I always get a kick out of anti-smoking ban people. They have the ‘sky is falling’ mentality;
“I have letters from businesses in Kansas that I’ve been compiling. They are down 30 to 80 percent. They have already been laying off people. They’re cutting hours,” Kansas bar owner Sheila Martin said.
First off, I actually think restaurant business will go up. Bar business will drop a bit and then return. People will get over it. I’m actually considering a ‘First day of the smoking ban’ party in one of the smokiest bars I know.
Phil’S Pub or Top Hat?
Boy, that is a toss-up. I was thinking Tommy Jacks.
I never really understood the whole anti smoking in bars thing. People are not there because they are overly concerned about their health, so why not let them smoke? I know when I go out for a few beers I like to smoke too.
Let businesses decide.
To argue business will suffer is lame. All you have to do is drive down to Sioux City or anywhere in Minnesota to see that logic doesn’t stand up to reality.
The only long term impact is bars will need to spend a bit more time sweeping the sidewalks since all the smokers will be chucking their butts out there on a regular basis, and some places may need to invest in some of those portable kerosene heaters to keep the smokers happy.
Sheila Martin is nothing more than a liar.
Jim this isn’t just about people who choose to go there. This is also about the employees who work there. You may think “well then get a different job” which is perhaps a possibility in Sioux Falls, but for a lot of small towns a bar is the only business open after 5pm so when a young mother is trying to avoid paying daycare while the husband is at home, she works a later shift. That doesn’t give her a whole lot of options.
Besides, why should it be legal to allow someone to pollute the air of someone else… essentially forcing everyone around the smoker to partake in their habit while exposing them to known carcinogens?
Let businesses decide might be the rallying cry for the “anti-ban” folks, but that argument doesn’t hold water either. Businesses are regulated on practically everything from taxes to the temperature their deep fat fryers need to be maintanied at to how clean the freezer is to how many bathroom stalls they have. If we let businesses decide every facet of how they operate, it would be mass chaos and a race to the bottom.
I for one am thankful we have regulations. This is no different. If I walked into a bar and started spreading asbestos around I would likely get arrested, but yet it is perfectly legal to blow smoke around and expose others to a nasty byproduct of a disgusting habit? I don’t understand that logic.
Jim – It is not about patrons it is about employees. Almost every industry provides a smoke-free environment. Why not the hospitality industry? I consider myself very lucky to work in a smoke free restaurant. I used to work at a place that had smoking (but they got rid of it) but before that I would have ‘smoking hangovers’. Secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers health. And I am not a nanny-stater. It’s just the facts.
using the smokers rational on states that banned smoking, all the smokers should’ve moved to south dakota to continue to smoke. i don’t think that happened.
Lived in LA when CA implemented their smoking ban. The same anti-ban arguments were used. FACT WARNING – in the year after the ban went into place, average bar business increased around 13%.
I understand the argument for employees, and like it or not that is no reason to force a business to change. You have a choice to work there, just as the business owner has the choice to permit smoking in their establishment. As you stated, some places do ban smoking, and for them that can be a positive or negative. By having this ban, would it not hurt their specialty of being smoke free?
Costner- what your talking about is food safety and public sanitation, not whether or not someone lights up a smoke. As I see it, this is an example of the nanny state, having to legislate to protect me from myself. What is wrong with people either dealing with it, or going to another establishment?
Jim. Do bars sell alcohol or secondhand smoke? How are we taking a ‘right’ away from a business owner?
don rose talks about freedom for business owners, yet he’s one of the biggest lobbyists there are to keep south dakota’s antiquated liquor laws. no one should be able to sell booze but him and his cronies. where’s the freedom in that?
You know the saying, “I got mine, fuck the rest of you.”
You pay for the booze, the second hand smoke is free! Oi what a deal.
Jim: I understand the argument for employees, and like it or not that is no reason to force a business to change.
Are you serious? So the health of employees doesn’t matter to you? Glad I don’t work for you – and I pity anyone who does.
Jim: You have a choice to work there, just as the business owner has the choice to permit smoking in their establishment.
No Jim – some people don’t have a choice whether to work there. Well ok, I suppose if you want to get technical and state they can either work in a smoke-filled bar or they can be unemployed and homeless I suppose that is a choice, but in the real world some people don’t have such a choice. They take whatever job they can get and as has been stated repeatedly this isn’t just a Sioux Falls issue. A lot of smaller towns make it all but impossible to find part time work or evening shifts at anything other than a bar. We need to be a little less myopic in our viewpoint on the issue.
Jim: As you stated, some places do ban smoking, and for them that can be a positive or negative. By having this ban, would it not hurt their specialty of being smoke free?</i?
Doubtful, but even if it does hurt their specialty… so what? This isn't about profit, this is about health.
Jim: Costner- what your talking about is food safety and public sanitation, not whether or not someone lights up a smoke.
Obviously the point sailed over your head. My point was we already have laws pertaining to countless issues at businesses, so the argument that businesses should be able to decide for themselves is invalid. We have shown from experience if businesses are left to decide they aren’t about to do the right thing… they will do whatever earns them the most income (in most cases). Having a smoking ban is not a great burden upon businesses, and if they don’t like rules or regulations being forced upon them they can always close.
Jim: As I see it, this is an example of the nanny state, having to legislate to protect me from myself.
Again, we already have countless rules and laws in effect and this is no different. It is a public safety issue and should be treated as such. Call it a nanny state if you wish, but I for one am glad to see it because it is obvious business owners aren’t willing to put the health and safety of their employees above their profits and as such they are the driving force behind this law.
Jim: What is wrong with people either dealing with it, or going to another establishment?
And yet again we need to remind you some people don’t have the choice whether to work in a bar or not. Hell, some customers don’t even have a choice to go to another establishment either since outside of the larger cities like Sioux Falls you aren’t bound to find many non-smoking bars.
However, why should it be legal to spew carcinogens onto others? In what world does that seem acceptable in the name of freedom? If it wasn’t for the tobacco lobby spending tens of millions of dollars on political campaigns smoking would probably have been illegal decades ago, but here we with non-smokers having to deal with the side effects of smokers.
If someone wants to kill themselves I could care less, but when they decide to involve others in their destructive behavior the government has a duty to act like it or not.
Maybe we should not require restaurants to wash their plates? Germs and bacteria never hurt anyone.
Would you go to a restaurant that didn’t wash their plates?
DDC – I know where you are going with this. Nice try.
Seriously. If a restaurant brought my food out on dirty plates I’d walk out without eating or paying. Wouldn’t you?
I’m guessing most people would and they’d be out of business in no time. Don’t you think?
Of course we could legislate that businesses have to VENT THE SMOKE. Like Vegas casinos do.
But that would be too easy I guess.
The best vents and filters in the world aren’t powerful enough to prevent the smoke from being inhaled by non-smokers, so although it may reduce the risk, it surely won’t eliminate it.
If an exhaust system was that powerful you probably couldn’t open the door to get in due to the negative pressure inside the building.
The ban is going to pass, get used to it, nuff said.
And the tyranny of the majority rolls on…
Yeah, doesn’t Abortion suck?
Usually, yeah. Especially if you’re on the receiving end.
But I’m not sure what that has to do with taking away people’s property rights.
What about employee’s right to clean air in the workplace?
If that’s what an employee wants and it is important enough to them they can work someplace that is smoke-free (or fart free, if that’s what you meant by “clean air”).
The 13th Amendment banned slavery. We have the right to work wherever we choose (or not to work in places we don’t).