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."
Sure you can go to court later if you demand to be arrested and the steak taken into custody. Then you pay bail and go home. Otherwise you don't have a viable evidenciary trail.
What's fasinating to me, is you didn't think this out on your own. Either that or you think this is preferable to any government intervention.
I make the claim that not even the government can legitimately usurp rights. That is the only claim I make.
Not only am I not "done in", but to assume so is another childish attempt to extricate yourself from your moronic statements.
We're defending property rights, while you're defending the mythical "right" to force a property owner to conform to your personal wishes.
Health regulations regarding what goes on in a restaurant kitchen are necessary because the public can't see what's going on in the kitchen.
Restaurant or bar patrons are aware of whether an establishment allows smoking or not before they enter or shortly thereafter. They then have the choice to leave or stay.
Much of your argument seems to swerve toward the health effects of second-hand smoke, although the thread is concerned with private property rights and non-interference by the government in the free marketplace.
You have no more "right" to prevent a business owner from deciding to allow his patrons to smoke than smokers have a "right" to prevent a business owner from deciding to make his establishment non-smoking.
It's very simple, really.
LMAO, good one. Another self proclaimed winner. LOL, you're a funny kid.
The laws of unintended consequences would eat you alive in the world you say you want.
Amazingly so, but not apparently, for some people.
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?
This is exactly what you have been saying about your preferences all along.
Did I miss your explanation for why it was okay for a business owner to poison his patrons? I must have missed it.
I realize this was being asked of another poster, but more than once I have addressed this issue on this thread.
It comes down to the poison is in the dose.
There is no such thing as carcinogen free air - indoors or out.
Frying and grilling of foods emit carcinogens into the air. But even steaming foods on a gas burner does it as well. Using a microwave emits rays that can be harmful to some people. And when the door to the restaurant is openned that outside air does get inside.
So I guess all restaurants "poison" their customers and since according to you they havbe no right to do so - all restaurants must be shut down immediately.
Health inspections of the kitchens of places serving food are a necessary part of the government because the general public which is invited into an establishment can't see what is going on in the kitchen. The general public being invited into the same establishment does know if it permits smoking. So the comparison is invalid.
However, I will suggest that no one other than proponents of this stupid ban eat in any restaurant in the State of Delaware because the Department of health has declared that compliance withthe smoking ban is its NUMBER 1 priority.
There are 18 inspectors for the entire state of Delaware and it used to be they were just responsible for public health inspections in restaurants, bars, public pools, and public restrooms. Those same 18 people are now in charge of enforceing the smoking ban in every single business in the entire state. What used to be probably about 2000 places - has now jumped to well over 200,000.
This is one 20+ year Delawarean that will not eat in a Delaware restaurant until they get their priorites straight.
What claims? Please cite the claims I made. Then we can address them without the use of your imagination.
You made the claim that you had rights.
Correct, I do. And so do you. The argument is over what they are. You claim some which do not exist. (in any case, they would be powers, not rights)
The owner does too fella.
Correct, now you are getting it.
At least by your model he does.
My model? LOL
If you can poison the air, he can poison the soup.
You really don't get it do you? C'mon, how old are you?
I can sympathize with you for not wanting to be around smoke, but that is your choice. You can choose not to do business in those places, just like smokers can choose to go where they are welcome. Taking the rights of a business owner to run their business as they see fit, and using your own selfish desires as justification is the kind of power-trip socialism that I always thought FR was against...JFK
Seems to me a denial of the "right" of consenting adults to form a contract as regards a legal product. Of course, the anti goal is to make that product illegal as soon as possible and our civil serpents, none of them rocket scientists, believe that's what the people want but don't want to give up the gazillions of dollars they make on it. It's just simply amazing to me that so many otherwise bright and decent people are willing to throw away other folks' rights because they don't "like" something.
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
My calling you on comparing me to Hitler, was calling you on a strawman arguement. It was absurd, even for you. Once again I used an example that parallels your stupidity, and you think I'm the one who's out of line.
I don't want smoking in public places. In your mind that makes me like Hitler. This was far more extreme that the comparison I provided, yet you think yours was the reasoned comparison and mine was unreasoned. Mine was the strawman arguement, yours was just reasoned logic, right? Seriously fella, get a grip.
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.
Especially in light of the context of this discussion, I am not the same as Hitler. The problem your team seems to run into on these topics is that you can overplay your hand. This you did. I called you on it.
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?
Was that a strawman arguement? From you?
Don't compare people to Hitler unless they are compartively close to what he truly was. Thomas Jefferson would have known better.
258 posted on 01/06/2003 11:57 AM PST by ThomasJefferson
LOL! Come out here some Fri. or Sat. night and try to get a seat at the bar or restaurant sometime Ms. expert on California from Maine...Or is that Somalia now yet?
You may well have friends, but I'll bet you don't harangue them as you do those here with whom you disagree.
Ditto. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought D1 was a strong private property rights and individual liberties kinda guy.
I don't smoke. I have told you that before. Did you fail reading comprehension? You may breathe off my property, you are under no obligation to come into my place of business.
I have as much right to frequent a restaurant as you do.
No one has such a right. The right you assert does not exist except in your rather vivid imagination.
When I'm in your state I'll live by your laws. When you're in mine you'll live by ours.
Governments do not have the legitimate power to violate rights despite your assertion.
OOPS, there is the lie again. The discussion is not about public property.
Life is not a pain free existence, and no amount of nanny state laws are going to make it that way. I don't smoke, I hate smoke, but it would NEVER occur to me to tell someone else what to do with their restaurant. Why is it so important to you to do that?
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.