No Smoking in Bars/Clubs?

I like it

Been law in California for years now- and I can't see it any other way. Second hand smoke has proven to be deadly, so it should be that way.

I think it's ridiculous. I would never be a smoker, but there is nothing good out of this, especially for businesses.

If you don't like clubs or bars that feature smoking heavily, then don't go there. It should be up to businesses whether they want to feature non-smoking sections or an entirely non-smoking business.

If enough people REALLY want a non-smoking bar, an entrepreneur or business owner will jump on the opportunity to make money off of it, and thus will voluntarily choose it. No need for the government to elevate this to a criminal offense.

I favor a smoking ban in restaurants   Not in bars, clubs, and lounges.  That's pushing it too far.

(I've lived both in NC, the tobacco capital of the US and here in FL, that has a ban in place).

100% no.

It should be the decision of the bar owners. They'll take a hit in customers no matter what way they choose (either smokers leaving or non-smokers leaving), and the burden should be on them to make the decision for the atmosphere of the bar, not the health of hypothetical people.

In all honesty the crimes against free choice committed in the name of health is the unsung disaster, and it speaks volumes of the hypocrisy of Americans who are supposed to stand for freedom of choice, but when it comes down to an act most people dislike, they flake on their flimsy moral background.

Democrats, at least, have the platform of being nannies, so it's not unexpected from them. Yet it's often the prudish, supposedly moral Republican who come out against smoking, and thus just making another notch in the hypocrisy bedpost by abandoning the Randian ideals they like to verbally masturbate over when the political climate suits their devious plans (ie. now).

Full disclosure: I smoke a pipe, hookah, and sometimes self- rolled cigarettes.

An even bigger crime than the bar issue is the recent tax increase on tobacco, which is disgustingly high. And yet, most people don't care that it's the government's sick way of imposing behavior on its people.

It all infuriates me, more as a champion of decency and freedom than an occasional smoker.

Rant over...until someone responds.

I was going to rant as well, but Alex and Stoney pretty much said what I was going to say.

stonebeard wrote: 100% no. It should be the decision of the bar owners. They'll take a hit in customers no matter what way they choose (either smokers leaving or non-smokers leaving), and the burden should be on them to make the decision for the atmosphere of the bar, not the health of hypothetical people. In all honesty the crimes against free choice committed in the name of health is the unsung disaster, and it speaks volumes of the hypocrisy of Americans who are supposed to stand for freedom of choice, but when it comes down to an act most people dislike, they flake on their flimsy moral background. Democrats, at least, have the platform of being nannies, so it's not unexpected from them. Yet it's often the prudish, supposedly moral Republican who come out against smoking, and thus just making another notch in the hypocrisy bedpost by abandoning the Randian ideals they like to verbally masturbate over when the political climate suits their devious plans (ie. now). Full disclosure: I smoke a pipe, hookah, and sometimes self- rolled cigarettes. An even bigger crime than the bar issue is the recent tax increase on tobacco, which is disgustingly high. And yet, most people don't care that it's the government's sick way of imposing behavior on its people. It all infuriates me, more as a champion of decency and freedom than an occasional smoker. Rant over...until someone responds.

I don't smoke or use drugs and I never plan on smoking or using drugs, but this is very well-said and I'm glad to see another person who agrees with me on this.

MovingPictures07 wrote: I think it's ridiculous. I would never be a smoker, but there is nothing good out of this, especially for businesses. If you don't like clubs or bars that feature smoking heavily, then don't go there. It should be up to businesses whether they want to feature non-smoking sections or an entirely non-smoking business. If enough people REALLY want a non-smoking bar, an entrepreneur or business owner will jump on the opportunity to make money off of it, and thus will voluntarily choose it. No need for the government to elevate this to a criminal offense.

As spoken by someone under the age of 21 who can't get in to bars (legally) at this point anyways. 

rushfan4 wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: I think it's ridiculous. I would never be a smoker, but there is nothing good out of this, especially for businesses. If you don't like clubs or bars that feature smoking heavily, then don't go there. It should be up to businesses whether they want to feature non-smoking sections or an entirely non-smoking business. If enough people REALLY want a non-smoking bar, an entrepreneur or business owner will jump on the opportunity to make money off of it, and thus will voluntarily choose it. No need for the government to elevate this to a criminal offense. As spoken by someone under the age of 21 who can't get in to bars (legally) at this point anyways.

It has no baring on my beliefs.

MovingPictures07 wrote: I think it's ridiculous. I would never be a smoker, but there is nothing good out of this, especially for businesses. If you don't like clubs or bars that feature smoking heavily, then don't go there. It should be up to businesses whether they want to feature non-smoking sections or an entirely non-smoking business. If enough people REALLY want a non-smoking bar, an entrepreneur or business owner will jump on the opportunity to make money off of it, and thus will voluntarily choose it. No need for the government to elevate this to a criminal offense.

Raff wrote: Has any of you, before launching into a rant against the 'nanny government', thought about the possible connection between the ban on smoking and the danger of fire in those places? In many countries clubs are situated underground, and fires have been known to break out and kill many people. I think that a destructive fire, with loss of lives, would cost a bar or club owner much more than having smoking banned on the premises... But then, what do I know?

No disrespect of course but I'm not entirely sure a smoking ban decreases the chance of a fire in a bar. I admit I have never been in a bar nor do I smoke and cannot attest to this from first-hand experience. I imagine that flaming shots are more responsible for bar fires than someone lighting up. Smokers know how light cigarettes. Unless they are completely trashed, but I believe it's the responsibility of the bartenders to cut off a person before they get to that point. I'd like someone to elaborate on a likely scenario that starts with someone hankering for a cigarette and ends in a bar fire.

To answer the actual question, I agree with Alex and stonebeard.