Smoking bans

[🏀]

Off-Topic a bit.

I went home to Illinois last weekend, and going to bars is an absolute pleasure with the new smoking ban. Wisconsin would do good to follow suit.

[IAmMarquette]

Off-Topic a bit.

I went home to Illinois last weekend, and going to bars is an absolute pleasure with the new smoking ban. Wisconsin would do good to follow suit.

Amen. I live in Chicago. Can't tell you how much I enjoy the smoking ban.

[Steak]

2/3 of the population are supportive of smoking bans, and that includes smokers and non-smokers alike.

Wisconsin has smoking bans, they're just in Madison and Waukesha. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

You're not talking about kids...you're talking about infants. If you ask me, they don't belong in a bar at all. If one of my friends brought two infants to a pregame party at a bar, I wouldn't be happy. Sorry.

[NavinRJohnson]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

Nothing disgusting or shameful about it. Every bar and restaurant in the state has the undeniable right to ban smoking in their individual establishments today. If they thought it would improve their business, believe me they would do it. If you don't like smoke in bars and restaurants, don't patronize them. There are plenty of smoke free places out there, and if the market demands it, there will be more. The only thing that is disgusting and shameful would be more unnecessary government regulations telling people how to run the businesses/lives. I personally hate smoking, and smokey bars and restaurants, so what do I do? I avoid them or I deal with it. If history has taught us anything its that the free market works. Should government also require every bar and restaurant to serve your favorite brand of beer, or only show games you wish to watch so that you can go to any bar you want and have the particular experience you want? If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them. If it affects their business enough, they'll get the picture. Government is not required.

[reinko]

Don't want to ruffle any feathers with the ban on political posts...but the quote "If history has taught us anything, that the free market works" is completely asinine.  The free market does not dominate all, government oversight is implemented in dozens of instances.  Airlines, national defense, social security, telecommunications, energy, interest rates, public health...

And a smoking ban is a public health issue not only for consumers, but for employees.  Clearly the free market can't be allowed to operate because persons from the Tavern League or any other special interest group affect it.

So simplfying it down to "if you don't want smoke, don't go there" doesn't hold much water. 

And to the poster who felt it was needed to get on a soapbox to declare how it was irresponsible to bring infants to a bar, settle...he didn't ask for your advice

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I am not talking about being irresponsible bringing infants to a bar. I'm talking about being annoying.

Here's the solution...one of you go to the game, the other stay home. Or get a babysitter.

[Chili]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

Nothing disgusting or shameful about it. Every bar and restaurant in the state has the undeniable right to ban smoking in their individual establishments today. If they thought it would improve their business, believe me they would do it. If you don't like smoke in bars and restaurants, don't patronize them. There are plenty of smoke free places out there, and if the market demands it, there will be more. The only thing that is disgusting and shameful would be more unnecessary government regulations telling people how to run the businesses/lives. I personally hate smoking, and smokey bars and restaurants, so what do I do? I avoid them or I deal with it. If history has taught us anything its that the free market works. Should government also require every bar and restaurant to serve your favorite brand of beer, or only show games you wish to watch so that you can go to any bar you want and have the particular experience you want? If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them. If it affects their business enough, they'll get the picture. Government is not required.

So you are advocating that we should still be able to smoke on airplanes?

[NavinRJohnson]

And a smoking ban is a public health issue not only for consumers, but for employees.  Clearly the free market can't be allowed to operate because persons from the Tavern League or any other special interest group affect it.

So simplfying it down to "if you don't want smoke, don't go there" doesn't hold much water. 

Good grief. I am no Libertarian, but I am confused as to how this is in reality a public health issue for consumers or employees. Is anybody forced to go to a bar, or work in a bar? This is not West Virgina where you have no alternative but to go to work in the mines. You actually have it backwards. The free market is working as there appears to be more than enough people who are willing to go to bars and work in bars despite the presence of cigarettes. Or, are you saying that they aren't aware of the risks associated with cigarette smoke? If this is such a good idea, and has such overwhelming public support, why are more places not choosing to go smoke free voluntarily? Wouldn't it improve their business? There is this overwhelming support - except among those that would be most affected by it. If bars have trouble attracting customers or employees because they allow smoking, do you think they might do something about it?

I would like for people to just admit why they support smoking bans - because they don't like the smoke and don't want to have to deal with it when they go out to their favorite bars and restaurants. Let's cut the crap about public health, etc. You support the ban for your own convenience, and that's cool, but lets call it what it is. From a personal preference standpoint, I would love to see it, but unfortunately this is not one of those things the government needs to be involved in.  The market is more than capable of regulating this sort of thing.

