue the same about alcohol and that drinking destroys more than the life of the drinker.

I still think this a situation that calls for forward thinking and not knee jerk repairs.

[Wilson]

I used to smoke, and LOVED to have cigarettes whith beer. To this day it is very hard for me to drink a beer and not smoke. I know it was bad for me, was expensive, and stank, but there was something about it. I think it should be up to the bar owner wether or not to allow it. If someone doest like it, leave. It's a slippery slope when governments start to tell people what they can and cant do with something like smoking. Whats next, eating fatty foods? I mean I know it has to do with the second hand smoke thing, but as was mentioned before, it is legal to smoke. btw, I quit to get back in shape. Now I am happily addicted to nicotine patches!

[hops99]

Actually, one of the reasons I started the thread was that the city of Toledo, Ohio (I live about 20 miles down the road) has been embroiled in controversy regarding a recently imposed smoking ban. Like Jeff in Nebraska, the city council imposed the ban last August - no popular vote, etc. - and the bar owners have been waging a media war. Allegedly, several bars have closed, and the surrounding suburban communities are reaping the benefits of the smoking ban. I can't think of anything that bothers me more than cig smoke, but the city council vs. bar owners war has been entertaining. Incidentally, a study last year placed Toledo as the #1 smoking city in the U.S. (most smokers per capita for a city 200,000 in population or more). There's lots of white trash in T-Town....

Another thing I've often pondered. Wouldn't it be funny to go into a smoking bar/restaurant and sit down next to a smoker with a can of odor - you know, the stuff you used to be able to get at Spencer's, like a garbage smell or wet dog or something - and spray it into the air, if not right at the person next to you. That would be freakin' hilarious to see the reaction, and maybe then the smoker would realize how inconsiderate he/she is. Of course, the hypoicrisy is that I'd likely be thrown out of the bar by the owners...but hey, it would be worth it!

[toneyc]

Wouldn't it be funny? No, I don't think that it would. I think that getting thrown out of the bar would be the least of your worries. The difference between your actions and the smoker's is that it is a completely acceptable act to go to a bar to smoke and drink. Your actions are designed to be offensive and call attention to the fact that the smoker is doing something that you do not like, your actions are harrassment. You have the choice not to go where people smoke, exercise it.

:eek:
Toney.

[hops99]

Just like a smoker could exercise the same right to go elsewhere if I were to do something offensive - whether it be spraying a noxious odor their way (mind you, which would be far less harmful to THEIR health than their second-hand smoke is to MINE), or any other legal act of irritation and inconsideration. Hey man, the pendulum swings both ways.

And, the main issue here is about beer. Tasting beer. Enjoying beer in an environment that is conducive to your tastebuds. A smoke filled bar or pub is NOT an acceptable environment to enjoy craft beer, and IMO it's completely irresponsible for a craft beer advocate to think otherwise. I reiterate - this is just my opinion.

Remember, my original post suggested that bars/pubs offer clearly delineated areas for BOTH smokers and non-smokers to enjoy. I certainly don't think that's asking too much.

[chazwicke]

I am a non smoker except for a very occasional cigar or pipe. I am also from a tobacco producing state and home of Philip Morris. I do not favor bans on smoking as I too feel it is a matter of choice albeit a stupid one. My principle worry about any "anti" campaign is that when their tactics are successful other anti or neo prohibitionists begin using these tactics too. And I also believe that there are many "causal" people out there and when one cause is won they invariably look for another to champion. It may just end up being one that will affect me. Believe it that there are plenty of anti alcohol forces out there waiting and watching. I would like to see restraunts and bars have ventilation systems like those in Las Vegas. When you are sitting in a casino you may smell a cigarette being smoked by a player near you but on the whole you would never know there is constant smoking going on and when you enter a decent casino you do not smell or see smoke at all. Smokers are foolish. We now know how harmful it is. Why would someone willingly take up a habit that will kill them? The same with people who do not wear seat belts. Foolish! But there should not be laws that force us not to do stupid things. It should be choice and there should be more education on the consequences.

