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."
That may be true in California - but is not true in Delaware.
If a bar really wants to continue to have smoking it can become a private club or could be turned into a tobacco shop.
Maybe in California - but not in Delaware.
If I have to take consequences for my Freedom - that is one I can easily live with!!!
I don't think he is a "right's zealot" at all.
I have allergies to raw shellfish - I can not see or breat after being exposed to it - so therefore raw shellfish needs to be banned in all public inddor places, right??
I am sure you will be available to help me insitute this ban since it is for the benefit of those who have allergies.
Personal anecdote and my personal anecdote is the total opposite.
Several years ago I walked into a local establishment and immediately broke out in hives and knew someone in the place was wearing a particular brand of cologne. I had an acquaintance that favored that particular brand and I could not be in any proximity to her when she wore it. She had left the place about an hour before I went in and no one else was wearing that cologne. I couldn't stay - I had to leave.
All aromas permeate throughout all rooms.
You are the one talking about allergies and needs for medication because of smokers and tobacco smoke.
I am allergic to raw shellfish and know many people allergic to all shellfish, cooked or raw. I've taken more than one person to the emergency room because they inadvertently ate something that contained seafood. Should the health concerns of those allergic to seafood be reason enough to force all "public" places to be seafood free?
I am allergic to bee stings, as are many, many people. However, bees are necessary for the production of honey. Should these allergies, which can be life threatening, be reason enough to put apiaries out of business, on the off chance a swarm will escape?
Airlines have stopped serving peanuts because of people with allergies. School districts have forbidden peanut butter sandwiches because some kids may be allergic.
Lots of things cause lots of allergic reactions in lots of people - your particular bugaboo is cigarette smoke. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Where is your support for the government mandated prohibition of other allergic reaction causing products in "public" places?
Because of my allergy to bee stings I do everything I can to avoid coming in contact with them - including not having flowers in my garden, growing herbs with natural insect repellant properties, and making sure that my herbs don't go to flowering stage.
When it comes to vegetables - I avoid the vegetable gardens during the flowering/pollination stage.
If some one is "allergic" to cigarette smoke - they should be able to do the same.
Of course I will - but I truly believe that you are not the one in need of prayers at this point!!!
I do have to laugh at these people that believe the utter nonsense of the addictiveness of smoking. But the ones that really get me ROFL are those that basically insist that all the ills (and illnesses) of the world are because there are not enough government enforced smoking bans in place.
I can not believe you made this post with a straigh face.
A non-smoker is not "forced" to ingest smoke if he/she doesn't enter a smoker friendly establishment.
No one with an allergy to seafood or peanuts is "forced" to ingest them, as long as they do not frequent establishment that serve either one.
Why do people refuse to see this?
That fish wrapper is one of my two daily newspapers. In many ways it makes the LA Times and Washington post look like right-wing tabloids.
Talk about stooping low.
My husband's great, great, great, great, great Uncle was Nathan Hale.
Your point is what????? You have Freedom fighters on your family tree, so do people on my side of this issue.
I have a problem with smoking in public places where there are children
Restaurants are NOT public places, they are private establishments that INVITE the public into them.
Public places are places that nearly everyone is required to go at some time (DMV, courts, etc) and are payed for with tax dollars. No one is ever required to go to a bar or restaurant.
And even employees are not required to go where they don't like the atmosphere, because they are not required to have taken a job where they do not like the atmosphere.
Your definitions of bars and restaurants and the purposes they serve are correct, to a point. And may very well be exactly on point for California, but not everywhere.
Here in Delaware bars are not permitted to be open on Sunday, but restaurants are. There is not a "sports bar" in the entire state that does not hold a restaurant license.
Everyone of them has a full kitchen and a full menu - but the primary business is bar business, particularly on the weekends for football and NASCAR. Because they have a restaurant license they must admit those under 21, including little children - something most of them discourage.
Because Delaware is such a small state - maximum drive to another state is 35 miles, those places in particular have been hit very hard with the Delaware smoking ban.
You are just reinforcing my point.
Not everywhere is California.
These things are not permitted in Delaware.
The Elks and Mosse Lodges, Veterans Organizations and Volunteer Fire Departments are the ONLY places that smoking is permitted in Delaware and only when they are conducting fundraising efforts.
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.