Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CALIFORNIA: 5-year-old ban in bars leaves owners, customers fuming
Appeal-Democrat.com ^ | 5 January 2003 | Scott Bransford

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."

 


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: addicts; antismokers; attractivehabit; bans; butts; cancerforeveryone; cigarettes; individualliberty; istinksowillyou; iwilldowhatiwant; mrsgrundys; myrighttostink; nannystaterssuck; niconazis; pantiesinawad; prohibitionists; pruneylips; pufflist; righttoaddiction; righttopollute; rottinglungs; screwnonsmokers; selfishaddicts; shutupitsmyworld; smokingbans; smokingyourrights; stinkybreath; stinkyclothes; stinkyfingers; taxes; tobacco; worldisanashtray; wrinkledskin; yellowbellywhiners; yellowteeth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 701-716 next last
To: Dec31,1999
It's not a smoking issue for me, I don't smoke. It's a LIBERTY issue.
421 posted on 01/06/2003 4:07:53 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom
I'm sure without the smoking ban, those restaurants would've been empty.
422 posted on 01/06/2003 4:08:58 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You have no idea what unintended consequences you foist off on us by your lunacy.

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.

423 posted on 01/06/2003 4:10:56 PM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I can only think of one consequence of freedom. You have to THINK for yourself.
424 posted on 01/06/2003 4:12:41 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
What you say is irrational, that has nothing to do with handing over freedom to government.
Davis was "elected" I am sad to say. He wasn't "GIVEN" anything.

Nobody is stopping cigarettes anywhere but in indoor public places where it causes some to go on medication, others to have to have tens of dollars paid to get the smell of smoke out of their clothes.
Cigarettes don't pay for health care at all and I think if anything awards were assimilated into the general budget.

One thing to keep in mind would be the near end of lung cancer and many other cancers if smokers quit. Wouldn't be the worst thing to happen Rep of Tex.
425 posted on 01/06/2003 4:13:59 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
I quit smoking to gain acceptance by our increasingly intolerant of smokers society.

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.

426 posted on 01/06/2003 4:17:37 PM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Flashman_at_the_charge
There was a restaurant/bar (can't remember the name of the establishment) in Sacramento that tried to do that. The owner spent over $70,000 of his own money to put in a special ventilation system and he still could'nt have smoking inside.
427 posted on 01/06/2003 4:23:06 PM PST by Not just another dumb blonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
I agree that smoking stinks, and could not possibly be healthy. That's why I don't smoke. But you think you can have a gov't that is just a little bit totalitarian, and history proves otherwise. Telling private business owners how they can run their business is Facism, and it won't stop with cigarettes.
428 posted on 01/06/2003 4:27:24 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
I think Doughtyone and A CA Guy are one and the same.
429 posted on 01/06/2003 4:34:17 PM PST by saminfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
As I said to someone else on this thread - what you say may be true - for California.

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.

430 posted on 01/06/2003 4:36:08 PM PST by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
One thing to keep in mind would be the near end of lung cancer and many other cancers if smokers quit. Wouldn't be the worst thing to happen

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!

431 posted on 01/06/2003 4:39:27 PM PST by qam1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Not just another dumb blonde
I used to smoke and I remember one time when everyone in the bar, including the barmaid, was outside on the pavement having a smoke. Bars have always been smoky drunken places. Next they’ll be trying to ban dirty jokes.
432 posted on 01/06/2003 4:39:36 PM PST by Flashman_at_the_charge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
You say that like those are bad things? See, when you hand over your freedom to daddy government, they don't just stop at cigarettes. Gov't has an insatiable appetite. It's also health care, and since they pay for that, they ban cigarettes, 'cause it makes the health care costs go up. Then they tell you what you can eat, you know heart disease and all, and so on, and so on.

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.

433 posted on 01/06/2003 4:54:08 PM PST by Dec31,1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
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.

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.

434 posted on 01/06/2003 4:55:06 PM PST by qam1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Dec31,1999
Well, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that these blanket smoking bans violate the letter and spirit of the ". . . equal protection of the laws." portion of the 14th Amendment.

It just is surprising to me that no one has challenged the law.

And, while I am thinking of it, wherein is it stated that a state law can violate the U.S. Constitution? I am thinking of the laws banning the private ownership of personal firearms. Seems to me that these smoking bans fall into the same category.

But then, I am not a lawyer.
435 posted on 01/06/2003 4:57:01 PM PST by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Businesses never quite had the freedoms you think. I mentioned they have always historically been restricted by city, state and fed laws.

I do see insurance companies forcing a change in life styles by not insuring smokers or obese people in the future.
436 posted on 01/06/2003 5:00:07 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Dec31,1999
Consider this: if it were a strictly local issue, then smokers/clean-air-demanding folks could potentially live in adjoining municipalities with the advantage of easy travel to establishments of their choice.

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.

437 posted on 01/06/2003 5:02:57 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
I'll agree with that caveat, Max.
They've ALREADY got their hooks into the public trough so it's going to be VERY hard to get their snouts out of it.
438 posted on 01/06/2003 5:05:06 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Because we have "some" laws, doesn't mean that "more" laws are even better. I expect my government to defend the borders, regulate commerce, defend property rights, keep bad people from hurting others, and build a few roads. I don't need a nanny protecting me from every possible danger. It's not possible for one, and I can manage on my own.

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.

439 posted on 01/06/2003 5:06:44 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
And, while I am thinking of it, wherein is it stated that a state law can violate the U.S. Constitution? I am thinking of the laws banning the private ownership of personal firearms. Seems to me that these smoking bans fall into the same category.

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?

440 posted on 01/06/2003 5:11:55 PM PST by Dec31,1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 701-716 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson