Taverns brace for smoking ban in different ways

Kennebuc Journal ^ | 12-15-03 | CHUIN-WEI YAP

[SheLion]

Smokers will face a new choice of bars in the new year ahead. While some bars will be entirely smoke-free, including many in the greater Augusta area, others have spent thousands of dollars to build covered annexes for their smoking clientele in preparation for Maine's ban on smoking in bars next year.

Maine legislators (AND THE RINO'S INCLUDED) passed the ban on smoking in bars and taverns in June, joining New York, California and Delaware in extending smoke-free environments to one of the last bastions of public indoor smoking. The ban takes effect Jan. 1, and experience in other states suggests the crowds will spill onto the sidewalks to light up.

Bravo's Mexican Restaurant in Augusta is one outlet that built a patio specially to accommodate smokers.

"We built it this (past) fall, so we can have people eat and smoke outside if they want to," said Brodie Tewkesbury, the outlet's manager. "So when (the smoking ban) comes into effect, we can have people smoke outside."

The concrete patio, which is uncovered, is behind the Bangor Street restaurant.

But by and large, bars in the Augusta area are not trying to soften the blow for smokers. Those include The Wharf and The Liberal Cup in Hallowell and Tilbury Town Tavern and the Depot Pub in Gardiner.

"We're sticking with the ban," one employee at The Liberal Cup said.

Bars farther north are beating the ban, however. At least three have completed or are erecting such smoking rooms. Their owners are motivated mainly by business motivation -- to keep their smoking patrons -- but some of them also are trying to dissuade smoking customers from illegally taking their drinks with them outside for cigarette breaks.

"We don't want people going out on the street to smoke, so we're building a deck for smokers to go out and smoke in," said Jibryne "Gubby" Karter, owner of Waterville's Bob-In Tavern.

"(Otherwise) we'll have the police coming round. We want to make sure (customers) are not trying to sneak out (to smoke) with beers. That makes more of a mess on the sidewalk."

Karter is building a 12-by-20 feet enclosure. The roofed space will be open on one side, according to directions laid down by the district attorney's office. The rest of the walls are wooden, with tinted glass windows and a space heater "to take the chill out."

In all, Karter said he will sink $5,000 to $10,000 into the project.

"We got the platform section built," Karter said. "It will all be under construction until the end of next week."

On Skowhegan's Main Street, the South Side Tavern is building a latticed enclosure for its smokers.

"I'd much rather have (smoking customers) in a controlled area like that," said owner Bart Hughes, a nonsmoker.

Like the other tavern owners, Hughes had to wade through a small sea of bureaucracy to get the annex up. That includes inspections by the Fire Department and the state's liquor licensing agents. The Waterville bars got approvals from the local code enforcement officers as well as the district attorney's office.

South Side's smoking patrons are pleased.

"I like it," said Eben Miller, 48. "Ninety percent of people who come in here smoke."

Other bar owners, including nonsmokers, are more strident in opposing the ban.

"The more comfortable I make it, the less it hurts me," said Fred Karter, the nonsmoking owner of Waterville's Chez bar. "I want to show my customers I appreciate them. It's pretty unfair. They let private clubs do it (allow indoor smoking). I've never smoked in my life, but I don't consider smokers criminals. We think we have to regulate everything."

Fred Karter is building an 11-by-20-foot latticed annex shielded with glass panels. He is spending more than $4,000 on construction materials and building much of it himself. He estimates that 98 percent of his customers smoke.

But for the annex builders, it is a matter of doing business.

"It's an intangible -- 75 percent of my people drink and smoke, and a lot of people tell me they only smoke in bars," said Bob-In's Gubby Karter. "How much will (the new ban) affect us? Initially about 10 percent. I'm hoping it's not worse than that. We're doing everything we can to accommodate (the smokers). We don't want 20 people outside with their butts on the ground and everything."

Chuin-Wei Yap - 8619253

ychuin@centralmaine.com

[SheLion]

So why does that becom the alternative to smoking?

I believe it's spelled "become." How old ARE you anyway!

[SheLion]

So why does that becom the alternative to smoking?

Isn't it wonderful that Free Republic made the BLOCK POSTER so we don't have to read hateful postings anymore?! hehe

CYA!!!!!!!!

[SheLion]

Good luck in making a run for the Assembly. We need more right thinking people in all the state houses!!!!

If anything, he can become a BIG BOIL ON THEIR BUTTS. LOL

[The Mayor]

Become of boil on their azzes! heheh!

I already am and hopefully I will become a big one.

I am relentless with the politicans, some of them see me and quickly walk away in hopes I didn't see them.
A few years ago I threw a pocket Constitution at my assemblyman and told him to read it.

[SheLion]

I am relentless with the politicans, some of them see me and quickly walk away in hopes I didn't see them. A few years ago I threw a pocket Constitution at my assemblyman and told him to read it.

