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."
The bars in town are places to smoke, drink and enjoy a good old fashioned bar fight. The bouncers are skilled at hurting people.That's a problem with bar management. In a decent place the "bouncers" (a word we don't usually use at my place) are there to prevent problems not to cause them. As Patrick Swayze said in Roadhouse, "people who want to have a good time won't come to a slaughterhouse".
What's pretty much a given though is that people who go to bars either smoke themselves or aren't really bothered by it. This is why virtually no bars go "smoke free" unless forced to by Big Brother Government. They understand their business and their clientele far better than bureaucrats or do-gooders who would never condescend to visiting such a place to begin with.
-Eric
The problem is the insensitive people such as yourself who insist that every single business any where and everywhere comply with your personal preferences on the of chance that maybe, possibly, someday you may decide to stoop low enough to enter their establishment.
This is very much a liberal vs conservative issue.
The liberal dogma being spouting here is that the government must force all businesses to adhere to the whiny few who don't like the smell of tobacco smoke.
The conservative viewpoint is that the market will decide just how many establishments permit or prohibit smoking tobacco.
The main mantra of the anti-smoker establishment is that no-smoking is good for business. If this is so true there would be far more non-smoking establishments everywhere.
But that is not good enough for the anti-smoker establishment. They want it all. And use the force of the government to do it. There is nothing conservative about that position.
(laughing in the background)
Thanks for the comments. Look, I don't expect this to be a perfect world. The pro-smoking thread came along and I voiced my objections. The world won't change because of it. I do find it interesting the logic the smokers use to excuse their actions. I'm sure they find my logic interesting too.The fact that you're calling it a "pro-smoking thread" shows that you don't get it. It's a pro business owner freedom thread. I don't see anyone here saying that a bar owner should be forced to allow smoking. We're saying that it should be up to them. It's their business, their investment, and should be their perogative.
I don't smoke. I never really have. I worked a seven hour shift in a packed bar with a lot of smokers Friday night. I lived through it. I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.
-Eric
I am the mother of a very active 4 year old. Believe me, I do not take her into restaurants that do not cater to that type.
There are times when my husband and I would like a nice relaxing dinner in a restaurant and pay for the appropriate babysitting services and then have our meal ruined by other inconsiderate parents who insist on taking their little angels with them.
But you seem to have no problem intentionally offending people, do you?
B. Let the waiter/bartender a choice of which one to work for. Many barterders themselves are smokers and don't mind the smoke. In fact, they find smokers are more fun than no-smokers, and trust me, as bartender for almost 20 years,I know what I am saying is true.
....my point is, I don't want the government ( or anyone else) telling me or any other taxpayer what we can or cannot do as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights.
If the government is so concerned for our health, why don't they ban cigarettes altogher? I'll tell you why not ,they would lose billions of dollars in taxes, we all know that, and they would lose dividends, because may of them hold stock in the tobacco companies. As the old saying goes, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Beware, young man or woman, for the mere fact that you don't like the smell of our smoke or your clothes when you are around us, you are opening a pandora box when you rally around the government on this agenda.
....The next one may effect you and your family.
Don't tell me you are about to start thinking! Not at this late date.
Prohibition has worked so well in the past.
You absolutely refuse to look at the picture beyond your nose (what you find to be an offensive odor).
You claim that business won't go non-smoking and chance losing 30% of their business to an establishment that permits smoking. And this justifies the government forcing everyone to be non-smoking so that everyone loses that 30% of business?
You are just allowing me to go back to my analogy of the establishment that can't afford a particular band seeking to prohibit the establishment down the street from hiring that band.
In all seriousness, when was the last time you worked as a bar or waitstaff person in a bar/restaurant? I've been doing it on and off for the past 25 years. So I am not exactly talking about things of which I know nothing.
If the government is so concerned for our health, why don't they ban cigarettes altogher?
Prohibition has worked so well in the past.
....try reading the whole post next time, geeeeeze
Great - sounds like an area that doesn't need the government to come in and force all the other establishments to follow suit.
In fact this sounds like an area that proves the point that the market can lead to changes with out the government getting involved.
I understood your points. I agreed with them for the most part.
Now I will ask you if you think it is legitimate (much less helpful) for the government to prohibit things.
I've come to accept you have a total disdain for smokers, bordering on hatred and utter contempt for the idea that some establishments wish to cater to smokers.
This article has nothing to do with "pro-smoking in public." It is about the rights of the private business owners to make a business decision regarding the clientele they want in their establishment.
We have as much right to an opinion as those of you who are wrong on the subject do.
And those that disagree with these business-busting smoking bans have just as much right to our opinions and proof of how harmful they are as those of you who are wrong on the subject do.
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.
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.
For once I agree. I'm not ignorant, but to you I seem ignorant.
Here's a refresher course of fundamentals for the hopelessly confused;
Oh good, then you're talking to yourself again. This outa be good.
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.
So anotherwords in your perfect world you have every right to demand you get your way rather than accept that your actions have a negative, unhealthy and unacceptable impact on others. You have the right of free association as well as the right to deny that to others. You have the right to the persuit of happiness but nobody else does.
In your world everyone is equal, it's just that some are more equal than others. Is that about it?
No right to smoke is necessary. No right to compel private property owners to provide smoke free air exists.
Did I miss your explanation for why it was okay for a business owner to poison his patrons? I must have missed it.
Then no right to take a dump in the middle of your table is necessary either, right? I mean lets make this as absurd as you want to.
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.
You've done a lot of submitting on this thread. Most of it was quite humorous. The idea that you are granted the right by God to smoke, but I am not granted the right by God to breath was one of the best.
The outcome was that there were no non-smoking places for non-smokers to go.
Oh well. Start your own.
I'm glad you understand that concept. My copy of the constitution says you are free to invite as many folks as you like to your home, where you can set the place on fire for all non-smokers care.
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?
Well if you think health inspections are fascist, I'm sure you think this is. If you think enforcement of labor laws is facist, I'm sure you think this is. If you think child labor laws are fascist, I'm sure you think this is.
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.
Oh, so you just couldn't comprehend it. Okay. Off topic? I have asked you questions that paralleled your nonsense. You chose to ignore or misinterpret most of it. Yes the topic is property rights. It's also business rights. I don't think I should be able to get the guy down the street to be able to force his eight year old child to wash dishes at my restaurant until 3:00 am every morning. I'm sure you do since this is private property.
You see sometimes government does have a reasoned interest in controling certain things in society. You pretension that it never does is absurd.
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.
So if your wife dies because the food preparer who had hepitius wasn't forced off the job two weeks ago, and infected your wife yesterday, it's a-okay. Off topic? You've made the case that government has no place whatsoever governing anything at all on private property. Well I disagree.
After all, this is private property and there is an implicit agreement between the owner and the patrons that anything goes.
I asked you if it was okay for the proprietor to poison the food. Could you please show me in the Constitution where this is prohibited.
Moronic statement. And you made it , not me. (Strawman alert.) Contract law is not your strong suit either I see.
My strong suit? Bud, you've avoided having to face the fact that your arguement is an empty bucket. You make pronouncements and I have asked you questions that paralleled your supposed views. Then you criticize me for asking the question because it's off topic. LOL I hate to break it to you, but you don't get to ask questions of me, then demand I only ask questions of you that you like.
Like I said, row faster. You're falling behind.
Cute, but it doesn't help you from drowning in an ocean of ignorance.
No problem, because I'm not drowning in an ocean of ignorance. Would that you were so lucky.
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.
What? What do you mean childish? There's an implicit agreement between the owner and the patrons. The owner can do whatever he likes on private property. Grow up? Yep, that's the idea bud. I'm glad you are catching on.
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?
You didn't agree that this was private property and there was an implicit right to present an atmosphere containing materials known to cause health problems?
LMAO Do you even know what you're advocating?
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.
Oh I see, Barnie Jefferson carries the same weight as Adolf Hitler in your eyes. Now I begin to see the magnitude of the perception problem we're dealing with here.
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.
For all the good it'll do you, I agree that it is private property. It is none-the-less an area frequented by the public. Thus it is a public place. With forty patrons in the eating area, it's impossible to claim this is non-public area. Yes it is private property. So what?
Your implication is that:
No labor regulations can be enforced
No child labor laws can be enforced
No health inspections should take place
No government oversight of weights and measures should take place
I disagree. You go into the restaurant and ask for the 14oz New York steak. The staff prepares the steak and presents it to you at the table. The steak is obviously 7oz or less. You refuse to eat or pay. The manager calls the police. The police come and observe the situation. They make you pay or go to jail. You claim the steak is obviously 7ozs or more too small. The officers take one look at you and laugh. Look fella, you said you didn't want the government to oversee this transaction. Pay up!
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.
In your mind a person who steals a newspaper is thus the same as a person who commits murder, since one infraction of your vision of a free America equates one to the worst thing a human can be. I disagree with your vision of smoking in public, so I'm the same as Hitler. What you fail to understand is that by doing this, you make Hiter the same as a person who objects to smoking in a public restaurant, no worse. As I stated, very impressive.
You debate style is very impressive.
Thank you. Yours is unfortunatley childish.
I can live with your opinion on this point, believe me.
192 posted on 01/06/2003 10:35 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.