[barley ben]

I have to add to this one. Maybe I'm one of the few considerate smokers out there or maybe I just can't stand the smell of second hand smoke. I smoke way too much but I perfer it in places that are well ventilated or out-doors. My apartment usually has fans running and a window at-least cracked in winter just because I don't enjoy lingering smoke. I do believe that non-smokers have the right to not have to breath the stuff in but at the same time smokers should have the right to enjoy a cigarette while sitting back and relaxing with a beer. In someways, I have to blame restraunt owners when they make half the place smoking and half non-smoking. Lets face it, smoke doesn't stay on one side of the room. But putting someone out in the rain when they are trying to enjoy themselves is not fair either. Like I said though, I can not stand walking into a bar and it's one big smoke screen, but we need to be able to enjoy ourselves also. Just a canope would be nice so I'm not getting soaked when I need a smoke. And no, not all places have canopes for their outdoor smoking section. Just a few personal thoughts.

[barley ben]

And let me ask one more question... How many of you that are worried about the effects of second hand smoke drink and drive? I personally have stopped doing it for the most part and in no way am I saying that you all do it but I'm sure some of you that worry about second hand smoke killing you do d&d. Last time I checked thats not real safe for you of any other non drunk drivers that might be on the road with you.

[Richard English]

Quote "...But there should not be laws that force us not to do stupid things...."

Many people have made this point and it does, on the face of it, seem sensible. However, close examination proves that it is unsound.

Most laws are enacted to prevent people from doing stupid things that will harm or inconvenience themselves or others . Indeed, I find it difficult to think offhand of any law that does not fall into one or other of those categories.

Driving laws, drinking laws, libel laws - you name them. All laws restrict in one way or another a person's freedom and to single out a particular piece of legislation and to say that it's "unconstitutional because it resricts a person's freedom" is facile.

Legislators have the difiicult task of enacting legislation that offers the greatest overall benefit while providing the minumum intrusion onto personal liberties. It's easy enough at the extreme poles - clearly we expect to have laws that stop us from killing someone we dislike, whereas we would not expect to have laws that prevent people from drinking A-B swill just because that offends us. It is the borderline cases, of which smoking (and the consumption of other drugs such as cannabis and alcohol) are good examples where it is difficult to legislate.

Incidentally, one of the reasons why we have no protest in the UK against law on the ground that it is "unconstitutional" is that we have no constitution (apart from the Magna Carta). I happen to think that this is one of the great advantages of the British legal system.

[Herb Ninja]

All laws restrict in one way or another a person's freedom and to single out a particular piece of legislation and to say that it's "unconstitutional because it resricts a person's freedom" is facile.

Its not facile, its not the governments role to protect us from ourselves, its the governments role to protect us from eachother if anything. Helmet laws are absurd. Drug wars are absurd. This (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/) is one of many reasons why I have a subversive personality. It does restrict a persons freedom, unjustly. Remember Alcohol Prohibition? Trying to regulate what people put in their bodys in the name of safety, didn't work. America had a good consitution, many politicians and judges misinterpreted it, now its on fire. Peace, HN-

[EDIT: Wrong Link. Whoops.]

[Richard English]

"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
John Donne 1572-1631

I believe John Donne. We do not have the absolute right to do with ourselves as we wish.

Governments have taken on the role of controlling what we do simply because many people are selfish and believe in their right to do whatever they wish, regardless of how it affects others.

No control at all is anarchy - and no anarchical society has ever survived.

[Herb Ninja]

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." -- Abraham Lincoln

"Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy."
--From the March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address A.L.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
--From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce A.L.

I believe in having the right to do what you want as long as you do not harm others. I believe a peaceful persons body is theirs, and they should not be property of any government. Peace, HN-

[Richard English]

Quote "...I believe in having the right to do what you want as long as you do not harm others. I believe a peaceful persons body is theirs, and they should not be property of any government...."

I agree 100%. But if what you do to yourself harms others, then you have abused that right.

Good legislation seeks to ensure that this does not happen; it does not imply that the government "owns" the person whom it seeks to control for the benefit of all.

