Feelings on smoking ban in bars/clubs as of Nov.19th!!!

[cesarleo]

As of Nov. 19th it is 99% certain there will be a ban on smoking in bars and clubs. How do you feel about this. Personally I'm getting to hate this mayor more and more. There's a whole list of problems I have with this......including the fact that now the gov. is trying to dictate our lives without enabling us to make our own decisions.

[mssabina]

since i can't stand smoking, it's a great birthday gift for me

[echostar]

im kinda cool with it, it will give me another reason not to smoke

[glowgrlnyc]

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Drunk]

It won't work. The ban in California was pretty much ignored by most establishments. They're even planning to overturn it there.

[dr0ne]

i seriously doubt it will be enforced at most places people from around here hang out at. i could only see this enforced in some bars and hotels and restaurants and shit like that.

[PinkFloyd40]

good deal... i'm happy

[GrammarPolice]

Originally posted by dr0ne

i seriously doubt it will be enforced at most places people from around here hang out at. i could only see this enforced in some bars and hotels and restaurants and shit like that.

I agree. Most bar owners aren't going to tell their patrons to put out their cigarettes. No way they can strictly enforce this.

[t0nythelover]

Originally posted by cesarleo

As of Nov. 19th it is 99% certain there will be a ban on smoking in bars and clubs. How do you feel about this. Personally I'm getting to hate this mayor more and more. There's a whole list of problems I have with this......including the fact that now the gov. is trying to dictate our lives without enabling us to make our own decisions.

actually its for the benefit of those who work in these clubs and bars. some of them dont smoke and they deserve the right to a smoke free workplace, thats how the law works booby. societies needs go over the needs of the individual.

[sutogame]

bartender and waiters know that they will work with smoking customers. If they dont like it they should get another job besides speaking from experience as a waiter smokers tip alot more than nonsmokers.

[magilicuti]

exactly, if smoke bothers u you shouldn't work in a club/bar

[somebitch]

Originally posted by magilicuti

exactly, if smoke bothers u you shouldn't work in a club/bar

yeah i agree...

i think they should open bars where you can not smoke & some where you can. i bet all the nonsmokers would be in smoking places anyway... i dont particularly like smoke but when i drink i enjoy an occasional cigarette, besides i know a lot of people who smoke so it is more convenient to go somewhere where smoking is permitted.

[t0nythelover]

Originally posted by sutogame

bartender and waiters know that they will work with smoking customers. If they dont like it they should get another job besides speaking from experience as a waiter smokers tip alot more than nonsmokers.

actually thats not how it works. why should they have to get another job? that would be discrimination against non-smokers and according to the law its illegal. its something called civil rights.

[PinkFloyd40]

Originally posted by t0nythelover

actually thats not how it works. why should they have to get another job? that would be discrimination against non-smokers and according to the law its illegal. its something called civil rights.

werd

[dr0ne]

Originally posted by t0nythelover

actually thats not how it works. why should they have to get another job? that would be discrimination against non-smokers and according to the law its illegal. its something called civil rights.

you have it backwards. its NOT discrimination when the worker him/herself makes the CHOICE to work or not to work somewhere. It's only discrimination if the employer did not hire the person because s/he wasn't a smoker or something like that which clearly isn't the case. the question here is that these places are considered public establishments, and its the government's job to look after the general health of the public, that's the argument. just like they could ban smoking outside even if they wanted to, i believe its been tried before, and the findings were that there is not a significant health risk for nonsmokers when people are smoking outside, but there is when smoking takes place in confined areas. that's why smoking is prohibited in subways and other "public" places that are enclosed.

get your facts straight before spewing ignorant rhetoric.

[cintron]

discrimination my ass.

that's like moving next door to someone who plays house music loud all the time, KNOWING they do this before you move in, and then calling the cops on them and forcing THEM to change becuase you feel the need to assert your boundaries.

[cesarleo]

Originally posted by dr0ne

you have it backwards. its NOT discrimination when the worker him/herself makes the CHOICE to work or not to work somewhere. It's only discrimination if the employer did not hire the person because s/he wasn't a smoker or something like that which clearly isn't the case. the question here is that these places are considered public establishments, and its the government's job to look after the general health of the public, that's the argument. just like they could ban smoking outside even if they wanted to, i believe its been tried before, and the findings were that there is not a significant health risk for nonsmokers when people are smoking outside, but there is when smoking takes place in confined areas. that's why smoking is prohibited in subways and other "public" places that are enclosed.

get your facts straight before spewing ignorant rhetoric.