Good for YOU! ^5 = High Five!!!!

[zygoat]

"I'd much rather have (smoking customers) in a controlled area like that," said owner Bart Hughes, a nonsmoker."

This is what they are trying to implement. A "CONTROLLED" enviroment for anyone who dares to infringe upon their state given rights.

[OPS4]

Old enough to know when someone is btrying to avoid the question by being juvenile in turn by trying to create a spelling contest, and avoiding the question.

Ops4 God Bless America
Feminazi leanings are showing.

[OPS4]

SO answer the question??????????????????????
Why does overeating becom the alternative to smoking,
seems to me that an obsessive behavior problem appears!

Ops4 God BLess America!

[CSM]

"Why does overeating becom the alternative to smoking,
seems to me that an obsessive behavior problem appears!"

Because the current trend in the media is to demonize "big food" to open the doors to legislation monitoring diets and personal exercise habits. How nice it will be when we go to our favorite restaurants and get to order soylent green. The same path is being taken with regards to food as was done with tobacco, the same players too.

[Great Dane]

LOL, but it is a beautiful picture.

[OPS4]

So does tha mean that the alternative to smoking is is JUnk food binging? I understand the Constitutional side of you argument, but no one is banning smoking, they are banning the use of smoke in Public places for people not to have to feel sick from the smoke.

My Mother is totally allergic to tobacco smoke and her eyes swell and her ashtma acts up. So why should seh be subject to such a problem.

I believe the alternative should be seperate rooms and ventilating systems or smoke outside.

When you walk into the ATlanta airport smoking rooms you could vomit from the lack of ventilation.

Merry Christmas to You All! and I hope the Government does not ban Junk food for those who enjoy it.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[Great Dane]

I can see many of these business owners having a serious change of heart over a short period of time. They did it here too and we have much better overall weather conditions in British Columbia, Canada.</>

You have to wonder what it is these people are smoking, they already know patio's won't work in northern climes.

[Great Dane]

I see you like people control.

[OPS4]

I like health control for people who cannot stay healthy in smoke filled environments. If thats people control, I am all for it.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[CSM]

"So does tha mean that the alternative to smoking is is JUnk food binging?"

No, it is not meant as an alternative, unless an individual choses that. What it means that in the name of public health we have allowed the rights of individuals to be trampled upon. Now, we can expect the same rights to be trampled upon regarding food.

No where in the constitution is a right identified that protects me from others offensive behavior. Your mother has the ability to chose where she wants to go and she is not required to enter any particular bar or tavern. Should we ban public consumption of peanuts, some people have life threatening allergies to them? How about shellfish? Does someone with these allergies have the choice to stay away from such products and should they maintain that freedom?

The alternative should be to allow the property owner to chose how to use his property. If you feel so strongly about a smoke free environment, then you should risk your own money and start a restaurant or bar that is smoke free. If the market really exists you would end up with a handsome payoff for taking the risk. Instead, the weaklings of our society, expect the government to legislate to their preferences. They are weak because they are not able to make a simple choice, the government must eliminate one option all together in order to eliminate the choice.

Junk food won't be banned, instead it will be heavily taxed. Just like cigs!

[Great Dane]

Bubbles dont form cancers!

No, but just about everything else in your life does.

[OPS4]

So what does that have to do with the point I was making. You trwist and turn this into Constitutional debate, when my question still remains unanswered, is junk food binging the only alternative for non-smoking.

I for one do not eat junk food, but I do smoke. I smoke outside when I light a cigar, or go to a cigar bar, where I an my friends choose to smoke.

So whats the answer? Do smokers have to turn to obesity and other obsseive eating behaviors to replace smoking?

Ops4 God Bless America!

[Cboldt]

I like health control for people who cannot stay healthy in smoke filled environments. If thats people control, I am all for it.

Wait 'til somebody asserts control over you. Sheesh. Some people.

Do you like health control for peolpe who can't stay healthy, faced with tastey junk food? How about people who can't drive safely and carry on a conversation at the same time (not just via phone, but also with the person sitting next to them), or people who drink coffee of soft drinks while driving, or other momentary lapses from driving attention -- are you "for" controlling that behavior by the force of law?

Me, I like freedom, and I don't like your position one bit ... not one little bit. I despise the position you hold.

[CSM]

"I like health control for people who cannot stay healthy in smoke filled environments. If thats people control, I am all for it."

You just won the "stupidest comment CSM has read all day" award. Do you realize that you just stated that an individual's property rights are thrown out in favor of public health? Socialist!

I suppose you also support confiscating homes under eminent domain, you know the public good is served by building a mall where that home is!

[OPS4]

Well I good for you. I despise people who have total disregard for people who have health issues with tobacco smoke.

Ops4 God BLess America!