[hops99]

I love the smokers' hollow arguments - you know, "not wearing a seat belt is just as bad for you", "eating fatty foods is just as bad for you", etc.

Cut the crap, and take some responsibility for your actions! I believe, as well, that government has no right to legislate against a person's right to do whatever they want to themselves. Whether it's not wearing a seat belt, eating at McDonald's 5 times a day, or whatever. Those are one's personal liberties - BUT, you're not comparing apples to apples when you talk about cigarette smoke. BECAUSE, unlike seat belts and cheeseburgers, YOU are directly polluting OTHER people's lungs with your harmful vice.

For that matter, I also believe that government has no right to ban smoking in one's house, car, or back yard. BUT, if you're in a public place where others will be affected, THAT should be controlled to protect the rights and safety of all the other non-smokers. Plain and simple - although I too, am a little disturbed by a city council playing god - I still believe that all smoking laws/ordinances should be decided by the PEOPLE.

AND, as for the other hollow argument; "if you don't like cig smoke, then don't go to the bar", well, how does it feel to be on the other end of the stick? As a smoker, I'm sure you're not happy with the barrage of non-smoking laws that continue to take place. Now you can't, or won't, go to certain establishments because you can't smoke there. YOUR selection of bars and restaurants is becoming limited. The DIFFERENCE is that you can always step outside and have a smoke - anytime you want. Sounds pretty considerate, eh? A decent and polite thing to do? Yes. A horrible injustice to smokers? Well, I guess if forcing you to walk 20 feet from your barstool to go outside for a few minutes each hour is the worst thing in your life, you've got it pretty damn good.

AND, don't play the prohibition card, either. THAT was a mistake that happened 80 years ago. Those who claim that the infringement of "smokers rights" is just a stepping stone to another prohibition are just scare-mongers. Give me a break.

[Herb Ninja]

AND, don't play the prohibition card, either. THAT was a mistake that happened 80 years ago. Those who claim that the infringement of "smokers rights" is just a stepping stone to another prohibition are just scare-mongers. Give me a break.

In America Many drugs are prohibited. Some less toxic then alcohol or caffeine. We have something called "The War On Drugs." Prohibition is a mistake that still exists, just not as much for alcohol. Your other arguments I don't imagine are directed at me. I do not smoke cigarettes, especially not around others that don't want it. I do not condone such actions. I support peaceful citizens right to use substances privately without harming anybody but themselves. Peace, HN-

[hops99]

I support peaceful citizens right to use substances privately without harming anybody but themselves. Peace, HN-

Amen!

[Brownbeard]

Hops99, the problem I have with your argument, is that if I own a bar, it is my property, not the property of the gov't. To my mind, that makes it private property, not public property. That is the big problem with liberals, they think everything should be the property of the gov't. If I open my bar to the public, that public should use it to my wishes not their own. I am not afraid of prohibition, I break prohibition laws almost daily. I am more afraid of gov't telling people how to behave on their own private property. I am all in favor of an establishment enforcing it's own ban on smoking. This is their right on their property. I will still go to these places. I have no problem with no smoking in public owned places, this makes sense. But on my property, that I own and spend my whole life making, do not tell me what to do. It is not your right.

[Jeff]

Couple of points to make:

To those who say if you don't like smoke go to non-smoking bars, in my area there is one non-smoking bar and it has terrible beer on tap (and is not close to the downtown area). So I usually make my choice based on the apparent level of smokiness in a given bar, which is the not so popular bars.

Brownbeard, I am not really trying to argue or cause problems but the government has been telling business owners how to run their private business for years. Perfect examples are ADA requirements (handicap accessability), and clean air acts. The cigarette smoke puts workers at risk that are not allowed in many other positions. Some argue that they choose to work their, but should an person who needs a time flexible job (i.e. students and single parents) be forced to work in environments that are bad for their health.

[Beaver]

Originally posted by Herb Ninja

I believe in having the right to do what you want as long as you do not harm others.

I agree. There can be gray area in how you define "harm others" though.

An individual smoking in their own residence can become a financial constaint on others by racking up higher Medicare bills. Just playing Devil's advocate...

[Herb Ninja]

Originally posted by Brownbeard
But on my property, that I own and spend my whole life making, do not tell me what to do. It is not your right.
I agree.
Originally posted by Beaver
I agree. There can be gray area in how you define "harm others" though.

An individual smoking in their own residence can become a financial constaint on others by racking up higher Medicare bills. Just playing Devil's advocate...

Yes, I just couldn't find better words then "harm others" for that occasion.
Peace, HN-

[noby]

some interesting times ahead here in Ireland.
the govt. want to bring in a complete ban on smoking in the workplace, and the debate has split the country, similair to this thread.
there is already a ban on smoking in offices, public buildings, govt. buildings etc., so the major debate is focusing on the ban on smoking in pubs. for every statistic or poll the govt. comes out with, the vintners federation have counter acted with their own statistic. Comparisons have been made with the U.S. ban on smoking in pubs, and the relative success there. The vintners responded with their own statistics: 20-25% of New Yorkers socialise in a pub, compared to 80% of Dubliners.
There are also alot of side issues. Under the new laws, if a plumber calls round to your house, it becomes his place of work, meaning you can not smoke in your own home.
This law was supposed to be introduced on Jan 1st (last week), then it was put off until feb., then march. Last I heard, it'll be introduced late April.
The wording of the law is being examined already:
what about the farmer - can he not have a cigarette in one of his fields?
is this not his place of work?
so then the govt. defined a workplace as somewhere with 4 walls and a roof, which is now being challenged, and so on, and so on.

Now it's a question of who will enforce the laws. The publicans have stated they will not throw people out for smoking. There was uproar when the govt. wanted the Gardai (police) to enforce it (taking them off the streets, huge overtime bills etc.)

Then there's my local bar man, who is a smoker, and has vowed to quit his job the day the ban is eventually brought in.
Only in Ireland, eh?

[MeridianFC]

This is a very tricky topic. I think people should be allowed to make their own decisions on their health. I addition I'm friends with many bar owners and I know to some degree this debate will affect their bottom lines.

That said, anyone who does not believe that there is severe negative health problems directly attributted to to second hand (aka passive or environmental) smoke is misguided. There is ample evidence from governmental and health sources to back this up. You can google pages worth of the stuff. The Canadian Govt., US EPA, American Lung Assc., USDOH, NIH, etc are good places to start. I think common sense would sort this one out.

But let's suppose for a moment that it's all a world wide governmental conspiracy to stop us all from having fun. At the very least smoking is an extremely invasive habit. At the best of times the smoke/smell will get into the clothes, hair, and lungs of people around you who are not smoking and do not desire to. There are certainly some places that are better ventilated than others but no place is perfect. If you are a smoker and you're indulging in your habit in a closed environment, like a bar, it is going to affect people around you. No amount of Smoke Eater or open window is going to be able to contain the smoke at your persons. The old argument that comes up is the non smokers have decided to be in that environment, but I choose to look at it from other direction, smokers chose to place their habit above the comfort and well being of those around them.

I guess that last bit comes of a bit harsh and high and mighty, which I'm certainly not trying to do. After all in an hour I'll be in a bar where people are smoking and I'll deal with it. In a perfect world I woudn't have to because some innate sense of politeness would impell the smokers outside to burn a quick butt.

Every single person I know, including all my smoker friends, has at some point complained about coming home and stinking of ciggy smoke. Espeically the day after.

BTW I am completely against any prohibition against tobacco and, for what it's worth marijuana, though I don't imbibe in either.

Respectfully submitted,

Kelly

Former pack a day man
(and I'm no convert make the greatest zealots type, I never like to smoke in contained spaces)

[hops99]

Kelly, I think you hit the nail on the head. My biggest complaint/concern regarding smoking relates to human decency, and the ability to taste good beer!

