[SheLion]

Smoking Bans Bad For Business

SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS

And we tried to tell them. But no one wants to believe us until they come up light in the cash drawer.

[SheLion]

Didn't we try to warn everyone? eh?

[DoughtyOne]

The tile is wrong. They are not fuming now. And you know what, that suits me just fine. Five years ago, for the first time I could take small children and my wife out to eat without having to wash my clothes and shower as soon as I got home. I didn't have to inhale the fumes when I was out. The stink didn't permiate my clothing and my hair so much that I could still smell the stench days later.

Like you I don't necessarily buy the second hand smoke figures. I do think second hand smoke is detrimental none the less. And I don't see why I should have to put up with it.

Going in to public place we are equals. Those who pick up a cigarette place me at a disadvantage. I can't get away from them unless I completely give up eating out, going to a bar or dancing in public. They still can enjoy those pleasures. The only thing is, they will have to wait until they go outside to poisen themselves.

I may not be exposed to smokers day in and day out, but waitresses, bartenders and other employees are constantly. As much as I wish smokers could smoke in public without affecting everyone else, they can't.

Five years ago I and the other non-smokers were freed from the stench. I am glad.

[thinktwice]

California has the initiative process -- the voters decide at elections -- to make law.

Meaning ... California needs no legislature or governor to pass a law.

Meaning ... California needs an initiative to ban law-making within the legislative and executive branches.

[thinktwice]

California has the initiative process -- the voters decide at elections -- to make law.

Meaning ... California needs no legislature or governor to pass a law.

Meaning ... California needs an initiative to ban law-making within the legislative and executive branches.

[Tacis]

What a bunch of bogus barbra streisand!!

Sure, receipts are off $2,000 a weekend (%?), but it's the economy stupid, not the smoking ban. The same store sales at almost all retail stores, Pennys, Target, etc., are down as well.

I can't wait until we have a smoking ban. There are some places that I like but don't go to now because the smoke makes it intolerable. Of course, some of these places have gone out of business in recent months.

These whiners should recognize, as well, that their raising the price of drinks while "allowing" smoking has also hurt their business. Check it out; they'll say "our costs have gone up." What they've done is simply figure that a guy with one controlling addiction will certainly pay extra for a place where he can be slave to the first addiction while practising a second.

[realpatriot71]

While I find it quite pleasant to be able to go to the bar and not have to deal with smoke and the smell it leave behind on my clothes, the decision to be smoke free or not shoud be left to the owner. I've only found one place where I live that allows smoking - legal loophole of some kind - and I still go in. My smoking friends love it.

[TheBattman]

How hard is it to understand???

1. If I don't want to smell smoke, be around smoke, or see smoke, I don't go to a business that allows smoking.

2. I certainly appreciate businesses dividing the resteraunt into smoking and non-smoking sections. Of course, any smart business owner would do such without a law to require it - I am a non-smoker who will not go in a resteraunt if I can't get away from the smoke - MY CHOICE.

3. If you don't want to smell, breath, be around smoke - don't get a job where smoking is allowed - duh..IT's a CHOICE.

In a truly free-market system, the consumer makes the rules. If a business does not allow smoking and they don't have enough business to stay afloat - that was their decision to make. If a business does allow smoking and they don't get enough business to stay afloat - that was still their decision to make.

The market will direct a business owner's decision making. If it doesn't then they deserve to be out of business. The government has no right or obligation to make these sorts of decisions for business owners.

[tubebender]

Indian Casinos still allow smoking and I am glad there is a place for smokers to go. We are not or have ever been smokers and I hate the smell but we still go to the casinos including those in the Redding-Corning area.

[Lexington Green]

Freedom for me but not for thee
Freedom for thee but not for me
But thee and me will never be free
Until there is freedom for me and for thee
- Lexington Green

[kellynla]

This article is hogwash. First, restaurants and/or bars have patios where smokers are allowed to eat, drink & smoke. Second, there are bars in CA where the locals go and smoke. Period. And finally, the whole economy in CA is down not just restaurants and bars and "no smoking" has little to do with it. The Dimwit Davis is the butt of the problem not cigarettes.

[Age of Reason]

I'm a long time ex-smoker who is well past any nicotine addiction.

But I am not among the "reformed" ex-smokers.

I do wish they'd spend as much effort developing a safe cigarette as they spend figuring out how to ban them.

Then I can go back to smoking my brains out.

[Nephi]

Are private clubs included in the no-smoking ban?

If not, perhaps, bars could identify themselves as a "private club." Once a non-member enters, they could be sponsored for membership by any member inside.

Personally, I would construct some sort of oath disparaging the Democrat party and make it part of the induction ceremony, just to weed out the anti-tobacco totalitarians.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

I'd love to see them try this in Vegas!

(laughing in the background)

[lewislynn]

SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS

LOL! Come out here some Fri. or Sat. night and try to get a seat at the bar or restaurant sometime Ms. expert on California from Maine...Or is that Somalia now yet?

[A CA Guy]

The only problem with the article is the whole premise is garbage.

You need a little context to straighten smokers out. We are in a global recession in which the USA has the best economy. But in a recession, the wallets aren't as open in public places as in a better economy.
There has also been more non-smoking families going out to eat now that they don't have to breath in the exhaled smoke of a chain-smoker.
I and all my friends in California are pleased as we could be about the smoking ban and look forward to it being replicated all across the country.
They can always smoke outside. We ALL have to breath, it isn't a MUST to smoke.
There are also more bars in general now in California than years ago.
The only area I know of that was hurt by the ban in CA was the topless/nude bars which are inhabited by chain smokers. From what I read, those declined according to the LA Times and OC Register. But most normal family folks don't care about that issue at all.

[sweetliberty]

"We're trying too hard to protect people," Travis said."

Because it isn't about protecting anybody. It's about controling everybody.

[MattAMiller]

Not I think this is any of the government's business but I really do prefer smoke-free restaurants. I'm not really sure the ban was necessary since smoking sections were on the way out anyway.

I spent my Christmas vacation visting my brother in NC. Seeing people smoke in public was nearly surreal.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Seems to me that quite a lot of the discomfort suffered by non-smokers in bars could be relieved to a great extent by better ventilation. Now why isn’t CA offering tax-free loans or grants to businesses to install these kinds of improvements? The money could come from the tobacco settlement and would beneficially impact the local economies of the bars and provide non-smokers with a more relaxing environment.

[Great Dane]

After 5 years, hummmmm....... haven't they told us what a success it is..... over and over again, if thats success, who needs it.

[Taxman]

For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how this stupid, misguided, unconstitutional law has not been challenged in court. Clearly, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I have no problem with non-smoking establishments -- but it ought to be up to the owner to decide his/her smoking policy, not the government.

If you don't smoke and don't like smokey rooms, all you have to do is take your business elswhere -- you have a choice. There are plenty of non-smoking bars and restaurants in those communities/states not entirely run by modern day Nazis!

But you know what? In those communities/states run by non-smoking Nazis, smokers do not have a choice. That is not the America I grew up in nor is it the America I spent 28 1/2 years serving in the U.S. Navy and Navy Reserve!

It is not the America the Founding Fathers envisioned, either.

"No-smoking anywhere bans," is not what FReedom is about.