Replies

"In a reasonable, non-nanny state, some entrepreneurs in a town might open a bar or restaurant that would serve the non-smoking public, while others would cater to the smoking crowd."
This was happening, now as a result of the ban the competitive advantage for the original entrepenaur who opened the non smoking bar is lost. That bar is as likely to see the declines as any other bars, therefore that risk taker is just as likely to lose the business! Thanks nanny!

I've never heard of a nonsmoking bar, at least around here...which of course means that it is already obvious that smokers' business won't be replaced by non-smokers' business.

It also speaks volumes that the nannies aren't fining or even admonishing the actual "lawbreakers"...only the businesses who "allow" the breaking of the law. This is how the nannies have their cake and eat it too....they pass an intrusive law and don't have to deal with the tougher aspects of enforcement. They just collect the fines.

-Eric

It also speaks volumes that the nannies aren't fining or even admonishing the actual "lawbreakers"...only the businesses who "allow" the breaking of the law. This is how the nannies have their cake and eat it too....they pass an intrusive law and don't have to deal with the tougher aspects of enforcement. They just collect the fines.

You are correct, but it is really even more insidious than that. there is no presumption of innocence. You, as the owner, are guilty until you prove your innocence.

I have a ttended a few of the hearings against the owners in Delaware, and the NYS law has the same type provisions, it was literally a kangaroo court.

And on top of that, the bans are selectively enforced. With a few exceptions, every business in the entire state is subject to the ban, but they are only focusing on bars and restaurants.

And finally the fines and punishments are unequal. A coffee shop that repeatedly violates the ban just gets increasingly higher fines. yet the establishment that serves alcohol is subject to losing the liquor license after as few as 3 violations, and thus gets put out of business.

This is not about health - it is about back door prohibition.

There was a bar here in Rochester called "Johnny's Smoke Free Irish Pub".

Now it's called "Johnny's Irish Pub".

The guy had a slamming business before the smoking ban; every night of the week was packed to the gills with 28-65 year olds of all kinds who wanted to hang out at what was pretty much the only non-smoking bar in town.

Well, it's good he had loyal customers, because NYS ruined his monopoly.

What a bunch of idiots. I am pretty sure we are seeing the last days of the Republic.

I've never heard of a nonsmoking bar, at least around here...which of course means that it is already obvious that smokers' business won't be replaced by non-smokers' business.

In 1999, Maine lawmakers forced a complete smoking ban on the Restaurants. Now, come this January, they are forcing a complete ban on smoking in BARS and TAVERNS in this state.

The economy sucks, and still they want to lose more businesses. Make sense to you?