CALIFORNIA: 5-year-old ban in bars leaves owners, customers fuming

Appeal-Democrat.com ^ | 5 January 2003 | Scott Bransford

[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."

 

[Max McGarrity]

You must live in a very unusual area of California. There are far fewer bars in the state than before the bans, and far fewer dine-in restaurants. Granted there are more drive-thru fast food joints--even Palm Springs is debating permitting them on historic Palm Canyon Drive.

We are in a recession now, but that's relatively recent. The (small, local) bars and restaurants here were falling like flies long before this downturn, in fact, as soon as the smoking bans were foisted upon us.

Yep, the hospitality industry is up 3%--whoopty doo--in the rest of the country, it's up twice that, even in a bad economy. Why do YOU think that is? And why, if smoking bans are such a great success, are 60% of bars noncompliant?

I'll have to take your word about the damage done to topless/nude bars, but I'm involved in the hospitality industry here and know you're spitting in the wind about how great business is even if you and both your friends like it.

[SheLion]

Seems to me that quite a lot of the discomfort suffered by non-smokers in bars could be relieved to a great extent by better ventilation. Now why isn’t CA offering tax-free loans or grants to businesses to install these kinds of improvements? The money could come from the tobacco settlement and would beneficially impact the local economies of the bars and provide non-smokers with a more relaxing environment.

Your bigger, classier nightclubs have big air purifiers. Your local Joe's Bar and Grill can't afford them yet. But, if the anti's have their way, they won't have to worry about it. In fact, Joe might have to let some help go because of the lack of business the smokers had provided for him all these years.

[SheLion]

It has become the "land of the (smoke)free" and "home of the brave (New World)."

Sad, isn't it!

[Just another Joe]

Therefore public safety comes into play.

Can you show me the study that states, unequivocally, that ETS kills or even harms those without pre-existing medical conditions?
If not, it isn't about public health.

[SheLion]

I'll have to take your word about the damage done to topless/nude bars, but I'm involved in the hospitality industry here and know you're spitting in the wind about how great business is even if you and both your friends like it.

[A CA Guy]

There has been nothing but growth of population and small businesses for years now in CA. There is no dispute on this issue.
Our increase in population forces all businesses to grow.
Go to California state statistics on their websites if you want to see the obvious.
Granted, Davis is doing his best to rid us of jobs through taxes, but despite him we grow.

Old places and new places may fold due to normal market forces. It is not untypical for Californians to go to the newest place on the block and abandon old watering holes.

An example for you would be the theaters out here. Once movie places get to be about 6 years old, they get replaced by new places close by. Everyone likes new stuff here in CA.

Smoking is an "extra" activity like being "dressed". There are laws we have making us be "dressed" in public as well and now the laws restricting smoking in public.

Anyone with allergies had to suffer when smoking in public was legal.
I can state using even myself as an example that I don't bust into asthma attacks in public anymore as I used to. I don't require the same regular medications as before when I had smokers smoking on the job in enclosed places.
It's a filthy, disgusting unhealthy habit that is fine at home, but has no place indoors with the public or at work.

[Great Dane]

After 5 years, hummmmm....... haven't they told us what a success it is..... over and over again, if thats success, who needs it.

[sweetliberty]

"Well, it just dawned on ME that perhaps this smoker realizes how nasty you are and they do it just for the kick!"

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw one time that said:

WE SMOKERS HAVE DETERMINED THAT YOUR BITCHING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH!

[Great Dane]

So you don't like the smell, would you then consider banning perfume and everything else which smell bother some people, how far are you willing to go. ?

[Max McGarrity]

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.

I assume you were "educated" in a public school. It might be interesting for you to discover that we are NOT a democracy, and that the decision to make the United States a representative Republic was precisely so we WOULDN'T be a democracy, which is just another name for mob rule (tyranny by the majority is still tyranny).

Oh, yeah, the vast majority of these smoking bans were not put in place with "ballot initiatives," but by fiat of either an unelected health board or local lawmakers who were brainwashed by the professional snake oil pitchmen.

