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 are the one with no idea.
You may prefer government required smoking bans because it suits your personal preferences.
Government mandates are not always the best thing - and I am sure you know that.
I can not believe that someone here would actually admit to something like that.
The falacy of comments such as your: "increasingly intolerant of smokers society" is exactly why I REFUSE to quit smoking.
Intolerant control-freak-nanny-do-gooders are causing more and more people to go in the total opposite direction.
In a small state such as Delaware - it is not going to work - it's way too easy to cross the state line.
Your totalitarian attitude reagrding this issue is very telling about your attitude about the lives of others in general.
Something else to keep in mind, If there was no smoking, No red meat, SUVs, Junk Food, Alcohol, Soda Pop, etc. You know what? People are still going to die!
Unpaid Mandates are illegal, as far as I know. They should be fought against. For example, the state shouldn't have the legal thoughoughfare to mandate that counties have the duty to pay for the Medicare benefits that the state says they should.
Likewise, the Feds don't have the right to determine state laws, except, of course those determined in the Constitution.
Intolerant control-freak-nanny-do-gooders are causing more and more people to go in the total opposite direction.
LOL! Same here, I probably would have quit smoking a long time ago if not for the Anti-smoking Nazis, Especially since I get my cigarettes on the internet. When anyone ask or lectures me on my smoking I tell them "I am smoking for freedom and hey if George Washington crossed the Delaware in below freezing Temperatures in the name of freedom the least I can do is smoke a cigarette for the cause"
Smoking may (emphasis on may) shorten my life but as they say it is better to live one day in freedom than 100 years under totalitarianism.
I agree with your statement completely.
The problem is that the anti-smokers will not play the 'live and let live' game.
With an anti-smoker it's all or nothing.
If it's going to be all or nothing then make it a state constitutional amendment.
When they come for something important to you, and they will, remember the joy you took while supporting the curtailment of others freedom. And don't come here crying about it.
I don't know. Do you? I do know that one cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater without criminal penalties potentially pending, but if the freedom of speech has limits, what would you propose reasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms be?
Would it be Constitutional for folks to carry shoulder-fired mini-nukes, for example, in your opinion?
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.