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."
B. Ballot initiatives are Democracy, or by it's other name, Mob Rule. We live in a Republic. Learn the difference.
C. If I get enough people to pass a nice legal ballot initiative to strip you of everything you own, is that ok? THAT, is mob rule.
And the economy has been this way for 5 years, hasn't it? /sarcasm
Of course you can if you have asserted your absolute RIGHT to patronize a smoker-friendly place. If, on the other hand, you vote with your wallet and take your business to a fern bar the owner of which thinks like you do, then you've solved that problem and all you have to worry about is the boring surroundings and whining nannies who inhabit the place.
You stink up the place.
Not if the place isn't smoker-friendly, but I'll thank you to keep your bigotry to yourself. Cigarette smoke washes off; bigotry is to the bone.
You expose me to carcinogenic smoke.
Not if the place isn't smoker-friendly. Of course, if it's a restaurant you're being exposed to "carcinogenic" smoke from cooking food anyway.
You prevent me from smelling my meal.
Not if the place isn't smoker-friendly OR if the place has decent ventilation and adequate separation of smokers from nannies.<.p>
You prevent me from tasting my meal.
See above.
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.
(My condolences to your wife and children for being your wife and children.) Not if the place isn't smoker-friendly OR if the place has decent ventilation and adequate separation of smokers from nannies.
All I ask of you is not to smoke.
All I ask of you is to take responsibility for your own comfort and patronize places that do not welcome smokers.
You'll be able to taste your food better.
Not your business how my food tastes.
You'll be able to smell your food better.
Not your business how my food smells.
That's it. God I'm a meanie!
No, you're a fascist control freak.
just fyi - did you know that alcohol is labeled by the NIH as a carcinogen? So....as far as banning smoking in bars for 'health reasons' - they might as well ban the whole bar because liquor is a carcinogen too.
Personally, I have found respect a much better standard than legislation regarding smoking. Sure, there are people who have none, but you deal with those %^&#$%^& no matter what. When I go out to eat with friends who smoke, I generally let them decide whether to sit in smoking sections or not. Likewise, I have also found that most of my friends who smoke are sensitive to those who don't and will often step outside even when they are not "required" to do so. I don't want smoking in my car or in my house and that is my perogative, but when I am in someone else's place, whether it is their home or a business, I recognize their right to set their own standards and my part is to deal with it or go somewhere else.
I think Badroto is signing his own initials to his own comments. I don't think he is stating he is an 'old fashioned jfk.'
As far as the question of law goes, where do private property rights end and governmental control of private property begin? Freedom to associate is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and smoking is a legal activity that is allowed on private property. Businesses do have the right to refuse service, which is an aspect of freedom of association. Just because it is law doesnt make it legal, and before you try to belittle me personally over that statement, think of Cali's Ninth Circuit. Inventive interperetation of the law has been the basis for stripping away the rights of people all across the spectrum for many years now, and it is a dangerous trend. I read a Walter Williams editorial on the subject of whether these laws are legal, I will see if I can find it for you. If you want to insult me over that too, thats fine.
Hopefully, one day, we can all respect each others rights and treat each other with respect, and respect the rights of others. All of their rights, all of the time, and not just when it suits us, and not just when we cant get the government to lord over others at the point of a gun...JFK
Neither does A CA Guy, I fear...JFK
Its like a whole 'nother country, isnt it?...JFK
That dog won't hunt.
There are people that think the aroma of tobacco is nice.
If someone likes the smell of a full babies diaper, and can convince a business owner to have that aroma in their business, what business is it of yours whether that business owner allows it?
Then DON'T patronize the place! THAT is the exercise of freedom, NOT demanding that everybody else give up their freedom so that you don't have to be responsible for your own.
It's becoming more obvious every day that my theory of nannyism is correct. People who had happy childhoods are seldom, if ever, anti-smoker nannies, whether or not they smoke. On the other hand, those who had bad childhoods are far more inclined to try to "fix" others against their will and become unpleasant scolds when it doesn't work. They exhibit a basic unhappiness that seems to permeate everything they do. Sad, really.
They were thrilled about the government imposing rules that would hurt their business (even if the initial assumption was wrong)? They don't sound very business savvy to me.
I have a bette idea geek. How about we pass a law that bans incessant whining over every inconvenience that comes with liberty?
For the sake of arguement, YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR!!!
...but, if you CHOOSE to go to a restaraunt that allows smoking, you make the conscious choice as a free individual to breathe air that you consider unclean. Consider this...
The Second Amendment guarantees my right to own a gun. But what if I CHOOSE not to? Just like the non-smoker in the above example, I have made a choice for forgo a right for my own reasons, as a free individual. Now is it really fair of me to castigate others who DO CHOOSE to exercise that right? Just becasue I have CHOSEN not to exercise my right, does the government have the right to attack others who have chosen a different path that myself?
Like I said before, I sympathize with those who cant stand the smell of smoke. It is understandable as, physiologically, we are all different. But if you choose to go to non-smoking resturants only, not only do you guarantee your own rights, but you arent trampling on anyone else's rights as well. It is a win-win situation. But like I said, I am just a throwback who feels that people should be responsible for their own behavior. Old fashioned I guess...JFK
That's nothing more than anecdotal data. Can you post some numbers to support your claim?
Smoking is an extra activity and can be done anywhere but in public.
Extra activity? I've never heard of such a thing; what other legal activities are "extra"? Who gets to decide?
There were serious health issues surrounding the smokers getting others sick that got smoking banned.
There were? Can you cite some of these serious issues?
Those who have allergies are less in need of medication now to work or play in public. Smokers caused people with allergies to need to use a lot of allergy medication. That is selfish, rude and a thing of the past.
They did? Couldn't those with allergies simply frequent a non-smoking establishment if they like?
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.