[Taxman]

For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how this stupid, misguided, unconstitutional law has not been challenged in court. Clearly, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I have no problem with non-smoking establishments -- but it ought to be up to the owner to decide his/her smoking policy, not the government.

If you don't smoke and don't like smokey rooms, all you have to do is take your business elswhere -- you have a choice. There are plenty of non-smoking bars and restaurants in those communities/states not entirely run by modern day Nazis!

But you know what? In those communities/states run by non-smoking Nazis, smokers do not have a choice. That is not the America I grew up in nor is it the America I spent 28 1/2 years serving in the U.S. Navy and Navy Reserve!

It is not the America the Founding Fathers envisioned, either.

"No-smoking anywhere bans," is not what FReedom is about.

[Max McGarrity]

GMTA, even though you said it much better than I.

Scary situation.

[Dec31,1999]

The only area I know of that was hurt by the ban in CA was the topless/nude bars which are inhabited by chain smokers. From what I read, those declined according to the LA Times and OC Register. But most normal family folks don't care about that issue at all.

Well, then there should be made an exception for nudie bars, don't you think? That's my intellectual input into this thread about property rights!:)

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

That’s precisely my point. Let’s help out the small bar owners and also provide a boost to local air conditioning businesses and the people they employ.

[sweetliberty]

Your last few posts have been given to fits of hyperbole that would do the average DUh'er proud. Give it a rest. I am a nonsmoker in a state that still allows for basic freedoms and I am seldom bothered by cigarette smoke even though I am frequently in restaurants that allow smoking. With the installation of smoke eating machines and excellent ventilation, the smell of smoke is negligible. The only ones who would be detracted from enjoying a meal because of it are those who are so psycholigically constipated that they find the mere thought that there might be someone in the building that is smoking to be unbearable. You are just whining.

[A CA Guy]

Generational changes are happening in California and younger Californians are going to clubs, restaurants and sports places that serve drinks over old fashioned bars. They want to do more today than just drink and look over at another stupefied face. Today Californians get bored and want more variety in their places.

It is a change in demographics, taste and thinking by a newer generation. It has little to do with smoking.

We have hardly a movie house over 8 years old by me in CA because nobody wants old out here.

How about the donut places and chicken places that all went down? Nothing to do with a smoking ban and everything to do with grocery stores making chicken and donuts cheaper.

Market forces are killing older bars. The kind of girl a guy wants to meet is less likely to be at grungy dark bar these days. Especially with AIDS out there.

Tastes are changing is all.

Palm Springs has a lot of old money folks and is very resistant to change I would think. The nearby Palm Dessert has boomed though with homes and trends the same way as the rest of CA.

[A CA Guy]

Nude bars in many cities out here in CA are not allowed to serve booze anymore due to the violence in the bars. Some nude places try and dance around that by opening Nude juice bars.

[sweetliberty]

" I think it's wrong to allow a carcinogenic substance in a public place for all to breathe"

I guess that answers the question in a nutshell about whether he believes that the internal combustion engine should be banned as well. After all, we wouldn't want his family to smell of all those carcinogenic fumes and since they may be a health hazard and certainly an inconvenience to DO and his family, then the obvious solution is to outlaw them. After all, we don't have a right to inflict the results of our addiction to driving on anybody else.

[luckystarmom]

Well, according to the law smoking is banned in public places.

Smoking is not banned in tobacco shops, as well as private residences and private clubs.

If a bar really wants to continue to have smoking it can become a private club or could be turned into a tobacco shop.

I think that is perfectly fine thing to do.

[Dec31,1999]

It seems that everyone is ignoring the fact that smoking bans are NOT unconstitutional. The several states and local governments each have the right to decide on matters pertaining to themselves

What would be unconstitutional would be a Federal law banning smoking in bars and restaurants. There are many unconstitutional laws, but banning smoking by states, or certin municipalities, unless proscribed by said state law, is not an example of such.