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

[Great Dane]

I hear you bite and scratch the furniture tho. How do you feel about being de-clawed?

Oh, please don't ask that of She Lion, she needs every claw she can put her paws on.

[CSM]

If a smoker decides to turn to junk food as an alternative to smoking then that is his choice. It would not be a choice that I would make, however it is still an individual choice.

I am not twisting this into a constitutional issue, it already is a private property issue and it will remain a private property issue.

[Great Dane]

Feminazi leanings are showing.

Yours. ???

[Cboldt]

Haha. ABout the same total disregard you have. You smoke cigars. Your sister is allergic to tobacco smoke.

My point being, neither one of us has total disregard for people who have ealth issues with tobacco smoke.

I have disregard for laws that prohibit smoking EVERYWHERE indoors. That is too much. I have no trouble with laws that prohibit smoking in potentially explosive atmospheres, or hospitals, or even allowing restaurants and taverns to CHOOSE whether to permit or forbid smoking on their premises. It appeared to me that you support a LAW that makes it illegal to smoke in ANY indoor place.

[OPS4]

No it is not, when one obtains a license to operate business in any city, it falls under health codes.

I wonder how many people used this arguement when the first health rules and inspectors went out to prevent the spread of disease in all of the licensed food establishments.

The best thing here would be to have all of this put to a nationwide vote and let the majority rule on it. Smokers would erve themselves best by creating a referendum.

Afterall that is a true test in a democracy.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[OPS4]

I smoke cigars outdoors and in cigarbars, not where my Mother is located, or any other persons who's health would be affected. Read the post again then you will se how you twisted it.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[Great Dane]

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

But shouldn't it be a personal choice, all you have to do, is stay out of smokefilled establishments... see how easy it is.

[OPS4]

No, mine leans to following what is best for protecting those who get sick from tobacco smoke. When some one attacks a position with calling an opposing view an insult, that is a Feminazi leaning.

Ops4 God bLess America!

[Looking4Truth]

If thats people control, I am all for it.

The whiny minority imposing tyranny on the majority? Are you sure you don't belong over at DU?

This is a decision that should be left up to the individual business owners. But I guess you are against private businesses running themselves as they see fit as well.

[CSM]

Since when do we live in a Democracy? I thought we lived in a Republic.

I would also assert that these regulations and government intervention into the market are all wrong. I would prefer to have a private company certify the cleanliness, etc. of restaurants. They would be much better at it and I wouldn't mind owning such a business. You do know what a 4 star hotel is right?

What if a nationwide vote resulted in requiring all restaurants and bars to allow smoking? Would you say that is wrong? Of course, and so would I, it is the property owners choice.

Please show me how SHS causes health problems, therefore making this a health issue. Yes, it can irritate problems, but I would be willing to wager that your mother's asthma/allergy is triggered by more things than ETS.

What would be an acceptable level of ETS?

Now, would you care to answer my question regarding support of a ban on Shellfish or Peanuts being served at restaurants? It would be in the name of health....

[Cboldt]

You twisted my argument. Read my post again. I said we BOTH respect the health of others, and neither of us needs a LAW to do so. You appear to advocate a ban on smoking in all indoor public places. I don't support that, I despise that degree of control. Simple.

[OPS4]

Many people have the right to make choices, my choice is to consider the majority opinion, not that of a minority, and smokers are in the minority.

Public health issues are what health codes are designed to help with, it is not a conspiracy to attack your freedom or mine.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[OPS4]

Again if you read my previous posts, I never said ban smoking in all public places, I said those business entities who allow for seperate rooms with seperate ventilated smoking areas or Cigar Bars like I go to for
smoking a cigar is the way around the problem.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[CSM]

"Many people have the right to make choices, my choice is to consider the majority opinion, not that of a minority,...."

Based on that statement, if the majority decided to ban christianity, then you would support that? The majority says abortion should remain legal, do you support that? Or is the constitution only valid when it is convenient for you?

[OPS4]

Health issues, chemical reactions, sickness from tobacco smoke has nothing to do with Christianity. You are again twisting the arguement from a health issue to so many other topics, it is becomeing a real apparent strecch on your part.

I will suffice it to say I am a Christian, who cares about the health of others in publically licensed places who do not provide seperate ventillated rooms for the purpose of sucking tobacco smoke.

Trying to demonize this position, by you or anyone else will look a lot like how the dems pose an argument, off subject and stretching.

I oppose government control in most areas, but the concern for the health of others in public places, does not make one a follower of Hegel and Marx.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and lest we forget those Baptist Christians who condemn smoking all together, whose side are they on?

Ops4 God Bless America!

[metesky]

So you believe in democracy?

[OPS4]

Yep, and I believe in Jesus Christ as my salvation.I believe people who have illnesses related to tobacco smoke have a right to breath without getting sick.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[metesky]

Democracy was frowned on by the Founding Fathers and if you believe in it there's a spot open at DU.

I don't really care about your religion, that should be between you and your particular god.

I too believe that people who have illnesses related to tobacco smoke have as much right to breathe as anyone else.

Now would you care to list any illnesses you know that are related to tobacco smoke? Not smoking either. Smoke.

[CSM]

So you believe in the majority rules democracy when it is convenient for you. I see now, that using the majority rules democracy argument for other issues means that I am twisting an issue.

You need to decide. Are you for rule of the majority or not. If you are for regulation of private property (i.e. smoking bans) through the rule of the majority, then you must support the majority's decision regarding other issues. You can not pick and chose.

This is not a health issue. It is a control issue. SHS does not cause any health problems. It may aggravate an already existing problem, but the individual with that health problem is not forced into any restaurant or bar. If they enter one and see that smoking is taking place, or there is to much smoke, they are free to leave at any time. No one locks the door shut and guards the door to keep an asthmatic in a restaurant.

Trying to equate me with the dems is a low down statement, and you know that and did it anyway. What does that say about you?

You can not be against government control in some areas and for it in others. That just means that you want the government to dictate the rest of the citizens to your preferences. If you appreciate individual rights, then you must support them for all people.....

The baptists condemn all sorts of behavior. I support them being able to make those individual decisions. No one is forced to join any denomination that they do not agree with.

Let me summarize my questions that you failed to address:
1) Do you agree with eminant domain confiscation of private property to build shopping malls?
2) Do you believe that we live in a democracy, rather than a republic?
3) Do you think that the current health code for restaruants actually works?
4) What if a nationwide vote resulted in requiring all restaurants and bars to allow smoking?
5) What would be an acceptable level of ETS?
6) Should we ban peanuts and shellfish in the name of public health?

Before you come back with the "your twisting this issue and trying to confuse it with other issues" response, how about admitting that any trampling of individual rights is wrong?

[Mears]

With all due respect,your mother sounds a bit neurotic to me. She may not like the smell of tobacco smoke but it sure as heck didn't give her asthma and it won't bring on an asthma attack.

I grew up with asthma and started smoking when I was seventeen.The asthma left when I was 21.The smoking neither helped nor harmed me.