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."
Look, I'll grant you it isn't a right, but it was just as appropriate to provide a quite atmosphere for others as it was for them to allow clean air for us.
I note that you made mention of a mirror to another poster here. I'll bet it never occurred to you that non-smokers could have friends too.
What did you expect, for someone to post a pro-smoking in public thread and all non-smokers to cower in fear? We have as much right to an opinion as those of you who are wrong on the subject do.
You may be right. There is always one group trying to take the rights of another group away. But they tried prohibition back in the 20's against alcohol. I doubt very much if this will work again. Plus, too many lawmakers are drinkers.
You stink up the place. That is your personal opinion.
You expose me to carcinogenic smoke. I trust you never enter any establishment that uses fryers or grills in their cooking
You prevent me from smelling my meal. Sounds like you might have a medical problem there.
You prevent me from tasting my meal. see previous comment
I, me, my - that's all you have to say. Talk about selfish.
I may not be exposed to smokers day in and day out, but waitresses, bartenders and other employees are constantly.As a part-time bar employee who does not smoke, I can assure you that virtually every employee I know would strongly oppose a smoking ban in bars. Not only would we lose clientele, but enforcement would be a huge PITA. This is liberal logic here, "sticking up" for someone without bothering to consider their opinions on the matter.
Most bars have equipment that reduces the amount of smoke. Even smokers don't particularly care for too much ETS. But I daresay that the type of people who are excessively hoity about smoking aren't likely to come to our place anyway.
-Eric
I have no problem with that, nor do the VAST majority of business owners.
However, when said business owners spend a great deal of their hard earned money to comply with all of the standards, don't you think they should be cut some slack when someone gets a bee up their butt to make the standards even more restrictive?
We have the same one. What we don't both have is an understanding of the document and the concepts behind it. You seem ignorant of them.
Here's a refresher course of fundamentals for the hopelessly confused;
The constitution is a document that defines the limits of federal government. It enumerates the powers which the states cede to the federal government. It does not grant rights. People retain certain rights in all cases and in every location, violating the rights of others is not among them.
No right to smoke is necessary. No right to compel private property owners to provide smoke free air exists.
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.
I'm stupid because you don't know or refuse to acknowledge the difference between public and private property? I submit that you are the impaired one.
The outcome was that there were no non-smoking places for non-smokers to go.
Oh well. Start your own.
Either the government would step in to end the presence of smoke in all establishments, or all establishments would allow smoking.
Government "step in"? Is that a euphemism for facist activity?
This has been pointed out on this thread. You have chosen to overlook it.
I have overlooked nothing. Off topic nonsense is your purview, not mine. The topic is property rights and illegitimate forcible intervention to violate them.
Okay, then you obviously think restaurant health inspections are an invasion of an owner's rights.
True enough, but off topic and it's not likely that someone so wedded to the ideology of force could understand that other scenerios to solve the question exist.
After all, this is private property and there is an implicit agreement between the owner and the patrons that anything goes.
Moronic statement. And you made it , not me. (Strawman alert.) Contract law is not your strong suit either I see.
Like I said, row faster. You're falling behind.
Cute, but it doesn't help you from drowning in an ocean of ignorance.
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.
Childish nonsense. Grow up.
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?
We? You have a frog in your pocket?
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
Your post; "I'm waiting. Why don't you change your pseudonym to Barnie Jefferson"?
My response;
"You didn't have to wait long. I'll change my name to that when you change your name to Hitler."
It seems you were the first name caller.
because I think it's wrong to allow a carcinogenic substance in a public place for all to breathe.
There ya go again, lying about private and public property.
to a man who gassed millions of Jews and cause the deaths of some 20 million others.
Fascism has been defined, Hilter was a fascist. If the shoe fits wear it. The murders come after the other rights have been ceded.
You debate style is very impressive.
Thank you. Yours is unfortunatley childish.
Sounds like you've worked out a pretty good system up there. Good luck to you. How's the winter up there?
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C. S. Lewis
You've made this point at least twice now. If a business lost 30% of its smoking customers by switching to a smoking ban, wouldn't that mean that it would gain the non-smoking customers like you and philosfy? So, how could it go out of business? It would lose a small percentage in favor of a much larger percentage who prefer places with a smoking ban.
Bzzzt, caught again. What you want is to control other people's businesses. Don't be a coward, own up to it. It isn't about smoking.
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.