Brownbeard: Read my prior posts on the subject carefully. You'll notice that while I rail against smoking and champion non-smokers rights, I never once suggested that it was government's right (or even obligation) to tell a bar owner what to do - quite the opposite, actually. I believe I mention several times that I'm concerned about government's growing role in smoking legislation. Please don't misrepresent my comments.

And, I must say, I've never been called a "liberal" before ; my political beliefs are closer to the right than they are the left. Fundamentally, I don't think this is a partisan issue. I know liberals who champion smokers rights, and conservatives who champion non-smokers rights....
:(

[chazwicke]

This is certainly a hot button issue. It is a huge topic on some other beer boards that I sometimes peruse. I must say that I may be changing my opinion a bit based on some of the views I've read here.

[fretlessman71]

So dive right in and tell us what side of the fence you're straddling, wouldja? ;)

[hopjack13]

it's against the law to smoke in bars here in california, although most bars abide by the law and a lot don't. they'll actually have to come in and enforce the law to stop some of these places. how ever, most that do not allow smoking indoors have an outside area that you can smoke at. the only time smoke really bothers me is when i am eating. and i don't know any restaurants that allow smoking, so it's not much of an issue with me...

[Richard English]

It's against the law to smoke in bars in France, but the French have an interesting attitude to the law. It is a firm Gallic belief that the law is a fine thing and that other people should obey it. But for oneself- you've heard heard of the expression "the Gallic shrug", I take it?

[Stodbrew]

I find the French have an interesting attitude to most things:)

[wortchillergoal]

In the restaurant inspection columm of the newspaper I saw this week that two pubs gotten written up for people smoking{customers}.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by Richard English
It's against the law to smoke in bars in France, but the French have an interesting attitude to the law. It is a firm Gallic belief that the law is a fine thing and that other people should obey it. But for oneself- you've heard heard of the expression "the Gallic shrug", I take it?

Please enlighten the less informed on our side of the pond....

[Richard English]

It's a gesture that can be best descibed as one of indicating contempt and uninterest.

In the Gallic shrug not only are the shoulders shrugged but also the hands are turned upwards and outwards (although kept around waist level) as if to indicate that the shrugger has nothing to offer.

According to the Rockall Times Louisiana had now made the Gallic Shrug illegal! http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2003/03/17/cajuns-warned.html

Mind you, that is a British paper so who's to say how accurate the report is...

[fretlessman71]

I can picture it! Thanks Richard!

Louisiana making ANYTHING illegal? C'mon... you can even drink right on the street in New Orleans! (Apparently you can also throw up there.... EWWWWW....)

[hopjack13]

i don't know much about louisiana , but it sounds like bullshit to me, i read the link . i find it hard to believe, 150$ fine for shrugging? it's unconstitutional, they can't do that. we still have freedom of speach (just watch what you say) here in the u.s. and as far as them changing things like french fries to freedom fries and what not.....well out here in socal it was a good idea, but thats all it was , was a good idea. i still order french fries and french toast and what not right off the menu. nobodys boycotting anything french out here. and i highly HIGHLY doubt they're going to change new orleans name.

[Richard English]

In fact, although in general I am against too many restrictions on the liberty of the individual, I have some sympathy with the laws that restrict public drinking. It is permitted in the UK, of course, and in general it creates no problems. Those who wish to have drink while eating an alfresco meal in a public park, and who then take their litter away wioth them, present no problems.

The difficulty comes with those who gather on street corners, blocking the passage of others, a scattering empty cans and bottles across the pavement. Restrictions on that sort of anti-social behaviour would certainly get my support.

Having said which, it is not a major problem here and, indeed, has become less of a problem now that city-centre pubs are open all day. Most of the unemployed who would otherwise walk the streets spend the day nursing a pint of the cheapest beer they can find in one of the less expensive boozers.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
I can picture it! Thanks Richard!

Louisiana making ANYTHING illegal? C'mon... you can even drink right on the street in New Orleans! (Apparently you can also throw up there.... EWWWWW....)

