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."
Simply because some business owners are not permitted by law to do certain things with their business, does not mean they lack the right to do those things.
By whom?
The OWNER. Not the govt, not the law, THE OWNER.
Can you not see past your dislike of cigarette smoke?
This has come to the point that it is no longer about cigarette smoke, it is about ostracizing a segment of society, control of the populace, and antismoker need to prohibit the use of a legal commodity because they don't like the SMELL.
THE SMELL, man.
hahahaha, perfume doesn't travel like smoke?
You really ARE funny.
If it ever happens in the state I reside in I will do just that.
There is no such thing as a legitimate private business without a city, state and federal law restrictions. Never has been. Your perception that there aren't limitations on owners is wrong. They don't have the right to do ANYTHING they like. They are fairly free enough though to have it seem that way.
I know there are restrictions on the owner in regards to public safety the patron can not determine themselves, But besides in the segregationist south there has never been laws that restricted the owner(s) of the private property to the type of legal behavoir their customers can partake in.
Only in the restroom is it acceptable to go. But if you do it on the dining table, you will be told to leave
Yes by the owner not the government. If it weren't for the sanitary dangers to the neighbors I guess if someone wanted to open a place where you were allowed to urinate on the tables they should be able to do it.
BTW, If you are so concerned with the health of your Lungs what the hell are you doing in California?
Now you're prevaricating.
Do you really believe that the owner is going to let someone go urinating on the tables until the police get there unless he, or someone, is physically in danger?
However, let's for the sake of argument say that urinating on the tables is legal.
There are urinating bars where customers don't mind if someone urinates on their table and there are nonurinating bars where urinating on the tables is NOT allowed.
Do you really care about the urinating allowed bars as long as you know which is which?
Ah, but STILL an issue. So if the voting public says no perfume indoors that is still all right in your book?
So will perfume.
Don't deny it.
That has nothing to do with the rights businesses have. Businesses have to follow the laws because the government will send men with guns if they don't. The law and rights are not always the same thing.
If the State of California decided to collectivize all land and capital, does that mean there is no such thing as private property rights?
Yep, smokers had been causing those with allergies to suffer their bad habit by tradition. No more!
But were they FORCING them to suffer? Were there gangs in California snatching people off the streets and out of their homes, and forcing them at gunpoint to go into smoky bars?
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.