Posted on 12/30/2003 5:30:22 AM PST by SheLion
Monday, December 29, 2003
It's nearly the last gasp for smoking bar patrons
University of Southern Maine student Ben Theriault, of Buxton, takes time out from class to enjoy a cigarette in 2002. Starting next month, smoking will be banned in bars in Maine. Smoking is already banned in restaurants and in most public buildings.
To some bar patrons, the haze padding the ceiling and hanging over pool tables is as much a part of a bar as a bank of beer taps.
Those who have become accustomed to the sight, as well as those who are used to puffing on cigarettes between drinks, now have just a few days to savor it - the state's ban on smoking in bars is due to go into effect Thursday.
While officials at the state Bureau of Health and anti-smoking groups have touted the ban's health benefits since it was passed early last summer, bar patrons who frequent Portland's hazy, smoke-filled watering holes view the ban as another example of well-intentioned, yet misdirected legislation.
"(Smoking) is an easy scapegoat for our society's health problems," which are also caused by pollution, fast food and a number of other factors, said Clifford Brown of Portland, who lit a cigarette as he sat at one end of Amigo's Mexican Restaurant on Dana Street. Well over half of those who frequent the bar and restaurant - which has separate smoking and non-smoking sections - smoke cigarettes.
Brown, along with other patrons gathered at Amigo's on Friday, said he opposes the ban on principle. The state should not try to legislate health consciousness, he said.
"If you don't smoke, you don't have to come into a place like this," said Arty Tavano, 40, a cook at Gritty McDuff's on Fore Street. "Bars are here to be smoked in."
Tavano said the ban will not only change the character of many bars in the Old Port, but fill the area's sidewalks with smokers who must go outside to feed the habit. This will cause a slew of new problems that Portland's Police Department does not have the resources to deal with, such as fights and patrons walking out on their bills, he said.
"They're gonna ask cops to tell people not to smoke," Tavano said, laughing.
The ban has also rendered obsolete Gritty McDuff's $60,000 ventilation system, purchased after the state banned smoking at restaurants in 1999 so the bar and grill could continue to allow smoking in one section, he said.
Some smokers said they think the ban will go largely unenforced. Most, however, said they think bars in Portland will adhere to the ban.
"I'm trying to live it up until Thursday," said Brown, 21, as he smoked a Lucky Strike cigarette.
The smoking ban means that virtually all public workplaces in Maine, barring a few exceptions, do not allow smoking indoors. Private clubs such as the Elks may only allow smoking if they close their halls to the public and have no paid employees, or if they close their halls to non-members and all of their employees agree to allow smoking indoors.
Questions remain about who will enforce the ban after it goes into effect.
Portland Police Chief Michael Chitwood says he has received "no direction from the state" as to how his officers should enforce the ban.
The state eliminated the Bureau of Liquor Enforcement in June. The department used to make sure bars and convenience stores didn't sell alcohol to minors, so local police departments have already picked up those duties. The smoking ban adds another regulatory duty to the agendas of local police, he says.
"It's not a priority," Chitwood said. "I don't have the manpower to deal with it all."
Although it seems it will take time to figure out the best way to enforce the ban, the law has teeth.
The state will assess a fine of $100 per offense to smokers and bar owners caught breaking the law, according to Dr. Dora Anne Mills, director of the state Bureau of Health. Mills says bar owners may also be fined for failing to post signs informing patrons of the ban and that liquor licenses may be suspended or revoked after repeated violations.
Local police, the Bureau of Health and the Attorney General's Office have enforcement powers, Mills says, adding that the bureau has set up a Web site and toll-free number (www.tobaccofreemaine.com; 800-560-5269) where bar patrons and employees may report violations of the ban anonymously.
California became the first state to ban smoking in bars when it put a stop to lighting up in taverns and restaurants in 1998. A restaurant-only version of the smoking ban took effect in Maine in September 1999.
Supporters of the law tout the ban's health benefits, as fewer bar patrons and employees will be exposed to second-hand smoke. Mills says the ban may also convince smokers to fire up fewer times while out on the town, and minors to stop associating smoking with recreational drinking.
Opponents of the ban, however, say the financial impact on bars that cater to those who want a cigarette with a drink will be fierce.
Tracy Knight, owner of the Loose Moose Saloon in Gray, owned a bar in Whittier, Calif., when smoking was banned there in 1998. Knight says although she hopes to see no decline in revenue, she expects a 30 percent drop in sales after Thursday.
"I dealt with it in California," she said. "My customers say, 'We'll just stay home and drink a six-pack there.' "
Knight and an association of mostly bar owners have fought the ban since it was passed last summer.
The group tried to gather enough signatures to force a "people's veto" referendum on the legislation, which would have taken place in June 2004, but was unable to meet a tight deadline. It is now trying to gather enough signatures to force a referendum to repeal the ban in November 2004.
That may be too late for a small number of struggling bars and their employees, Knight says.
"The majority of bar owners are struggling anyway - people don't have a lot of expendable income in today's economy. . . . A fourth of the businesses I talked to (during the referendum campaign) were just hanging on."
Staff Writer Elbert Aull can be contacted at 791-6335 or at: eaull@pressherald.com
Believe me, it does not come as a surprise. While it may be fact, might does not make right, it just makes it possible. I had been a reporter and for the past 18 years have been both a paid and unpaid advocate for various groups - I've seen it all.
The law should be either all or none.
The law shouldn't be involved at all - allow each business to make the decision based upon the input of their employees. And in the case of bars or restaurants also their customers.
The only way to resolve the inconsistancy politically is for all smoking in work places to be banned.
I disagree. The only way to resolve it is for politicians to stay out of it and let the businesses resolve it in house. All businesses.
You say I have a good point in my remarks about unfair application when it comes to the liquor license holder but you don't address it. I can't tell you how many bar and restaurant owners have brought up the subject with officials and legislators only to be met with "you know the rules of your ABC license, obey the law or lose it" or words to that effect. And those are just the ones I know personaly, there are that many more that I don't know who have been met with the same response.
Do you have any suggestions of what more these people can do?
Is this the only thing unfair about a liquor license ? If not then I'll bet their isn't much they can do. For example, are there other laws that result in loss of license for bars and only fines for other busineses.
As I write and think about it, there is a precedent for other licenses. I hold a state license as a CPA amoung other licenses, in my business. If I violate certain laws I can lose my license to practice as a CPA as well as receive a fine. If I lose my license there are some things I can no longer do. I can still do acounting but I cannot issue opinions on financial statements and I cannot represent clients in the IRS.
So, now that I think of it, its logical and consistent that a licensee can lose his license prviledges if he breaks certain laws.
In some states, parents who are behind in their child support can lose their licenses for an act that even has no relationship to their business conduct.
The license is giving someone a special priviledge and special priviledges are not the same as rights.
Not that I can think of off the top of my head.
Using your CPA analogy: A close friend of mine is a CPA and she and her partners own the buidling housing their office. She's a smoker and the smoking ban covers her business as well if the smoke police catch her smoking in her office she will only be subjected to the fine, increasingly higher for each subsequent violation but no sanction against her CPA license.
However if her cousin, who owns a bar is caught smoking in the back office of her building, after a third offense will be subjected to hearing before the ABC with the possibility of losing that license.
Same offense, vastly different sanctions.
I totally understand what you are saying about licenses being priveleges, but unlike other laws, such as the one regarding your CPA license they are license specific.
I agree, those smokers that think they are holier than thou and demand to smoke wherever no matter who they offend have got to go.
I've never met one of them, but would be inclined to agree with that, as I would also agree that other holier than thou types demanding they can do what they want no matter who they offend have got to go.
~sigh
Don't I just know it!
Happy New Year, Mears!!
Does anyone care????
Probably not, so make sure to remind them of it when they come around shrieking about some tax or restriction on something they like (snack food comes to mind)...
This guy says he is staying home. The midpoint of Maine is about 4 hours from a border state. Are they really going to drive 4 hours one way just to smoke while drinking ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.