I have seen several episodes of COPS filmed there during Mardi Gras. Apparently you can do ALMOST anything but not quite everything. I have visited N.O. several times and enjoyed it but never during Mardi Gras. Great food (especially oysters), great music and a fine casino (Harrahs).

[hopjack13]

las vegas on new years the street are packed, and they allow dinking on the strip there. so it's not hard to imagine after the crowds are gone what the streets look like. platic beer and champagne glasses cover the streets as well as other debris.
in memphis tennessee they alow drinking on beal street and actually block off the street, setting up small bars with cash registers and beer taps along the sidewalk. quite a scean. i spent many drunkin nights there. they stop selling booze at 5am and then you can't buy agai untill 12pm . never understood that...
i can only imagine the mardi gras

[Wilson]

Originally posted by hopjack13
i don't know much about louisiana , but it sounds like bullshit to me, i read the link . i find it hard to believe, 150$ fine for shrugging? it's unconstitutional, they can't do that. we still have freedom of speach (just watch what you say) here in the u.s. and as far as them changing things like french fries to freedom fries and what not.....well out here in socal it was a good idea, but thats all it was , was a good idea. i still order french fries and french toast and what not right off the menu. nobodys boycotting anything french out here. and i highly HIGHLY doubt they're going to change new orleans name.

It is bullshit.

I lived in New Orleans for a while, and you pretty much have to really screw someone up or steal something worth a ton, to get arrested during Mardi Gras. I once got hammered and drove a fork lift up and down a street downtown, late one Mardi Gras-eve. I think I was pushing my luck there. As wild as it is, there is a family side to it.....just dont take the kids to the French Quarter. 24/7 booze, gotta love it!

[chazwicke]

I enjoy New Orleans but have no interest in being there during Mardi Gras. I was there one Super Bowl Weekend a while back. I think it was when Green Bay was there. Lots of cheeze heads walking around.

[hopjack13]

i have three places left to go in the u.s. then i'd like to visit other countrys(espeacially belgium!)i figured once i see all of my country i can move on. any way new orleans is on the list and mardi gras is when i wana be there ;)

[chazwicke]

What are the other two places?

[hopjack13]

well im sioux and have never seen the black hills in south dakota. so thats that one and the other is new york city, i've been through the state of new york and actually made it about 50 miles outside of nyc. but have never actually been in the city.

[chazwicke]

I have not yet made it South Dakota either. it is one of the few states that I have not visited. The others being Iowa, North Dakota, Kansas and Wyoming. I think I've been to the rest of them at least once. My city, Washington DC is tremendously beautiful (and It has the famous Brickskeller.) Have you ever been out this way?

[hopjack13]

i've been to maryland,mass,rhode island and pennsylvania (sp?)
never washington d.c. though and also conneticut (heartford)
but d.c. scares me everytime i see it on t.v. there's this white stuff all over everything ! and i hear it's called snow and it's very very cold! it's 75 degrees out here now and thats just fine with me! think i'll keep it that way :D

[chazwicke]

They are calling for snow tonight. if so Traffic will be a nightmare in the morning. Even though its only supposed to be an inch or so.

[hopjack13]

you should see it out here when it rains! auto store trash cans are filled with old winsheildwiper blades, cuz they never get used and when it is time to use them they're bad. and traffic??? it's bad enough already but people don't understand the roads are slippery when wet and we get accedents all over the place :rolleyes: you guys have a summer out there im sure but when is the snow season? thats why i left idaho in october of 96' it started getting cold and people told me "this ain't shit" well i didn't stick around to see what "shit" was! i hauled ass back to socal with the quickness!

[chazwicke]

We get extremes in summer and winter however they are usually brief. I love the DC area. I had opportunities to move to San Diego back in 78 and chose to stay here. I could retire in Maine though. And travel South in the winter.

[fretlessman71]

We're STILL waiting for our first snowfall! DAMNIT, JANET.....

[chazwicke]

We did not get any after all last night. But it sure is cold. My son called from NJ and said they had 6".

[threecb]

That's about right...commute today sucked!

[chazwicke]

Hey congrats on passing 300 posts!

