Saturday, July 22, 2006

Tougher smoking regulations find little support

Charleston Daily Mail: Bar owners and patrons rail against possible Kanawha ban

I still say if it works in NYC, it can work here. I don't smoke but I do dip snuff. Making someone breath secondhand smoke is like me making you drink my tobacco spit. At least you would have a choice. I can't pick the air I breath in a public place.

Technorati Tags:
,


9 Comments:

Blogger moneytastesbad said...

Actually you do have a choice. You dont have to go into a bar that allows smoking.

The most powerfull way to support this issue is with your wallet. If you dont want to be in an establishment that allows smoking, don't go there. If enough people stop spending their money in places that allow smoking then the owners will make that choice themselves.

1:36 PM  
Blogger oncee said...

If I could find a bar that I can walk to, I don't drink and drive, that doesn't allow smoking, I'd be in hog heaven.

As a free market thinker I agree with you. I also don't like the idea of gov. regulation, except in the case of public health.

I try to go to the most smoke free bar I can find when I go drink a beer.

1:44 PM  
Blogger Stanton said...

Public health is one of the hardest concepts to understand for most people, and it's nearly impossible to convince someone that smoking bans equates to disease control if they don't understand public health issues.

Although I hate to be in any smoke-filled place I think it would be adequate to allow a business to decide for themselves if they will allow smoking or not and then require very obvious signage to inform people that smoking is allowed and let them, as moneytastesbad says, vote with their wallet.

But then again, I am certain that someday smoking will be banned, so why not go ahead and do it now?

4:58 PM  
Blogger spinster girl said...

What bar doesn't allow smoking? And I agree, people in New York haven't stopped going out; the last time I looked the bars weren't empty there and Rolling Rock was $5 bucks a bottle, but I digress. I don't like the idea of being told what to do, but I don't like the idea of sacrificing my own health to spend time with friends and enjoy a nice, frosty beverage (or two).

12:44 AM  
Blogger spinster girl said...

I do think it's important not to look at this as "big brother," issue, but as one of disease prevention. I hate that businesses make it appear that everyone smokes. I heard a statistic that 80% of people DON'T smoke. I have no idea if that's accurate, but if is the argument of the bar owners seem flawed. That said, I know that Sam's stays packed during the noon hour not because of it's great turkey burgers (yum) or to accommodate the lunchtime alcoholics, but because you can smoke.

12:47 AM  
Blogger oncee said...

I would spend more time in Sam's if it were nonsmoking. I love their food. What I usually do is go to 101, less smoke/installed fans to remove smoke, and order off the Sam's menu.

12:53 AM  
Blogger moneytastesbad said...

There was a wonderful bar/ Music Venue here in Morgantown called the Rosewood Cafe' that was non smoking (by the choice of the owner, not the government) I really loved the place even though I smoke. But it is no longer in business. Does that have anything to do with not allowing smoking? I doubt it.


When I was in LA back in 2001, you were not allowed to smoke in the bars there. but every club I went to had an outdoor area roped off where you could smoke AND take your drink outside with you. I dont have a problem with that at all. In fact I kinda like it. But if you have to go outside and leave your drink inside, then I am not happy. You never know when someone may want to slip me a mickey or somthing.

2:37 PM  
Blogger Anathema Device said...

The reason I think there ought to be some kind of regulation is because of the people who work there. I know they could get a job wherever they want, but it's not that easy to find a job. Sometimes people have to take whatever job they can get. If they can only get a job working in a bar, that shouldn't be a death sentence. And they're breathing concentrated smoke, not like you would get in a home with a smoker, but with LOTS of people smoking all the time.

If they could even have a smoking area that is vented out of the building or something... I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, so more than 30 minutes in a bar with smoking and I seriously can't breathe. Kinda limits my night life options... *sigh*

7:25 PM  
Blogger jedi jawa said...

They've been hitting this issue big in Ohio lately. Summit County (Akron) went wishy washy after enacting a county wide ban but other bans are in place in other Ohio cities and there are efforts to make a state-wide ban that will probably fail in the mostly pro-business legislature.

When Summit County enacted its ban (before the withdrew it until the end of 2006...and November elections) many of the business owners threw a hissy fit saying how much they would be harmed if people could drive to the next county to smoke. Even certain cities rebelled against the County Council in enforcing the ban (Akron was one of them). Plenty of other people came out to say that they have avoided bars and certain restaurants as adults and would come back out with the ban. Studies have been presented that seem to show that businesses aren't really hurt by the bans but it is still a hot issue. A few ballsy businesses that have a large public draw decided to go smoke-free no matter what happens with the off and on again ban and have stayed that way.

Some of the public comment on this issue was very interesting in terms of people who avoid smokey places, the workers who spoke about their own occupational hazards that they face much like airline stewardesses used to deal with. It's an interesting issue and one that should provide plenty of press for a while if it shapes up in Charleston like it did here in Akron.

Sorry for the long comment. I've not commented to your blog before but I'm not always this long winded...well mostly not.

1:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home