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."
You've got that right Mr. Jefferson! Not only on this topic but other issues as well....anyone who doesn't agree with them, they would just as well put them in prison rather than do anything that would acknowledge other peoples rights as citizens of the United States of America. And to think....some of these people even have the nerve to 'complain' about the Taliban and Cuba and whatever - many of them would feel right at home with those people! Hypocrits one and all :-(
Recently, a buddy and I decided to go out to dinner and a movie. First, we went to Outback Steak House, who allows smoking in the bar (we both smoke, this was a consideration), but they were totally packed. So rather than wait 40 to 60 mins, we went to Tony Roma's, a short distance away. Tony Roma's prohibits smoking, even at the bar, which was fine by us, we CHOSE to eat there anyhow. The food was delicious, service excellent, but after dinner we wanted to visit and smoke at the same time. So, we went to another restaraunt, a regional 24-hour chain, most of whose stores allow smoking. There, we sat and had coffee, smoked and visited until it was time to go to the movie.
What is wrong with this?!? Everyone invloved has choices of where they want to go to dine out. In a truly public building (courthouse, DMV, etc.) there are no options to go to a different branch, so smoking is prohibited. But to dine out, the options are EVERYWHERE, even in small towns like the one that I am originally from. It seems as tho you antis have a problem with SMOKERS, yet you exercise your anger and strip rights away from people offering hospitality for a fee, denying them the right to run their business as they see fit. Where I live (WA State) where there is no ban, the options to dine out are virtually endless, and just as many (probably more) prohibit smoking as allow it. Why cant you just let them alone? Power-trip, self-righteous socialism at its finest, if you ask me...JFK
I agree with you. Tequila in a bar is a temptation to me and I am mean if I drink it. It should be banned.
I want Southern Comfort banned - if someone sitting next to me orders a drink with SC in it I have to move because the smell of it makes me violently ill. Why should I have to move? Why should that person have the right to inflict the odor of that nasty stuff on me???
Yes, I know I'm being ridiculous - but my initial comment about both liquors are the truth.
But the premise is the same as these whiney wimps about a bit of cigarette smoke.
I and all my friends in California are pleased as we could be about the smoking ban...At least until the California nannies learn what the Virginia nannies have been up to.Yipee for you...now you and your friends can go to bars and get stone-cold drunk and all go drink and drive if you feel like it ~~~ AND be able to get sick on booze at the bar without having to worry about all of those nasty smokers.
-Eric
I walk away from Free Republic a lot over that statement. And the fact of life that even our own kind hate us. How can anyone win any issue, when we can't even protect and stick-up for our own, babyface?
It brings to mind the comment a 7-11 store worker said to me once. I asked him how he was doing and he just shook his head and said, "Well, the whole damn country is just going to $h!t"....funny but I often think of that guy and how he said what he said. I don't think I could put it any better than that.
DON'T LAUGH! The anti's have marched into Las Vegas too!
Casino profits could go up in (no) smoke
LAS VEGAS - Perhaps the biggest threat to growth in the U.S. casino industry comes not from antigambling interests, but from health-conscious public officials.
On the other hand, there is this thing called “ballot initiative”? Which is utilized by people who know what “democracy” is? When the public voted to ban smoking, it was the will of the people in action. It was needed because the insensitive smokers are unable to smell their own stink, and be sensitive to others! Now you live with the law of the land. You are the cry babies.
That is correct.
However, the right to frequent the establishment is based upon the establishment wanting your patronage.
The desire of an establishment wanting your patronage as opposed to mine has to do with numerous factors including the establishments right to choose clientele, cuisine, price, seating arrangement, entertainment, etc.
Your demand is to remove one of those choices from ALL establishments. Even those establishments where you would never set foot because of your preferences to other types of whatever.
Of course, you can either believe those who have been affected by the ban who say they've been hurt or you can believe the studies and uneducated opinion that say they haven't. Frankly, I can't see any reason for business owners to lie about it since if the ban had been good for their business, they'd be pretty happy about it instead of fighting and defying it.
It is their choice to work in establishments that smoke. In fact, I would be willing to bet that those who work in those jobs are disproportionately smokers themselves and are likely some of the loudest opponents of such BS legislation. As I said before, it has nothing to do with protecting anybody and everything to do with controlling everybody.
I do not smoke and I am fairly sensitive to cigarette smoke, but having smoking areas is certainly adequate to accommodate everybody. Non-smokers who can't compromise to allow smokers equal rights, not to mention the rights of private business owners to choose what they will and will not allow in their OWN establishments are as bad as the whining liberals who advocate the confiscation of whatever of our rights they choose to put on their "pet freedom to go after this month" list.
What will be next? Will McDonald's be required to ban fat people because they are obviously being adversely effected by fast food? Will SUV's or even private vehicles be banned because people are being forced to breathe fumes? Would you be okay with being required to use public transportation if you wnat to get to work or take your kids to school or to the doctor? It isn't, after all, that far off. The same folks who are such vicious advocates of smoking bans, having pretty much scored an absolute victory in that area, are busily looking for new freedoms to eliminate and the ones I mentioned aren't too far removed from what they're scoping out.
The only time smoke is that big of a problem is if you have a lot of smokers in a small confined area with poor ventilation. Smokers and non-smokers co-existed and did just fine for generations before the PC smoking gestapo were unleashed and it is just wrong. Maybe smokers should start suing for illnesses contracted from being exposed to the elements when they want to smoke. There needs to be some balance in this issue and we need to get away from the all or nothing approach because any time you are at the extreme end of any issue such as this, somebody's rights are violated. Personally, I don't think we need to be justifying any more trade-offs on our liberties.
In AZ, many people are allergic to the Olive Trees people have planted in their yards. Should they all be forced to knock their trees down as not to upset their neighbors allergies? Alot of people are allergic to things. Your 'argument' makes no sense - you are grasping at straws - ssstttrrrraaaaaaaaaaaawwws ACHOO!
But this isnt a democracy. It is a republic. That means that all have rights that cannot be taken away by the whim of the majority. Dont business owners have rights too? You mentioned that banning smoking was put to a vote, but it wasnt. Whether business owners have the same rights to do with private property as they see fit the same is everyone else is what was voted on, and the whim of the majority stole the rights of these business owners. It is a shame. If you want to start a ballot initiative to prohibit tobacco altogether, fine, be my guest. As a smoker who sees the health benefits of quitting, I just might vote for it, especially considering it would do a good job of defunding the lefties by eliminating the discriminatory taxation on tobacco products.
But get your facts straight, the public did not vote to ban smoking, they voted to take the private property rights away from a minority of the citizens...JFK
What a laugh.
The Founders chose a republican form of government in order to avoid just the sort of tyranny of the majority that you're so heartily endorsing.
They feared that exactly your type of person would lead the charge against property rights and freedom of association, since they acknowledged the dark side of human nature and knew it would come to pass eventually.
So they threw up as many roadblocks against the tyrannical majority as they could.
Erosion of the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders leaves us with, well - you.
God help us.
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.