[NavinRJohnson]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

Nothing disgusting or shameful about it. Every bar and restaurant in the state has the undeniable right to ban smoking in their individual establishments today. If they thought it would improve their business, believe me they would do it. If you don't like smoke in bars and restaurants, don't patronize them. There are plenty of smoke free places out there, and if the market demands it, there will be more. The only thing that is disgusting and shameful would be more unnecessary government regulations telling people how to run the businesses/lives. I personally hate smoking, and smokey bars and restaurants, so what do I do? I avoid them or I deal with it. If history has taught us anything its that the free market works. Should government also require every bar and restaurant to serve your favorite brand of beer, or only show games you wish to watch so that you can go to any bar you want and have the particular experience you want? If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them. If it affects their business enough, they'll get the picture. Government is not required.

So you are advocating that we should still be able to smoke on airplanes?

Nope, and its not even close to the same thing. There are simply not viable alternatives to air travel. For many reasons, and for our national economy to function, etc. People have to fly on airplanes. There are alternatives to going to bars and restaurants where people are allowed to smoke. I used to work in a bank where people still smoked - for a short time before they went smoke free. That is the company made the decision to go smoke free...on their own...without government involvement. Why? Because they thought it was in the best interest of their business. Almost all companies followed suit, without the government telling them to. Businesses and industries that drive or respond to the demands of the market are the ones that thrive and are successful. Those that don't, usually don't hang around too long. Bars and restaurants feel it is in their best interest to allow patrons to smoke. Wonder why that is.

[Chili]

Just an FYI, just this week in WI, a bill to ban smoking was killed by politicians on the Tavern League's payroll.

Disgusting and shameful.

Nothing disgusting or shameful about it. Every bar and restaurant in the state has the undeniable right to ban smoking in their individual establishments today. If they thought it would improve their business, believe me they would do it. If you don't like smoke in bars and restaurants, don't patronize them. There are plenty of smoke free places out there, and if the market demands it, there will be more. The only thing that is disgusting and shameful would be more unnecessary government regulations telling people how to run the businesses/lives. I personally hate smoking, and smokey bars and restaurants, so what do I do? I avoid them or I deal with it. If history has taught us anything its that the free market works. Should government also require every bar and restaurant to serve your favorite brand of beer, or only show games you wish to watch so that you can go to any bar you want and have the particular experience you want? If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them. If it affects their business enough, they'll get the picture. Government is not required.

So you are advocating that we should still be able to smoke on airplanes?

Nope, and its not even close to the same thing. There are simply not viable alternatives to air travel. For many reasons, and for our national economy to function, etc. People have to fly on airplanes. There are alternatives to going to bars and restaurants where people are allowed to smoke. I used to work in a bank where people still smoked - for a short time before they went smoke free. That is the company made the decision to go smoke free...on their own...without government involvement. Why? Because they thought it was in the best interest of their business. Almost all companies followed suit, without the government telling them to. Businesses and industries that drive or respond to the demands of the market are the ones that thrive and are successful. Those that don't, usually don't hang around too long. Bars and restaurants feel it is in their best interest to allow patrons to smoke. Wonder why that is.

Couldn't an airline just go smoke free? Let the market decide. I mean you don't have to fly a particular airline if they allowed smoking.

The reason they banned smoking on planes was for public health. Same thing here. And it is not just bars and restaurants but rather public buildings in Wisconsin. I mean at my old job you could still smoke in your office if you wanted too.

Also, why is it so hard to ask someone to step outside if they want to smoke? When I was a smoker it didn't bother me when I traveled out east to have to step out for a moment to light up. Just the cost of doing business.

[mu_hilltopper]

Let's cut the crap about public health, etc.

No point to debate you, if that's your perspective.   That's what SB150 is based on.

As a society, we have thousands of public health laws, ranging from the temperature of lettuce storage to mouse droppings on the floor.  They are all meant to protect the health of the public.  We also have thousands of employee safety laws, how long you can work, no sexual harassment, child labor laws, etc.

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   -- I called politicians shameful when they thwart the will of the people they govern, due to the clear link between those holding it up, and those who receive enormous campaign donations from the Tavern League.

Public smoking is coming to an end.  22 states have bans, and it is only a matter of time, whether it's 5, 10, 20 years from now, all will, due to the exact reasons above, public health, employee safety, and .. drum roll .. the will of the people.

[spiral97]

Public smoking is coming to an end.  22 states have bans, and it is only a matter of time, whether it's 5, 10, 20 years from now, all will, due to the exact reasons above, public health, employee safety, and .. drum roll .. the will of the people.

I am excited by this trend.. BUT I'm not holding my breath for the other 28 states to follow quickly (or should I say I AM holding my breath in those other 28 states?).

