You are perfectly able to open an entirely smoking permitted establishment anywhere. Just make it a members-only.
In all candor, what's the difference?
I support the right of a business owner to run his business as a smoke free one. Why can you not support the right of a business owner to run his business to allow smoking?
Your statement will be incorrect when the NYC ban goes into effect and is probably incorrect in other places.
These bans are not for the health of the PATRONS, they're touted as for the health of the EMPLOYEES. In that case even a private, members only club would not be able to allow smoking.
We call these 'Indian casinos' in the west, and they seem to be re-vitalizing the social lives of serious smokers . . .
Then some idiot would come up with a discrimination lawsuit.
The only way you can have a smoking bar in Cali is if it is owner operated. However, there are plenty of establishments that have adopted Prohibition style ways to get around it. She Lion posted a thread about that. There are also bribes a plenty going around.
That may be permissible where you live but that is not allowable in the state of Delaware. And that is under the current law, even before the insidious total ban goes into effect in November.
The only exceptions there are to the Delaware Ban are for organizations running charitable fund raisers.
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect again. It only works in some places. Most of the thugs who pass such laws also mandate what constitutes a "members only" establishment. Which is an additional problem with these rights violating laws, they require additional government intrusion to make them work.