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 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 701-716 next last
To: DoughtyOne
Good Lord. And they think I have a problem.

We don't think you have a problem, we know.

561 posted on 01/06/2003 8:45:53 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
;) Row faster...

He doesn't have to, you just sank.

562 posted on 01/06/2003 9:02:05 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
As for the heavy hand of government, it really is a shame the government had to do what simple good manners could have accomplished all along.

Quote of the day D1!

What all of you smoker's rights types do not want to face up to: People who stink up an enclosed place are just plain rude, whether it be with perfume, car exhaust, or tobacco. Your mothers didn't teach you good manners, and you think it's your right to be rude. Unbelievable!

Let the other guy go down the street while I stink up the place. If you guys had been a little less arrogant about your right to foul the air indoors, then public opinion wouldn't have turned against you and today you wouldn't be on the wrong side of "the man".

Another pet peeve. Keep your damn butts in the garbage where they belong. I constantly see smokers flip their butts out their car window because they don't want to stink up their own car. It's impossible to walk down a public beach without getting cigarette butts between your toes. It's disgusting. It's your own fault that public opinion has turned against you.

563 posted on 01/06/2003 9:11:00 PM PST by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: geaux
So, how could it go out of business? It would lose a small percentage in favor of a much larger percentage who prefer places with a smoking ban.

Now there you go making sense, our mayor said that a ban would bring out all the non-smokers..... didn't happen, it seem non-smokers are for the most part stay at home kind of folks.

564 posted on 01/06/2003 9:18:32 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
You have been well and truly brainwashed.

Go in peace.
565 posted on 01/06/2003 9:48:25 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom
No, it means if there are fewer places to go, those places will be busier.
566 posted on 01/06/2003 9:53:58 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
I live in CA and have witnessed the success of the no smoking law. I am not brainwashed, I have witnessed the success first hand.

I have no agenda, just call it like I see it.

Go anywhere you wish in peace as well.
567 posted on 01/06/2003 9:55:49 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
There is nothing the same about the boiled frog in water story and the need to restrict a dirty habit in enclosed public places that makes many sick. If it didn't stink and offend people and get asthmatics sick, maybe you could apply the frog story. In this case the boiled frog holds no water.

Everything's the same...rights are not lost all at one time because people would fight back and see that it didn't happen. They are willingly thrown away for others who have been deemed "unworthy." But every right lost for anyone is a right lost for everyone. You keep implying that people are FORCED to be in smoker-friendly places where they might be annoyed or made sick, but that's never been true and the bans have nothing to do with it.

It is a great idea that has been a blessing in CA that needs to go nationwide. IMO!

You and your friends may be happy with the People's Republik of Kalifornia and its jackbooted thugs, but many real people were hurt and will never recover financially from your one-size-fits-all liberal thinking.

Bet you were "educated" right here in the Golden State, weren't you?

568 posted on 01/06/2003 10:05:14 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
We don't want to lower society to allow your unination bar, no!

Your fascist ideas have lowered society until it's nearly unrecognizable. What's the difference?

569 posted on 01/06/2003 10:14:01 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Mears
I can't imagine a normal adult giving up anything to "gain acceptance." Nor trying to force others to do something they don't want to do...or throwing a tantrum demanding that all places cater to their whims. My children outgrew all that by about age three with my help.
570 posted on 01/06/2003 10:21:11 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom
Well, no one is forcing anyone to ingest the peanuts or seafood. A smoker however does force non-smokers to ingest the smoke.

How? Has anyone ever put a gun to your head and FORCED you into a smoker-friendly place? Did you not have the CHOICE to go to a place that didn't permit smoking? Or do you, like other antis, demand it all....just in case you someday might want to enter a place? No need to answer, your attitudes are plain as day.

571 posted on 01/06/2003 10:26:51 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom
That is the current law. Smoking is okay in a private club.

Not in Kookiefornia. And it soon will be prohibited in one's own home and car as well because people like you and A CA Guy have greased the slippery slope with your own hate.

572 posted on 01/06/2003 10:29:48 PM PST by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
People don't realize that these bans are just the tip of the iceberg. If anyone thinks the nanny staters are going to stop with smoking bans and fast food they're on drugs. Enjoy the day when all bars can't serve alcohol anymore and the only menu items these state directed non smoking restaurants will be allowed to serve is tofu (by law). It's for our own good, they'll tell us.
573 posted on 01/06/2003 10:31:34 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
Not a liar. It was a few years ago at DFW. Now, maybe things have changed in the past few years, but I don't think so.

I grew up in Lake Highlands, and I went to Texas A&M.

How's that for being a Texan. My ancestor were part of the founding members of the Republic of Texas. We come from Tyler County, more specifically Woodville and Chester, Texas.

Don't call me a liar.
574 posted on 01/06/2003 11:24:40 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Just means that businesses run under restrictions.

But shouldn't there be a limit to what those restrictions can be?

575 posted on 01/06/2003 11:26:31 PM PST by timm22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
Not in my area. Restaurants are doing okay. The only ones that have had trouble are high priced ones ($50 per meal per person types). They are lowering their prices to accomodate the change in the economy.

They are opening up 5 more moderate restaurants in a few months in my area.
576 posted on 01/06/2003 11:29:26 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
They didn't force a gun to my head, but it did prevent me from being able to work in a smoke free environment.
577 posted on 01/06/2003 11:30:29 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
The evidence I cite is the fact the law still is legal after challenges in court.

That shows right there that it was a sound law.

Lots of bad laws have survived challenges in court. Just look at all the Federal gun control laws we have. Then again, I have a suspicion that you aren't exactly a gun rights zealot....

Also keep in mind that we are talking about a California court.

578 posted on 01/06/2003 11:38:56 PM PST by timm22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Roadhouse was one of my favorite movies. The bouncers at the local bars make the Roadhouse bouncers look like a bunch of pantywaist wannabes. The city has been quietly trying to figure out a way to pull the liquor licenses from a few of those establishments. They easily consume 1/3 of the law enforcement labor hours on the streets. The number of battery claims and civil lawsuits alone will drag those places out of business. It just takes time to document the behavior in such an overwhelming fashion that success is ensured.
The first part of Roadhouse could be used as a training film for decent clubs. "It's a job, its not personal". A thick skin is actually more important than anything else. The irony is the muscleheads also like the movie for the wrong reasons.

It's amazing how many bar owners go into the business without a clue, seeing themselves more as Head Patron than businessmen and their staff as the enforcers of their whims. Such places inevitably are headaches and don't stay in business very long. That's what it sounds like is going on there.

-Eric

579 posted on 01/07/2003 4:19:01 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Just thought you might enjoy a different version of the same Abbott and Costello bit.
It's the version that was first performed on their television show in 1952. It's a redux of the original scene from "The Naughty Nineties". Of all the versions out there, I've found this one to be the "snappiest". Enjoy.

Excellent ! Thanks, I love it. I've added that to my collection...
580 posted on 01/07/2003 4:21:29 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 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