[rocky_warrior]

Boulder county has been smoke free for quite a while now, and Colorado has been for about 2 years now.  Apparently the free market likes to drink more than they like to smoke.  Bars are alive and well!

site note: split this off from the kid friendly bar topic.  This does have some political undertones, but it is public health, and we all like to drink (well, most...)

[NavinRJohnson]

Couldn't an airline just go smoke free? Let the market decide. I mean you don't have to fly a particular airline if they allowed smoking.

No. Not the same market. Again, there are not viable alternatives to air travel. If all airlines ran or were free to run the same routes at the same times, etc., then yes, the market could decide. That is just not the case however. Plenty of alternatives where bars and restaurants are concerned however. Also, probably not enough smokers to support an entire airline, so they would probably all choose to go smoke free anyway. Wait a minute...in that scenario, the market would decide. I guess it works after all.

Also, why is it so hard to ask someone to step outside if they want to smoke?

It's not, and every bar owner in the country is free to do so at any time. This is presented in city halls and state houses as a public health issue, but again, lets call this what it is....the 75% or whatever that support these bans support them in the interest of their own convenience and preference. They don't smoke, so why wouldn't they support it? Of all the comments I have seen on this everyone says how much they like it, how much more enjoyable it is to go to a smoke free bar...I haven't heard anyone talking about how much healthier the bar patrons and waitresses are. Anyone who wants to go to a smoke free bar is free to do so at any time.

[NavinRJohnson]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. All of those things pose health risks (supposedly anyway) as well. Where does it end? Should people not be allowed to work outside on sunny days to avoid the risk of skin cancer, or do they choose to use sunscreen? Should McDonald's be shut down because of obesity concerns, or should people choose to eat there only occasionally (or not at all as in my case)? Should bacon be kept out of stores and off of menus to reduce the risk of heart disease, or should people limit their intake? You believe people don't have the capacity to choose to avoid going to or working at a smokey establishment, and I believe they do. If they are aware of these health risks (as everyone obviously is), but make choices that result in health problems, forgive me if I have a hard time being sympathetic. I don't smoke, drink in moderation (most of the time), watch what I eat, and exercise a little, as I suspect you do,and I don't require a single government regulation to cause me to do that. I spend time now and then in bars where people are smoking, and that's a chance I am willing to take. Would I prefer that they weren't there? You bet, but I just don't think this is one where government should be making that call, and there are alternatives if I am that concerned about it.

[🏀]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. All of those things pose health risks (supposedly anyway) as well. Where does it end? Should people not be allowed to work outside on sunny days to avoid the risk of skin cancer, or do they choose to use sunscreen? Should McDonald's be shut down because of obesity concerns, or should people choose to eat there only occasionally (or not at all as in my case)? Should bacon be kept out of stores and off of menus to reduce the risk of heart disease, or should people limit their intake? You believe people don't have the capacity to choose to avoid going to or working at a smokey establishment, and I believe they do. If they are aware of these health risks (as everyone obviously is), but make choices that result in health problems, forgive me if I have a hard time being sympathetic. I don't smoke, drink in moderation (most of the time), watch what I eat, and exercise a little, as I suspect you do,and I don't require a single government regulation to cause me to do that. I spend time now and then in bars where people are smoking, and that's a chance I am willing to take. Would I prefer that they weren't there? You bet, but I just don't think this is one where government should be making that call, and there are alternatives if I am that concerned about it.

Bartenders/bouncers/waitresses could choose to work a different profession, but they will never recieve the wages as they can in bar. No person should have to choose a lower paying job because their lives are at risk.

Concerning your statement per McDonald's, Bacon, etc... to consume those products is one's choice. Smoking is one's choice. However, working/eating in an environment where one's choice but your own well-being in danger is in definite need of government regulation.

[NavinRJohnson]

Bartenders/bouncers/waitresses could choose to work a different profession, but they will never recieve the wages as they can in bar. No person should have to choose a lower paying job because their lives are at risk.

Preposterous! They know the perceived risks, yet continue because they like the money. Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything. You think those arctic crab fishermen are out there for the fresh air? I have a job that does not require me to travel. I could get a similar position with a lot more travel and increase my income big time. I choose not to do that. If bars and restaurants start losing good people and it has a negative impact on their business because they allow smoking, how long do you think they're going to continue to allow smoking? I just don't understand this mentality that people do not have the power to make their own choices.

Concerning your statement per McDonald's, Bacon, etc... to consume those products is one's choice. Smoking is one's choice. However, working/eating in an environment where one's choice but your own well-being in danger is in definite need of government regulation.

If you choose to work/eat in a place that endangers your well being, and you know it, perhaps you should be making a different choice. Do you really need the government to do that for you?

[Chili]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. A

There is no such thing as second had chew spit, Big Macs or triple bypass. I do know there is second hand smoke.

And I am all for banning the sun. Didn't Mr. Burns try that one in a Simpson's episode?

[NavinRJohnson]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. A

There is no such thing as second had chew spit, Big Macs or triple bypass. I do know there is second hand smoke.

I agree, and you have the choice as to whether you are going to be exposed to it or not.

[🏀]

Bartenders/bouncers/waitresses could choose to work a different profession, but they will never recieve the wages as they can in bar. No person should have to choose a lower paying job because their lives are at risk.

Preposterous! They know the perceived risks, yet continue because they like the money. Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything. You think those arctic crab fishermen are out there for the fresh air? I have a job that does not require me to travel. I could get a similar position with a lot more travel and increase my income big time. I choose not to do that. If bars and restaurants start losing good people and it has a negative impact on their business because they allow smoking, how long do you think they're going to continue to allow smoking? I just don't understand this mentality that people do not have the power to make their own choices.

Concerning your statement per McDonald's, Bacon, etc... to consume those products is one's choice. Smoking is one's choice. However, working/eating in an environment where one's choice but your own well-being in danger is in definite need of government regulation.

If you choose to work/eat in a place that endangers your well being, and you know it, perhaps you should be making a different choice. Do you really need the government to do that for you?

To compare teh deadliest job, to a waitress is a bit far-fetched. No crab pots are endangering the everyday American. The fact is, smoking has endangered every American.

No non-smoking person should have to go out of their way to avoid someone who chooses to kill themselves with tobacco smoke. If they feel the need to be a weaker person by being addicted to putting a stick into their mouths, that is their own choice. Feel free to join the rest of minority and take it someplace else.

It's arguments like this that make me feel for all the little kids growing up in smoke-filled families.

[Chili]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. A

There is no such thing as second had chew spit, Big Macs or triple bypass. I do know there is second hand smoke.

I agree, and you have the choice as to whether you are going to be exposed to it or not.

No I don't. Unless I stay home all the time. At my last job (which was for an international company) people could smoke in their offices.

[NavinRJohnson]

While smoking bans have an extra benefit of pleasing the 75-80% who do not smoke, their basis is in employee safety and public health, of which, as a society, we have decided to regulate.   

So, I assume you also support bans on all tobacco products, trans fats, McDonald, bacon and the sun. A

There is no such thing as second had chew spit, Big Macs or triple bypass. I do know there is second hand smoke.

I agree, and you have the choice as to whether you are going to be exposed to it or not.

No I don't. Unless I stay home all the time. At my last job (which was for an international company) people could smoke in their offices.

Your last job? So you don't work there anymore? Is smoking allowed at your present job? In the building you work in? Exactly where do you absolutely have to go that people are allowed to smoke?

[NavinRJohnson]

To compare teh deadliest job, to a waitress is a bit far-fetched. No crab pots are endangering the everyday American. The fact is, smoking has endangered every American.

Highly debatable, but fine...Truck drivers, loggers, steel workers, pilots, roofers, etc. All pretty dangerous jobs, but they all pay pretty well too. Could a roofer go hang drywall instead. No question, but he wouldn't make as much money. Could a steel worker go do masonry work instead? Absolutely, he'd just have to take a pay cut. Just as there are plenty of sales reps out there pulling down a ton of money, but spending their lives on plane and in hotels, who could switch to a sales job that keeps them local, but in most cases, they'd have to give up plenty financially. Could a typical waitress or bartender go work some other type of retail?  Of course they could - any time they want, just not for the same money.

[NavinRJohnson]

One thing I just can't get past...If this is such a no-brainer, why haven't more places gone smoke-free voluntarily? Why are bar and restaurant owners against it? After all, according to all of the arguments, they would have the overwhelming support of customers. They would most certainly draw limitless customers away from their competitors who allow smoking. The best and brightest wait staff, well aware of the dangers of second hand smoke, would be lined up a mile long to work for them, further damaging the competition. Yet, the rate of places going smoke free remains relatively slow. Why is that? Are these business owners just stupid? They can't recognize an opportunity? Do the not want to make their businesses more successful? They don't want to make more money?

[chapman]

I know they passed a smoking ban in Appleton a few years back, and bar and restaurant owners had been fighting it for awhile.  Some claimed to be losing as much as half their business, and I know there were a couple considering closing down. 

I do like it when restaurants go smoke-free.  I have refused to go back to restaurants where smoke filled the air because the "smoking" section was just one side of a room without anything seperating it from the "non-smoking" section.  I can tolerate smoking at the bar, but on nights where the smoking is heavy and I spend a long time there it makes me a little sick, and stinks up my clothes. 

I do think it depends on the city and the type of business though.  If Milwaukee was to have smoke-free bars, some smaller places might lose business, but you can't tell me the campus bars and most downtown bars would see huge losses, but I'm sure some smaller, isolated bars and diners would lose some business.
If anything it would be nice to go to a crowded bar and not be worried about getting burnt by a lit cigarette being waved around by a very drunk person.

[muhoosier260]

naivin, you say government isn't necessary and then say that the individual establishments won't budge on their own. So, government intervention is necessary then. If you're against smoking (which you said) then why do you defend smokers so adamantly? Often the smell test -no pun intended- for me with any type of issue is "who is this hurting?" When the immediate answer is "no one", it can be tough to say some type of intervention needs to be made. In this case, the answer is overwhelmingly "EVERYONE". So why isn't there intervention? In many instances there has been. Who would it be hurting to have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants? You might say smokers' rights to smoke/ the bar owners. I guess you have to take one side or the other and I say public health (ooooh, i said it-cringe!). I agree that its totally ridiculous that people can't make a decision to not eat McDonad's, however I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

To take a middle of the road stance, who would it be hurting if there was an enclosed designated smoking area?

[NavinRJohnson]

naivin, you say government isn't necessary and then say that the individual establishments won't budge on their own. So, government intervention is necessary then. If you're against smoking (which you said) then why do you defend smokers so adamantly? Often the smell test -no pun intended- for me with any type of issue is "who is this hurting?" When the immediate answer is "no one", it can be tough to say some type of intervention needs to be made. In this case, the answer is overwhelmingly "EVERYONE". So why isn't there intervention? In many instances there has been. Who would it be hurting to have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants? You might say smokers' rights to smoke/ the bar owners. I guess you have to take one side or the other and I say public health (ooooh, i said it-cringe!). I agree that its totally ridiculous that people can't make a decision to not eat McDonad's, however I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

Never said I was against smoking. I said I hate it and I think its rather stupid, but I am not necessarily against it per say. As far as defending smokers so adamantly - that's not really what I'm doing. If every bar in the city decided to go smoke-free tomorrow, I would give a rip what smokers thought about it. What I am defending, is a business owner's right to run his business. I am defending the concept of personal choice. I am defending the concept of a free market.  From a personal preference standpoint, I would love a smoking ban, but that doesn't make it right. My own philosophical and principle positions trump my personal preferences in this case. Why, because I have the choice to avoid places where I know people will be smoking. As far as who would be hurt by it, the bar/restaurant owners obviously feel they would be hurt by it, or they would support it and perhaps make the change voluntarily.

If this is such a public health crisis, I am waiting for someone to tell me why bars and restaurants that allow smoking aren't losing customers and losing staff, or why they aren't making this change voluntarily.

I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

Then go somewhere else! You provide another example of someone hiding behind this whole public health argument, when all you really want is what you want. Which is perfectly fine, but why don't you just use that as your argument? Again, let's call it what it is.

[🏀]

Of course people can always go someplace else Navin. I believe when people enter the bar 10-15% are smoking. However, 100% of the people there are effected by it.

Why haven't bars/restaurants gone smoke free earlier? Because they scared to lose business. To be the one nail sticking up, usually gets hammered down.

The bottom line is, forcing smoking bans on bars helps everyone. Non-smokers can go to every single bar without the worrying about crappy lungs, hard to breathe, and smelling like crap. Smokers, a minority, have to take it outside. Hopefully, after traveling outside every 20 minutes in the freezing weather will help them change their minds.

[Chili]

naivin, you say government isn't necessary and then say that the individual establishments won't budge on their own. So, government intervention is necessary then. If you're against smoking (which you said) then why do you defend smokers so adamantly? Often the smell test -no pun intended- for me with any type of issue is "who is this hurting?" When the immediate answer is "no one", it can be tough to say some type of intervention needs to be made. In this case, the answer is overwhelmingly "EVERYONE". So why isn't there intervention? In many instances there has been. Who would it be hurting to have a smoking ban in bars/restaurants? You might say smokers' rights to smoke/ the bar owners. I guess you have to take one side or the other and I say public health (ooooh, i said it-cringe!). I agree that its totally ridiculous that people can't make a decision to not eat McDonad's, however I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

Never said I was against smoking. I said I hate it and I think its rather stupid, but I am not necessarily against it per say. As far as defending smokers so adamantly - that's not really what I'm doing. If every bar in the city decided to go smoke-free tomorrow, I would give a rip what smokers thought about it. What I am defending, is a business owner's right to run his business. I am defending the concept of personal choice. I am defending the concept of a free market.  From a personal preference standpoint, I would love a smoking ban, but that doesn't make it right. My own philosophical and principle positions trump my personal preferences in this case. Why, because I have the choice to avoid places where I know people will be smoking. As far as who would be hurt by it, the bar/restaurant owners obviously feel they would be hurt by it, or they would support it and perhaps make the change voluntarily.

If this is such a public health crisis, I am waiting for someone to tell me why bars and restaurants that allow smoking aren't losing customers and losing staff, or why they aren't making this change voluntarily.

I also think its totally ridiculous to go to a bar and be subjected to smoke if you're not a smoker.

Then go somewhere else! You provide another example of someone hiding behind this whole public health argument, when all you really want is what you want. Which is perfectly fine, but why don't you just use that as your argument? Again, let's call it what it is.

Damn right I do not want to be subjected to smoke when I am in a bar and a restaurant. And since I am a member of the public, my health is a public health matter. And if you can tell where I can find a smoke free bar in my neighborhood on the East Side of Milwaukee I will go there. Since there isn't one, I really can't go to a smoke free bar now can I.

[NavinRJohnson]

The bottom line is, forcing smoking bans on bars helps everyone.

Everyone? THEN WHY, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DO BAR OWNERS OPPOSE IT EVERY TIME GOVERNMENT TRIES TO IMPOSE ONE ON THEM?

We both know why, because they feel it will hurt their business. But hey, as long as you can have a beer without having to smell like smoke afterwards, who cares about them? The important thing is that you enjoy yourself. Be careful though, at some point they might get around to banning something that does impact you.

The real bottom line is that forcing unnecessary regulations on anyone, HURTS everyone!

[Chili]

The bottom line is, forcing smoking bans on bars helps everyone.

Everyone? THEN WHY, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DO BAR OWNERS OPPOSE IT EVERY TIME GOVERNMENT TRIES TO IMPOSE ONE ON THEM?

We both know why, because they feel it will hurt their business. But hey, as long as you can have a beer without having to smell like smoke afterwards, who cares about them? The important thing is that you enjoy yourself. Be careful though, at some point they might get around to banning something that does impact you.

The real bottom line is that forcing unnecessary regulations on anyone, HURTS everyone!

Unnecessary is the key word. Since bar owners will never do it, it should be imposed. The foie gras ban in Chicago is unnecessary because that is ridiculous. But clean air in public places is not.

[NavinRJohnson]

Damn right I do not want to be subjected to smoke when I am in a bar and a restaurant. And since I am a member of the public, my health is a public health matter. And if you can tell where I can find a smoke free bar in my neighborhood on the East Side of Milwaukee I will go there. Since there isn't one, I really can't go to a smoke free bar now can I.

I see, now we as American's have the inalienable right to have a tavern that meets all of specific criteria within walking distance of our home. I missed that one in the bill of rights. I'd like to have a different Mercedes for every day of the week, but my pay checks don't support that yet. I better call my Congressman.

Since you asked...

Oakcrest Tavern
4022 N. Oakland Ave., Shorewood,

Cuvee
177 N. Broadway

Café Brucke
2102 N. Prospect Ave.

Brocach
1850 N. Water St.

Ardor
607 N. Broadway

Have a beer on me. Never heard of them? I'm surprised, given the overwhelming demand for smoke-fee bars.
It took me exactly 30 seconds to find those. I'm sure there are others. I guess your problems are solved, huh?

[🏀]

Navin,

You have a great argument, and I can see that the decision was not as easy as I may have thought it to be. However, I believe that it isn't as simple as saying, here are the smoke-free bars. Bars/Restaurants compile a reputations for certain aspects, and if I were a bar owner, I would absolutely be against any smoking ban.

[NavinRJohnson]

Unnecessary is the key word. Since bar owners will never do it, it should be imposed. The foie gras ban in Chicago is unnecessary because that is ridiculous. But clean air in public places is not.

Wrong! The key word (well, key words) is public place. A private business is not a pubic place, its a private business.  They could kick you or me out any time they want. There are dress codes, drink minimums, you name it. If you don't like it you are free to go elsewhere. If enough people go elsewhere, they will either have to change their ways or face going out of business. You suppose to tell them what is in their best interest. I prefer to allow them to sink or swim on their own. You believe its government's job to tell people to what's best for everyone. I prefer to let people make their own decisions.

[Chili]

Damn right I do not want to be subjected to smoke when I am in a bar and a restaurant. And since I am a member of the public, my health is a public health matter. And if you can tell where I can find a smoke free bar in my neighborhood on the East Side of Milwaukee I will go there. Since there isn't one, I really can't go to a smoke free bar now can I.

