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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 701-716 next last
To: Gabz
Gee Gabz, you're the only guy who has spent time in these industries right? I am so impressed.
241 posted on 01/06/2003 11:46:25 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Yes it is private property. So what?

So you have no legitimate power to violate his property rights. You can choose not to enter. That's what.

242 posted on 01/06/2003 11:46:28 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Nope. Once again, you want to userp mine. You have no more right to smoke than I have a right to breathe clean air. I have to breathe. You do not have to smoke.
243 posted on 01/06/2003 11:47:22 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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

Strawman again. I never said any of that. You lied.

244 posted on 01/06/2003 11:47:23 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
Hi there Madame. I have seen you since the last time you joined a number of people piling on me. Good to see you.
245 posted on 01/06/2003 11:48:22 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: stylin_geek
Good Lord,someone with common sense!
246 posted on 01/06/2003 11:48:31 AM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Well, if you knew about it, why didn't you get a jump on the market, and put together the very first non-smoking establishment? Heck, you should have been able to corner the market and been rich. You might have even become a non-smoking monopoly, and enjoyed even more government intervention, since it appears you are thrilled at the prospect of having big brother constantly looking over your shoulder.
247 posted on 01/06/2003 11:49:26 AM PST by stylin_geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Maybe we shouldn't allow Tequila in bars either... It makes some people so mean... and I hate mean people. I have right to be only around friendly people wherever I go even at my neighbors house.
248 posted on 01/06/2003 11:49:31 AM PST by YummiBox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
The people who imposed the ban are in agreement with you. Doughty is arguing against the people who imposed the ban.That is why the ban had to be based on the supposed "unsafe working enviroment" argument, because they knew they had no authority to prohibit legal behavior in private establishments. That is why owner operators are not subject to the ban.
249 posted on 01/06/2003 11:50:50 AM PST by free me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
I breathe by nessesity. You smoke by choice. I have as much right to frequent a restaurant as you do. When I'm in your state I'll live by your laws. When you're in mine you'll live by ours.
250 posted on 01/06/2003 11:50:57 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Why don't you stop flaming people in here?

Yeah, the second-hand smoke is killing me!

251 posted on 01/06/2003 11:51:29 AM PST by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
I don't blame you. Smart decision.
252 posted on 01/06/2003 11:51:35 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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.

Off topic nonsense, but I will address it for your edification.

If management made an oral contract to provide a product of a certain description and did not provide it you are under no obligation to pay. Otherwise it is fraud.

They make you pay or go to jail.

No they don't, you speculate. You do that a lot.

253 posted on 01/06/2003 11:52:10 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Okay brainiac, then explain away the issues I raised. The truth is you can't explain away any need for every government intervention. And so, you lose.
254 posted on 01/06/2003 11:53:05 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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.

You flunk the constitution test, even after I explained it to you in terms that a child could understand. Put on your dunce cap.

255 posted on 01/06/2003 11:54:22 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Look, you made the claim that private property rights precluded government intervention on the smoking issue. Own up to the fact that your own arguement did you in.
256 posted on 01/06/2003 11:54:28 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Mears
Well, thanks. Once in a while I do show some sense. The anti smokers still continue to confuse smoker's rights with property rights, which are two completely different things.
257 posted on 01/06/2003 11:56:06 AM PST by stylin_geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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.

Still another strawman. Amazing

I disagree with your vision of smoking in public, so I'm the same as Hitler.

You advocate fascism, that makes you the same as Hitler in the context of this discussion.

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.

Untrue, and childish. How old are you?

258 posted on 01/06/2003 11:57:45 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: stylin_geek
Tell you what, you open a business, I will wander in, take what I want, and leave. When you complain that I didn't pay, I will tell you "it is my right."

That's exactly what's happening here--anti-smoker crusaders sweep into a town with their slick propaganda, spend gazillions of dollars extorted from smokers making the public believe that smokers are a threat to them and changing the definition of "private" to "public," force through regulations that have no place in a free society, take away small businesses' customer base, then leave without paying. A nice, fat lawsuit for restraint of trade in a truly conservative area with a conservative judge might help open the eyes of the pseudo-conservatives here and elsewhere. Or not.

259 posted on 01/06/2003 11:58:53 AM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
....I don't know where your from, but every resturant I worked at, after you statred whining to the government, had smoking and non-smoking sections.

....the bars didn't, because like I said in a previous post, they did't want you there anyway. All you did was b!tch and whine and ruin the fun we were having.

...now why don't you go and take your meds and lye down for a bit dear?

260 posted on 01/06/2003 11:58:56 AM PST by GrandMoM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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