It will be interesting!
Posted on 01/06/2003 6:58:16 AM PST by SheLion
It's been in place for five years now, but many Yuba-Sutter bar owners and patrons said they have yet to become accustomed to California's ban on smoking in bars.
At establishments such as Stassi's Fourth Ward Tavern in Marysville this weekend, business owners were still fuming over the ban, which took effect in January 1998.
The ban - a first for the nation - was intended to protect bartenders from health risks posed by second-hand smoke.
Yet Roy Newlove, the owner of Stassi's for roughly 10 years, said it does nothing more than slow business and cause headaches for his employees. Like many, Newlove called the ban a misguided attempt to protect public health.
"I think if the government helps me one more time I'll be out of business," Newlove said as most of his customers nodded in agreement.
Many bar owners throughout the area agreed the ban is a nuisance that has diminished the charm of going out for a drink.
Debbie and Doug Erhardt, the owners of Field and Stream Tavern in Marysville, said business has fallen off by as much as $2,000 on weekends since the ban took effect.
Fewer people want to go to Field and Stream now because the smoking ban forces them to go outside whenever they want to have a cigarette, Debbie Erhardt said.
"Nobody wants to go outside in 100 degree weather or in the cold," Erhardt said.
Ernie Leach, owner of the Corner Bar in Yuba City, said the ban has not been a major obstacle to building a clientele. Since he opened the bar a year ago, Leach said he never had to face the difficulty of telling loyal customers to put out their cigarettes.
However, the ban often causes him to force customers outside when they want to light up, Leach said.
"I have people complain about it all the time, but they just have to go outside," Leach said. "I think a person ought to have a choice and especially at a place called a bar."
The ban also has caused frustration among bartenders, who say it has added stress to their jobs.
Nancy Simpson, 40, a bartender at Jack's Tavern in Marysville, said the ban hurts bartenders who smoke by forcing them to leave their customers behind whenever they want to light up.
The ban also encourages smokers to sneak drinks outside the bars so they can drink while smoking, she said.
"They walk out with their drinks and then I have to ask them to leave," Simpson said.
Newlove said the ban also adds noise to streets and creates unsightly - and sometimes unruly - crowds outside bars.
"As soon as you've got everybody outside you lose control," Newlove said.
Some bar owners have managed to circumvent the ban by taking advantage of areas not covered in its language. Since the ban is intended to protect bar employees - and not bar owners - some entrepreneurs have exempted themselves from the ban by making all of their employees part owners.
Since they technically have no employees, owner-operated establishments can apply for exemptions through county agencies.
In Sutter County, there are at least three bars which have obtained such exemptions. They include Yuba City bars such as the Spur, Dowers Tavern and the 21 Club.
No information was available Saturday on whether there were any owner-operated bars in Yuba County.
Mary Benedict, a part owner of the Spur, criticized the ban and said the exemption has helped her clientele stay steady.
"You're supposed to be able to smoke and drink in a bar," Benedict said. "Governments hurt small businesses too much anyway."
Some bar owners in Marysville said exemptions in Yuba City bars have affected their businesses.
George Matsuda, the owner of Daikoku restaurant in Marysville, said fewer customers want to come to the bar in his business.
"The people that like to smoke, they've got to leave and go to a place where they can smoke," Matsuda said.
Bar patrons also criticized the ban. Some called it an infringement on their civil liberties.
Smoking outside Stassi's Fourth Ward on Saturday, Strawberry Valley resident Dennis Travis, 61, said the ban sometimes makes him think of moving to a state where smoking bans aren't in effect.
Travis said public officials are going too far in their attempts to eliminate health risks.
"We're trying too hard to protect people," Travis said.
Marysville resident Carl Supler, 59, said the ban is an affront to veterans who fought in foreign wars in an effort to preserve civil liberties.
"It's just one more of our freedoms taken away," Supler said. "We fought for this country and most of us didn't come back. Now we've got these bleeding hearts telling us what we can and can't do."
I think you just did.
Right, but it's not required. Rights exist without the constitution.
So anotherwords I'm trapped in my home if I want to go out to a movie, a restaurant, a bar, dancing or any other public PRIVATE place you defend as being able to do business with known carcinogenic substances infecting the patrons.
You keep making that assertion, no matter how many times it has been pointed out to you.
That's an interesting concept.
Concepts seem hard to you. Private property is a concept lost on you.
Is it your premise that a business can poison the public in other ways too? I mean it's guaranteed by the Constitution isn't it? Come on hot shot, tell me how any proprietor should be able to place a known poison filler in patron's food if that's what he wants to do.
That would be fraud. Also assault. Those things are violations of rights. They are not allowed for that reason. Get it? "Not so" hot shot.
I'm waiting. Why don't you change your pseudonym to Barnie Jefferson?
You didn't have to wait long. I'll change my name to that when you change your name to Hitler.
It will be interesting!
Why don't you stop flaming people in here?
....well alot of people think your small children should be banned from resturants
.... where they want a nice relaxing meal and don't want to sit by your kid jumping or screaming.
....or don't want to have to clean their cloths because they sat on the sticky stuff your children spilt all over.
....of course, I am sure, you would be the first one screaming your rights have been trampled on!
Your name says it all, bub!
Safety? Now you want to change to the second hand smoke debate. It's off subject and you are a loser on that LIBERAL issue in any case. But, it is off topic.
This is a property rights issue, not safety because you know whether smoking is allowed or not and can CHOOSE to enter or not.
Do you love being a RINO or were you born that way.
You can talk about manners and bad manners, but when a legal commodity is still flowing freely, you get your back up. I'm finished talking to you. But you better stop the flames. I will hit abuse. And I mean it. I have just about had it with you. Move on!
I will expose that lie every time you say it.
Well, I'll bet if you would refrain from that terrible addiction to food that you have for about two months you would make a lot of folks on this thread happy.
Business licences are facist by nature. No licence should be required for business.
Permiate???? With all the money you have saved on dry-cleaning bills the past five years, you should be able to buy at least one cheap dictionary (you misspelled it twice).
Actually, both can, especially up close.
You have the constitution behind you right?
Right, but it's not required. Rights exist without the constitution.
So your copy of the Constitution guarantees you the right to smoke, but doesn't guarantee me the right to breath clean air. You must have the abridged edition.
So anotherwords I'm trapped in my home if I want to go out to a movie, a restaurant, a bar, dancing or any other public PRIVATE place you defend as
being able to do business with known carcinogenic substances infecting the patrons.
You keep making that assertion, no matter how many times it has been pointed out to you.
Either you don't have the tools to understand this, or you are simply choosing to act this stupid. I'll opt for the second out of courtesy.
No restaurant, bar, movie theater or other public venue is going to chop off 1/3rd of their potential clientele. Even though only about 30% of Americans smoke, business owners didn't want to send potentially 1/3 of their business down the street. The outcome was that there were no non-smoking places for non-smokers to go. Either the government would step in to end the presence of smoke in all establishments, or all establishments would allow smoking. This has been pointed out on this thread. You have chosen to overlook it.
That's an interesting concept.
Concepts seem hard to you. Private property is a concept lost on you.
Okay, then you obviously think restaurant health inspections are an invasion of an owner's rights. After all, this is private property and there is an implicit agreement between the owner and the patrons that anything goes. Like I said, row faster. You're falling behind.
Is it your premise that a business can poison the public in other ways too? I mean it's guaranteed by the Constitution isn't it? Come on hot shot, tell me
how any proprietor should be able to place a known poison filler in patron's food if that's what he wants to do.
That would be fraud. Also assault. Those things are violations of rights. They are not allowed for that reason. Get it? "Not so" hot shot.
Why would putting a mild poison in a person's soup be fraud? This isn't a misrepresentation. It's private property and the owner can do anything he likes. Well assault is a pretty though concept to enforce here. We've already agreed this is private property and the owner has the right to present an atmosphere containing materials known to cause health problems. How can you allow one poison then prosecute for another? This guy would be covered under the abridged US Constitution.
I'm waiting. Why don't you change your pseudonym to Barnie Jefferson?
You didn't have to wait long. I'll change my name to that when you change your name to Hitler.
When I've had this conversation with others, they've sooner or later gotten around to the insult of last resort. You know you've made a hot air arguement, so you call me Hitler because I think it's wrong to allow a carcinogenic substance in a public place for all to breathe. So bankrupt is your logic that you equate my desire for a clean air environment inside a public building, to a man who gassed millions of Jews and cause the deaths of some 20 million others.
You debate style is very impressive.
144 posted on 01/06/2003 9:36 AM PST by ThomasJefferson
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.