I see, now we as American's have the inalienable right to have a tavern that meets all of specific criteria within walking distance of our home. I missed that one in the bill of rights. I'd like to have a different Mercedes for every day of the week, but my pay checks don't support that yet. I better call my Congressman.

Since you asked...

Oakcrest Tavern
4022 N. Oakland Ave., Shorewood,

Cuvee
177 N. Broadway

Café Brucke
2102 N. Prospect Ave.

Brocach
1850 N. Water St.

Ardor
607 N. Broadway

Have a beer on me. Never heard of them? I'm surprised, given the overwhelming demand for smoke-fee bars.
It took me exactly 30 seconds to find those. I'm sure there are others. I guess your problems are solved, huh?

Those are not "East Side" bars. Also - Brocach is not "non-smoking" bar. They have a non-smoking area. It is nice place.

[NavinRJohnson]

Those are not "East Side" bars. Also - Brocach is not "non-smoking" bar. They have a non-smoking area. It is nice place.

Do you have access to a car or cab fare? Again, you are looking for the government to provide you with what you want, not what you need, and you have completely discredited any public health arguments you may have tried to make. That's not why you support a smoking ban, so go ahead and admit it. I could really go for a fish fry. But man its getting cold out there, and I really don't feel like going out. I think the state should force my favorite restaurant to deliver one to me.  After all, thats what I want. Fact is, I could have one delivered here within the hour, but I'm not because it won't be very good, or the type I want. But, I could have it and the government had nothing to with it.  Sounds like and extreme argument, but guess what, that's your position.

[Chili]

Those are not "East Side" bars. Also - Brocach is not "non-smoking" bar. They have a non-smoking area. It is nice place.

Do you have access to a car or cab fare? Again, you are looking for the government to provide you with what you want, not what you need, and you have completely discredited any public health arguments you may have tried to make. That's not why you support a smoking ban, so go ahead and admit it. I could really go for a fish fry. But man its getting cold out there, and I really don't feel like going out. I think the state should force my favorite restaurant to deliver one to me.  After all, thats what I want. Fact is, I could have one delivered here within the hour, but I'm not because it won't be very good, or the type I want. But, I could have it and the government had nothing to with it.  Sounds like and extreme argument, but guess what, that's your position.

We disagree. And most people in this state disagree with you. Yes I could take a cab. No I would not drive since drinking and driving interferes with others rights to safe roads. And I think you are confusing my stance on this issue with my beliefs. I support a smoking ban because smoke is bad for my health. But to say that I think the government should tell people what to is flat out wrong. I never said ban smoking.

[NavinRJohnson]

I support a smoking ban because smoke is bad for my health. But to say that I think the government should tell people what to is flat out wrong.

Then stay out of places where you know people will be smoking. If most people agree with you as you suggest, then you will not be alone, and smoke free bars will be the rule and not the exception without any action having to be taken by any body of government.

[Chili]

I support a smoking ban because smoke is bad for my health. But to say that I think the government should tell people what to is flat out wrong.

Then stay out of places where you know people will be smoking. If most people agree with you as you suggest, then you will not be alone, and smoke free bars will be the rule and not the exception without any action having to be taken by any body of government.

No, I will take the inherent risks of going out. Should I have to, no. But I do.

[rocky_warrior]

With a quick search, looks like the data for El Paso came out to show...there was no effect on bar revenues...I don't know why the bars keep fighting it.

None of the regression models for restaurant, bar, or mixed-beverage revenues or for such revenues as percentages of total retail revenue over time showed any statistically significant changes after the smoking ban was implemented (Table). In addition, the results did not change when revenues were adjusted for inflation, and adjusting for changes in price did not change the results
...
Despite claims that these laws especially might reduce alcoholic beverage revenues (2), the mixed-beverage revenue analyses indicate that sales of alcoholic beverages were not affected by the El Paso smoking ban.

Full Article

[rocky_warrior]

Also, some information from the Minnesota House of Representatives

Therefore, if there is any conclusion to draw from this literature review, it is that most studies find that smoking bans leave restaurant, bar, or gaming revenue unaffected. However, as in most things in real life, there are no sure bets, and in some cases, a few owners or even entire communities may see an overall decline in revenue. Also, more independent research might help policymakers more fully judge the economic effects of bans on smoking.

[muhoosier260]

so then i have to do research whenever i want to go to a bar if i want to be positive there isn't smoking there? the same argument for the non smokers can be made as you are making for the smokers. Smoker: i have a right to do this activity wherever I want. Non-smoker: i have the right to not be subjected to this activity wherever I am. The fact that you're suggesting non-smokers go to the FEW places (relatively-i'm talking Milwaukee) that do have bans reflects the odd subjugation of the majority that is in effect right now.

[NavinRJohnson]

The fact that you're suggesting non-smokers go to the FEW places (relatively-i'm talking Milwaukee) that do have bans reflects the odd subjugation of the majority that is in effect right now.

No, it reflects that people are whiners, but when you get right down to it, they don't really care that much. My only real position on this, is that people are free to vote with their wallet/feet at any time, and the government does not need to tell people how to run their businesses any more than they already do. If people actually do that, this matter will take care of itself and there will be nothing left to argue about. If you aren't willing to do that, then it obviously is not that important to you and you should probably just hold your breath and drink your beer. Finally, people should stop pretending to support smoking bans  in the interest of public health, when they in reality want to see such a ban in the interest of their own personal convenience. I have no problem with that, I would suppport it for that reason as well if not for my own philosphical conflict, but one more time, let's call it what it is.

[mu-rara]

I don't like a smoky bar, so I patronize a smoke free bar.  Why not do the same?  If more people did that, there would be more smoke free bars..problem solved by market forces.

[muhoosier260]

as long as we have people who choose to be so stubborn about this issue and insisting that its their way or the highway then i suppose nothing will change. When you have lawmakers like Wisc. state senate maj. leader Decker-who coincidentally received the most donations from the "Tavern League" of any state senate member, and 2nd was Breske, his partner in crime on striking down this bill- who are unwilling to compromise with anti-smoking lobbyists how could anything change? you want to talk about whining? This guy breske is saying just b/c he worked in a bar his whole life and it doesn't bother him any, therefore it shouldn't bother you. This guy is an elected official, what a joke.

[NavinRJohnson]

as long as we have people who choose to be so stubborn about this issue and insisting that its their way or the highway then i suppose nothing will change...what a joke.

Couldn't agree more.

[NavinRJohnson]

I don't like a smoky bar, so I patronize a smoke free bar.  Why not do the same?  If more people did that, there would be more smoke free bars..problem solved by market forces.

Dude, I spent the better part of my day trying to make that point. I should know better though, because I learned a long time ago, logic and/or basic economic principles have no place on these boards. This is where I get off. Back to basketball, where the arguments are completely irrational.

[muhoosier260]

as long as we have people who choose to be so stubborn about this issue and insisting that its their way or the highway then i suppose nothing will change...what a joke.

Couldn't agree more.

way to take something out of context. the "what a joke" is referring to the lawmakers who back your position smartass. overall nice attempt at an educated response though.

[muhoosier260]

I should know better though, because I learned a long time ago, logic and/or basic economic principles have no place on these boards. 

so following your approach, why do you choose to post? isn't that something you can choose to not do? why bother?

[NavinRJohnson]

way to take something out of context. the "what a joke" is referring to the lawmakers who back your position smartass.

Ummm...no kidding. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I had no idea.

[mu-rara]

Hoosier,

is your idea of a compromise that Decker give in to your way of thinking?

[muhoosier260]

Hoosier,

is your idea of a compromise that Decker give in to your way of thinking?

in my first comment on this thread i mentioned a middle ground. i don't know exactly what that might be but some type of separate smoking area is one idea. from what i could find decker and co. refused a compromise, they didn't even want any type of separate smoking area

[NavinRJohnson]

Hoosier,

is your idea of a compromise that Decker give in to your way of thinking?

in my first comment on this thread i mentioned a middle ground. i don't know exactly what that might be but some type of separate smoking area is one idea. from what i could find decker and co. refused a compromise, they didn't even want any type of separate smoking area

I don't claim to know the details of any sort of compromise like this that was offered, if an, but I would think a situation like that would be a complete nightmare. Since not all bars/restaurants and buildings are created equally, this would have the potential to create a very unlevel playing field. Meeting the requirements (whatever they may be) would likely be relatively easy for some, and much more difficult and expensive for others.

[muhoosier260]

Hoosier,

is your idea of a compromise that Decker give in to your way of thinking?

in my first comment on this thread i mentioned a middle ground. i don't know exactly what that might be but some type of separate smoking area is one idea. from what i could find decker and co. refused a compromise, they didn't even want any type of separate smoking area

I don't claim to know the details of any sort of compromise like this that was offered, if an, but I would think a situation like that would be a complete nightmare. Since not all bars/restaurants and buildings are created equally, this would have the potential to create a very unlevel playing field. Meeting the requirements (whatever they may be) would likely be relatively easy for some, and much more difficult and expensive for others.

thanks for confirming what i was saying. i guess some people just have to agree to disagree on some matters