(Smoking) Ban puts bars in the red

The Greeley Tribune (Greeley, Colorado) ^ | 1/12/04 | Phillip Yates

[Protagoras]

Sitting around on FR complaining is whining.

Trying to change the hearts and minds of the people to gain support for a postition is only concidered whining by those who oppose the ideas being advanced.

[Gabz]

Government mandates, also known as laws, usually do apply to everyone

Usually, but not always, and most especially in the case of smoking bans. Smoking bans apply to ALL businesses (with some exceptions such as fraternal and veterans locatons)yet only those holding a liquor license will be put out of business for violations. The local coffee shop can continue to violate the ban and only face larger fines, but the bar across the street stands to lose it's liquor license after a 3rd offense.

As I understand most of these non-smoking regulations, they are not for the good of the patrons but for the good of the employees.

I see you have fallen for the Bravo Sierra of the anti smokers.

You obviously have not read many of these laws and ordinances very carefully. For example the Delaware smoking ban specifically states in it that one of the purposes is to keep children from seeing smoking to promote the idea that smoking is socially unacceptable. Last time I checked children are not permitted in bars in Delaware and children are not employees. And in my experience, the vast majority of bar employees are smokers - why would they want the government to protect them from themselves???????

I know, I know there have been all kinds of stories about wait staff and bartenders that are so THRILLED about the bans.........of course you hear very little from the majority that are not, because it is not politically correct for the media to portray smoking bans as anything but good.

[Gabz]

This has nothing to do with zoning ordinances, so your red herring is nothing more than that.

What does freedom of association have to do with smoking?

I said free assembly and association, different from your parsing of my words.

However, smoking bans deny the right of like minded people to assemble together with the permission and possible participation of the owner in the partaking of a legal activity.

Cigar bars are a perfect example. They are now illegal under most smoking bans. Lounges in tobacco shops are also illegal under many of these smoking bans, including the one in Delaware. That is a denial of free assembly.

[Gabz]

Do you really think that the anti-smoking groups are better funded then the pro-smoking groups, which have the tobacco industry behind them?

Considering I sit on the Board of Directors of one of the largest international "pro-smoking," groups I can tell you that you you are blowing smoke and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

The tobacco industry cares not a bit about smoker groups, which, I might add, have a great many non-smoking members.

Ten years ago your comment may have been true - but no longer.

Again you prove you have fallen for all of the Bravo Sierra of the anti-smoker groups. Which, by the way, are primarily funded by smokers (through taxes and the MSA) and the pharmaceutical industry.

[kahoutek]

Well put.....BTW New York State is considering modifying the ban by allowing owners to apply for a waiver.

The catch is that they must open their books and show just reason, i.e. a loss in revenue linked to the ban.

Another scam by the state to up revenues and sustain and grow the beauracracy.

[Gabz]

OOPS - didn't read far enough down!!!!!

OTOH.........GMTA!

[Gabz]

If it's whining to support private property rights for business owners when govs regulate something, NOT voted on by the people, that is put into place to regulate a "health hazard" based on suspect science and false studies, then call me a whiner.

OK - You're a whiner. As are the rest of us, smoker and non-smoker alike. RME!!!!!!!!

[kahoutek]

If, 15 years ago anyone saying that smoking will be banned as it is today, the response would be "let 'em try".

Well it's here and the .boiling frog is slowly dying.

The next move will probably be to first limit and then ban alcohol consumption in bars.

What a brave new world, huh?

[Gabz]

Trying to change the hearts and minds of the people to gain support for a postition is only concidered whining by those who oppose the ideas being advanced.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Protagoras]

What a brave new world, huh?

A war is coming. I hope it's after I'm gone.

Anyone who thinks that the people on this site will be on the same side isn't paying attention.

I fight all day long on here against "conservatives" who support smoking bans, minimum wage laws, atm fee denial, trade wars, the banning of free speech, sneak and peek, "know your customer" laws and all other manner of liberal nonsense.

[Gabz]

The ability to grant waivers has been in the NYS law all along, but it is only recently that they have started writing some "guidelines."

You're right though, it is another scam - I've read the letters accompanying the waiver application forms - they are worded in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to prove the losses, even after openning up their books. Plus, if granted, it's only good for 1 year and no additional waivers will be granted.

The Delaware ban also includes a clause for granting waivers, as far as I know, the Health Department has denied every application.

I'd like to know where the ACLU was regarding church and state when the Health Department refused to grant a Catholic Church a waiver for it's bingo nights. OOPS, I forgot, the ACLU only cares about keeping religion out, they think the state should control them.

[Gabz]

If, 15 years ago anyone saying that smoking will be banned as it is today, the response would be "let 'em try".

15 years ago I was fighting the first of many incrementalist smoking bans in the state of Delaware.

The next move will probably be to first limit and then ban alcohol consumption in bars.

In a way it has already started because of the smoking bans. Bar owners face the possibility of losing their liquor licenses for violations of smoking bans. A bar without a liquor license????

OTOH, there was an article not that long ago about a place that had oppenned as a non-alcoholic bar catering to members of AA. I don't remember the particular jurisdiction but according to it's ban only establishments that generated the majority of their revenue from alcohol sales could permit smoking. Here you have a recovering alcoholic who openned a gathering place ("bar") for other recovering alcoholics and was told he would have to sell alcohol in order to continue to permit his cutomers to smoke. makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it????

[Gabz]

And I, for one, appreciate your efforts.




P.S. I love your tagline!

[Protagoras]

Thanks. I try to write a new tagline every few months. I recycle a few too. They are on my profile page.

[Gabz]

I occasionally change my tagline - for a specific thread, but generally leave the same one!

[Protagoras]

I like your tag line, but it's single issue. I know you have other points to make. Get creative! Make 'em notice you! :^}

[swarthyguy]

WILKOMMEN.

SMOKFREILAND UBER ALLES.

[swarthyguy]

NUde dancing is free speech in MA;the SC established that. But smoking ain't allowed in such bars in certain jurisdictions, but alcohol is!

[Gabz]

Get creative! Make 'em notice you! :^}

That's part of my problem - they notice me TOO much!!!!

[cinFLA]

The Taliban haveHAS arrived. HAS

Besides, the Taliban is composed of smokers!