[fretlessman71]

Yeah! You'll be catching up to chaz, steveh, hopjack and me in no time! ;)

[threecb]

Thanks chaz, and congrats on 900, fret...
at this rate, you'll be to 1000 by the weekend!

[fretlessman71]

Naw... I'm working all weekend except for Saturday, which I have reserved for my beautiful bride and I. I might even go so far as to turn OFF the computer! :eek:

Thanks for the nod! GEEZ, I need to get a life....

[chazwicke]

Well enjoy the weekend time with the bride. I am taking mine and my son out of town for the weekend as well. At least that is the plan. I am conceding here. you really racked them up!

[hopjack13]

i'll be watching football this weekend, didn't get to watch much this year. so this is my last chance before the superbowl....or should i have posted this on the sports thread???

[chazwicke]

Thats one of the reasons I was in Vegas last weekend. To watch the playoff games.

[hopjack13]

you went all the way to vegas from D.C. to watch football?!
i wana BE you man! must be nice :)

[chazwicke]

It's an annual trip. "Business"
:D

[hopjack13]

thats even better! did the pay for travel and lodging ?

[hopjack13]

what business are you in btw?

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by hopjack13
thats even better! did the pay for travel and lodging ?

Of course!

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by hopjack13
what business are you in btw?

I own a real estate title search firm. I have about 15 employees. This trip is an annual event where we take some clients, real estate agents, appraisers, bankers and such. All related fields. We had 12 this year. Always a fun trip

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by chazwicke
Well enjoy the weekend time with the bride. I am taking mine and my son out of town for the weekend as well. At least that is the plan. I am conceding here. you really racked them up!

(Folks, he's conceding, but if you'll notice, he's 21 posts ahead of me at this very moment....... :D)

[hopjack13]

actually he's 3 behind you now :p

[chazwicke]

Not any more! And my weekend plans have been cancelled. So........ we'll see what happens.

[fretlessman71]

Fine... so much for the cease fire... :p

[chazwicke]

Well, I still have a breweriana collectors meeting that should take all day tomorrow. Counting the stops at Blue/Grey brewing and a couple antique markets. So go for it! :)

[Bryant]

Originally posted by Brownbeard
Hops99, the problem I have with your argument, is that if I own a bar, it is my property, not the property of the gov't. To my mind, that makes it private property, not public property. That is the big problem with liberals, they think everything should be the property of the gov't. If I open my bar to the public, that public should use it to my wishes not their own. I am not afraid of prohibition, I break prohibition laws almost daily. I am more afraid of gov't telling people how to behave on their own private property. I am all in favor of an establishment enforcing it's own ban on smoking. This is their right on their property. I will still go to these places. I have no problem with no smoking in public owned places, this makes sense. But on my property, that I own and spend my whole life making, do not tell me what to do. It is not your right.

I agree with you 100% Brownbeard. I go to a sports bar during football season not for their pathetic beer selection but to see The Steelers play on Sundays. I know most of the Steeler fans there are not smokers and don't care for smoke, so I usually go to the "Raider section" where the majority are smokers (and the others don't seem to care) to fire up a cigarrette. I do it simply out of pure generosity as this is a smoking establishment.
Most people are not rude by nature, be them smokers or non-smokers, but there are exceptions. I have had people very rude to me because I was smoking next to them and it bothered them (this is in a smoking facility btw.) All they had to do was ask and I would have gladly smoked elsewhere. I have no problem with that at all.
I think smokers and non-smokers alike should look at this thread and try to be respectful of each other. Smoking is not just a "bad habit" or "addiction." It goes much deeper than that. A cigarrette is usually the first thing a smoker wakes up to and goes o bed with. It is a dessert after a meal. It is a treat after sex, etc. A smoker that has been smoking for many years has the process intertwined in his/her whole lifestyle. Is it bad for them and other people around them ? Absolutely, but smokers aren't nasty or rude people that don't care about themselves or others. It takes much more than a "strong will" to stop smoking. It takes a lifestyle change and it is very difficult to do.


Bryant