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."
Of course you should be able to dictate what a business owner can allow his patrons to do in his own place...
L
The economy my arse. You liberals are all alike! Try reading some research once-in-awhile!
I can't get away from them unless I completely give up eating out, going to a bar or dancing in public.
You don't have to put up with it. You don't have to go where you are so easily offended by smoke. I have never heard someone who has to shower and shampoo after being exposed to cigarette smoke. What do you do about automobile exhaust? Your second statement is almost a lie. I am certain there are many places you can go to that are non-smoking. It appears you just want everyone to conform to your desires and to not offend you.
By the way, I am a non-smoker.
There should be room for all legal activities in the world.
Why couldn't we have "choice" where the owner gets to set the perameters for behavior in his establishment? I truly believe that non-smoking bars and restaurants could succeed by establishing a clientele of like minds and the rest of us old butt-smoking drunks could have our places and never the twain shall meet.
Could it be that despite people who don't like smoking, such as yourself, that non-smoking bars and restaurants probably would not survive without coercion from goobermint type repressives?
When transactions and rights became synonymous, it created a lot of the current confusion and certainly muddied the waters when it came to what a business owner can and cannot do.
And, not to defend business owners to much, there are a lot of owners that willingly abrogated the right to run their business as they see fit to government dictate.
"You're one!"
"No, I'm not! You are!"
"Oh, yeah?"
"Yeah!"
Gotta love it!
Now, I am off this STUPID habit for years, and every time I go to a bar, I encounter the same experience as I did on the flights of early years. Simply all these stupid youngsters, especially the girls, typically do not smoke, and they just puff on a cigarette IN BARS, just to look COOL? The idea that after the hostile campaign against smokers and smoking for several decades, youngsters are still starting in this addictive STUPID habit is very puzzling.
Yes it is intrusive for the government to tell a business what to do, however, if the nonsmoking public has no way of protecting themselves from second hand smoke. The government intrusion is the only thing left.
Say for example that there are certain people who are happy to take their infant with them to a bar/restaurant, and the baby has a diaper loaded with crap that stinks the room? Do you think the other people in that room have a right to expect that parent to clean the baby? Suppose, the parent says, well, I am happy with that smell! If you don't like it leave. Then you leave and encounter the same type of parent/stink in the next bar/restaurant! Do you think that would be offensive?
Smoking is addictive, and the smokers crave that nicotine in their blood periodically during the day. It was acceptable for the nonsmokers to share the room or even the car with smokers, and now it is not acceptable. Smokers should live with that fact; that they stink, and their presence stink the room. They need to smoke outside, and spray deodorant on themselves as they renter the room-not to offend others. Self-consciousness is a good idea for them to be acceptable in the society. If you have lots of gas, you do not impose yourself on everyone in the room?
That may be partially true for a state the size of California - but it is far from the reality of what has been happening in the past 6 weeks in Delaware.
At the most it is only a 35 mile drive to a another state that does not have the onerous ban that Delaware has.
I stopped in a tavern just over the state line in Maryland on Friday afternoon. We were talking with some of the regulars and the owner/bartender. There weekend business has more than doubled since Thanksgiving, when the ban went into effect in Delaware.
I've heard similar stories from bars and restaurants all along the Maryland Delaware line.
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.