[PinkFloyd40]

Originally posted by dr0ne

you have it backwards. its NOT discrimination when the worker him/herself makes the CHOICE to work or not to work somewhere. It's only discrimination if the employer did not hire the person because s/he wasn't a smoker or something like that which clearly isn't the case. the question here is that these places are considered public establishments, and its the government's job to look after the general health of the public, that's the argument. just like they could ban smoking outside even if they wanted to, i believe its been tried before, and the findings were that there is not a significant health risk for nonsmokers when people are smoking outside, but there is when smoking takes place in confined areas. that's why smoking is prohibited in subways and other "public" places that are enclosed.

get your facts straight before spewing ignorant rhetoric.

actually, a court would most likely see it the other way... it is a form of discrimination.. just as a person not making their establishment fit for the handicapped is discrimination...

maybe YOU should "get your facts straight before spewing ignorant rhetoric..."

[GrammarPolice]

Originally posted by PFloyd40

actually, a court would most likely see it the other way... it is a form of discrimination.. just as a person not making their establishment fit for the handicapped is discrimination...

maybe YOU should "get your facts straight before spewing ignorant rhetoric..."

I guess you never took a Constitutional Law class. Not all discrimination is illegal. It's only illegal for the STATES or the federal government to discriminate. We're talking about private businesses here. Anyway, it's perfectly legal to discriminate (even for the government) because someone is a nonsmoker, is fat, is ugly, is short, has a low IQ etc., as long as there is some rational basis for doing so.

[PinkFloyd40]

Originally posted by GrammarPolice

I guess you never took a Constitutional Law class. Not all discrimination is illegal. It's only illegal for the STATES or the federal government to discriminate. We're talking about private businesses here. Anyway, it's perfectly legal to discriminate (even for the government) because someone is a nonsmoker, is fat, is ugly, is short, has a low IQ etc., as long as there is some rational basis for doing so.

yes actually i have... and this can be argued from either side, only a judge or jury could decide.. but as you said there must bea rational basis for the discrimination which i'd love to hear..

another angle to think about here, are laws meant to ensure employee safety in the workplace... allowing smoking which damages everyone's lungs not just the smoker, might be considered by a jury to be unsafe working conditions... dont' know if anything of the sort has ever been taken to court...

[GrammarPolice]

Originally posted by PFloyd40

yes actually i have... and this can be argued from either side, only a judge or jury could decide.. but as you said there must bea rational basis for the discrimination which i'd love to hear..

another angle to think about here, are laws meant to ensure employee safety in the workplace... allowing smoking which damages everyone's lungs not just the smoker, might be considered by a jury to be unsafe working conditions... dont' know if anything of the sort has ever been taken to court...

Rational basis only applies to governments. Private businesses are free to discriminate on the bases I used as an example for any reason whatsover. But since you asked for a rational basis as to why there should be no ban, here is some info:

==========================

Effects of the California Smoking Ban

April 1998

By KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP

OVERVIEW OF STUDY:

Telephone survey of 300 owners or managers of California establishments, some of whom were affected by the January 1, 1998, statewide smoking ban. Objective of the survey is to determine the effects of the statewide smoking ban on business operations.

FINDINGS INCLUDE:

Type of Establishment:

- 57.3% -- bar connected to restaurant/hotel

- 35.7% -- stand-alone bar/tavern

- 7% -- nightclub

- 37.7% accommodated smokers with an outdoor smoking section

- 62.3% did not accommodate outside

- 3.7% of the establishments did not actively enforce the ban

- 22.6% indicated customers ignored the ban

Effect of Ban on Business Generally:

- 59.3% experienced a decrease in business since the ban.

- 30.3% experienced no effect.

- 6.7% experienced an increase in business.

- 3.7% refused to answer or did not know.

Effect on Weekday Customers:

- 57.7% reported a decrease in weekday customers since the ban went into effect, 35% reported no effect and 3.3% reported an increase.

- Of those reporting a decrease, the average decrease was 32.7%.

- Of those reporting a decrease, 35.9% reported a decline of more than 30% in the number of weekday customers.

Effect on Weekend Customers:

- 50.7% reported a decrease in weekend customers since the ban, 36.7% reported no effect and 8.3% reported an increase.

- Of those reporting a decrease, the average decrease was 27.6%.

- Of those reporting a decrease, 41.2% reported a decline of more than 30% in the number of weekend customers.

Of Those That Experienced a Decrease in Business Generally:

- Average decline in sales was 26.2% and 35.4% experienced a decline of more than 30%.

- 89.3% reported a decrease in weekday customers.

- 81.5% reported a decrease in weekend customers.

Effect on Bars Connected to a Restaurant/Hotel:

- 44.8% reported a decrease in business.

- 47.4% reported a decrease in weekday customers, 47.4% reported no effect and 4.1% reported an increase.

- 37.4% reported a decrease in weekend customer counts, 49.1% reported no effect and 12.3% reported an increase.

Effect on Stand-alone Bar/Tavern Owners/Managers:

- 81.3% reported a decrease in business.

- 79.6% reported a decrease in weekday customers, 15.7% reported no effect and 2.8% reported an increase.

- 75% reported a decrease in weekend customers, 19.4% reported no effect, and 3.7% reported an increase.

Effect on Nightclub Owners/Managers:

- 66.7% reported a decrease in business.

- 61.9% reported a decrease in weekday customers and 33.3% reported no effect.

- 57.1% reported a decrease in weekend customers, 23.8% reported no effect and 9.5% reported an increase.

Effect on All Respondents as a Result of the Ban:

- 50.4% reported an increase in customer complaints/fights and 49.3% reported no increase.

- 65% reported a loss of regular customers and 32.7% reported no loss.

- 59% reported a loss of tips for the bar and serving staff and 38.3% reported no loss.

- 29.7% reported laying off employees or cutting hours/shifts and 69.6% reported no layoffs/cuts.

[JonStephen]

Think about it in simplistic terms.....imagine hangin out at a place like say factory for 12 hours and not be able to smoke one cigarette in that entire time frame........

Its so rediculous that its guaranteed to fail

[dr0ne]

Originally posted by PFloyd40

actually, a court would most likely see it the other way... it is a form of discrimination.. just as a person not making their establishment fit for the handicapped is discrimination...

maybe YOU should "get your facts straight before spewing ignorant rhetoric..."

WRONG.

How about reading up on shit before talking out of your ass?

http://www.no-smoking.org/dec00/12-12-00-4.html

Northwest Airlines v Duncan, 531 US 1058; 121 S Ct 650

See if there's ANY claim of discrimination on there. This is strictly a public health issue. Employer's should go to reasonable lengths to provide a safe environment for their employee's. I'm not disputing that. That's the reasoning behind this. NOT discrimination. The courts wouldn't see this as discrimination against workers, they'd see this as an unsafe workplace.

Now let's put a nail on this coffin shall we?

http://www.lawsguide.com/mylawyer/guideview.asp?layer=3&article=161

"The ADA: A Long Shot

Some workers who are irked and injured by smoke on the job have sued for their injuries under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. You are entitled to protection under this law only if you can prove that your ability to breathe is severely limited by tobacco smoke, making you physically disabled. "

Note the wording...."severely limited"

This basically means you can't use the ADA in this case 99% of the time. If you can find one court case where it was decided that a nonsmoker was being discriminated against feel free to post. Most of the time the ADA is used for smokers, who are discriminated against.....many companies refuse to hire smokers because that would increase the companies group coverage for health insurance. THAT's discrimination, and there are cases out there where it was decided that companies can't do that.

[cintron]

Originally posted by djjonstephen

Think about it in simplistic terms.....imagine hangin out at a place like say factory for 12 hours and not be able to smoke one cigarette in that entire time frame........

Its so rediculous that its guaranteed to fail

I agree. I'm not a smoker, but I have one once in a while...

if i couldn't have a clove @ Vinyl i'd flip out.

[therealjr]

It's time for this assholes opinion.

Smoking is disgusting , i think most of us would agree with that much. It should be made illegal in public places. It is a terrible bothersome habit that bothers and endagers the others around you. Soooo the people who make the conscience desicion to kill themselves and damage thier own body shouldn't be able to take the people eating at the table next to them down the same terrible path. If you choose to smoke you should only be able to do so on sidewalks and in the provacy of your own home.

But, that is also my opinion on all drugs(yes nicotine is 1). They should all be legal and regulated by the F.D.A. That would severly lower the crime rate in this country. It should be legal to buy and own, but illegal to sell without a permit and tax id#. This way anyone that makes the decision to do this to themselves should have the ability to do so in the privacy of thier own homes. Then different buisness minded drug abusers can open establishments like the Hash Bars in Europe. They can be Cig. only, Amphetamine only, Marijuana only, Etc. Cafe's.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH what a clean world with a low crime rate it would be. And hey who knows. . .maybe it can be taxed enough to help balance the stupid budget.