Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CALIFORNIA: 5-year-old ban in bars leaves owners, customers fuming
Appeal-Democrat.com ^ | 5 January 2003 | Scott Bransford

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."

 


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: addicts; antismokers; attractivehabit; bans; butts; cancerforeveryone; cigarettes; individualliberty; istinksowillyou; iwilldowhatiwant; mrsgrundys; myrighttostink; nannystaterssuck; niconazis; pantiesinawad; prohibitionists; pruneylips; pufflist; righttoaddiction; righttopollute; rottinglungs; screwnonsmokers; selfishaddicts; shutupitsmyworld; smokingbans; smokingyourrights; stinkybreath; stinkyclothes; stinkyfingers; taxes; tobacco; worldisanashtray; wrinkledskin; yellowbellywhiners; yellowteeth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 701-716 next last
To: E Rocc
I have spoken to a number of waitresses and bartenders about this. To a man/woman none of them were sad to see the smoke go. If your experience is different, so be it.
221 posted on 01/06/2003 11:29:24 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
You and I want to frequent the same establishment. If I sit next to you I'm not going to bother you. You with bother me. Why is it that you think the owner should be deprived of my business so you can smoke?
222 posted on 01/06/2003 11:30:49 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You stink up the place.

The stink of nanny-state is wrapped around you like a cloud.

223 posted on 01/06/2003 11:31:05 AM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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.

(I'll take these one at a time as time permits. So many goofy things and so little time,,,,)
I don't demand my way, I demand my rights. Property rights. It is you who is doing the demanding.

You have the right of free association as well as the right to deny that to others.

Wrong, I have it and so do you. Stay out of places where you don't choose to associate with smokers.

You have the right to the persuit of happiness but nobody else does.

You have no "right" to be happy about violating my rights.

224 posted on 01/06/2003 11:34:29 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
In your world everyone is equal, it's just that some are more equal than others. Is that about it?

Everyone has equal rights to run their business as they see fit in the absence of force or fraud. You want to be "more" equal. You want to have the power to usurp my rights.

225 posted on 01/06/2003 11:37:31 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: geaux
If you read the other two presentations, why do I have to remind you that when all restaurants allowed smoking, we had to grin and bear it. They didn't lose business. We patronized them because there was no choice. I don't know of a single non-smoking restaurant that appeared before the smoking bans in either individual counties or the whole state.
226 posted on 01/06/2003 11:37:34 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Bzzzt, all you want to do is force others to breathe your smoke. Not able to control your own addiction, you find it easier to force others to deal with it.
227 posted on 01/06/2003 11:38:27 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Then no right to take a dump in the middle of your table is necessary either, right?

Childish and crude, I rest my case on your personality.

228 posted on 01/06/2003 11:38:45 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
Take a moment to think about what the ultimate result would be for an owner to fail to comply with this law, or any law. Sure, first offenses would be minor, but if they persisted, eventually some government official is going to force them to comply at the point of a gun.

Truer words have never been spoken.

No where in the legislation of the Delaware smoking ban is the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission (ABCC) mentioned.

Yet 3 weeks after the ban went into effect, and one establishment had already been cited for non-compliance 2 times - the ABCC was quick to state that any repeat violators of the smoke ban were in danger of losing their liquor licenses.

229 posted on 01/06/2003 11:39:25 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You stink up the place. You expose me to carcinogenic smoke. You prevent me from smelling my meal. You prevent me from tasting my meal. You cause me to have to send my clothes to the cleaners. If I happen to have a wife, I get to pay for cleaning her clothes as well. If we have children, we get to clean their clothes as well. A family of four is exposed to your smoke.

You can't be that dense. You do not have to go to a place where smoke is allowed. No one forces you to do that.

230 posted on 01/06/2003 11:39:42 AM PST by saminfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Check out some of my replies to Jefferson. I appreciate your arguement, but I've already addressed it.
231 posted on 01/06/2003 11:40:06 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You may be entitled to your opinion, but you are still wrong. I find it interesting you talk and talk about opinions as if they are facts. So, no chance you want to take a long hard look at where you stand in regards to property rights? Opinions are great, and should be a place to start a discussion, but wrong is still wrong.
232 posted on 01/06/2003 11:41:00 AM PST by stylin_geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You see sometimes government does have a reasoned interest in controling certain things in society. You pretension that it never does is absurd.

Your charge is the absurd thing. Strawman again.

The government has an interest in defending rights, nothing more. They should "control" behavior that violates rights.

233 posted on 01/06/2003 11:41:26 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
Very well said.
234 posted on 01/06/2003 11:41:48 AM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
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.

We've got a PRIZE WINNER here!!!!!!!

235 posted on 01/06/2003 11:41:48 AM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
You folks simply refuse to accept the fact that there were NO non-smoking restaurants or bars until the bans went into effect. Choice? What choice? I appreciate your arguement, but there has to be some basis in fact for it to work.
236 posted on 01/06/2003 11:42:53 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You've made the case that government has no place whatsoever governing anything at all on private property.

I never said that, you lied. They are to rightfully govern actions which violate rights.

237 posted on 01/06/2003 11:42:58 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
I'm equated with Hitler, and you think I'm the one who should start thinking.
238 posted on 01/06/2003 11:44:17 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Oh I see, Barnie Jefferson carries the same weight as Adolf Hitler in your eyes.

I merely pointed out that you were the one who started the name calling. Its a fact.

239 posted on 01/06/2003 11:44:54 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I have spoken to a number of waitresses and bartenders about this. To a man/woman none of them were sad to see the smoke go. If your experience is different, so be it.

....WHO, WHEN & WHERE....at your local spa?

....most bartenders/waitresses are smokers themselves and find it quite annoying that they have to go outside to smoke.

Why is it that you think the owner should be deprived of my business so you can smoke?

....It is a wide known fact among wait people & owners that smokers spend more money, are alot more fun, and tip better!

....truth be told, they really don't care for boring non-smokers.

240 posted on 01/06/2003 11:45:09 AM PST by GrandMoM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 701-716 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson