Bars waiting for smoke to clear
Owners watch as patrons enjoy last smokes, wonder if ban will hurt business
The Post and Courier
Maria Fanning of Charleston smokes inside Moe's Crosstown Tavern on Monday before the start of the city's smoking ban.
Owners watch as patrons enjoy last smokes, wonder if ban will hurt business
It was not a very happy hour at all for some folks.
One minute they were laughing, drinking and smoking, and the next — well, they were drinking.
At 7 p.m. Monday, bartenders around the city of Charleston gathered up their ashtrays and pointed to their new, city-issued no-smoking signs. And now they waited to see what will come of this less-hazy new world.
Some bar owners fear that the end of happy hour will be known as the moment their business went up in smoke. At Moe's Crosstown Tavern, Sarah VandeErve reported that one of her regulars walked out a little before the ban began, saying her goodbyes as if she wasn't sure she'd be back.
"She said she'd probably just stay up there in North Charleston," VandeErve said. "I think it will hurt us at first, at least. But you get used to it. In New York, I saw where they made signs for people to put on their drinks that said they were outside smoking so the waitress wouldn't take their glass. Maybe we'll get some signs."
Video
Smoking ban starts in Charleston
Brian Hicks on the nicotine trail as the City of Charleston smoking ban started at 7pm on Monday.
All this came to pass after years of wrangling between smoking and nonsmoking groups. About six months ago, City Council voted 9-4 to implement the smoking ban. Already, a group of bar and restaurant owners is challenging the law in court. Their argument is much like that of libertarians who don't even smoke but don't like the law anyway.
Matthew McKinney sat in A.C.'s Bar & Grill, watching as people on either side of him lit up for a few last drags. He wasn't smoking, but that doesn't mean he's happy. "This place is like a chimney. At night, 95 percent of people in here are smoking," McKinney said. "If I don't want to be around it, I'll go down to Raval. People have choices."
Some people say that, since they usually only smoke when they are out drinking in bars, they'll probably cut back on cigarettes. McKinney says there'll probably be 150 people standing outside of A.C.'s smoking every night, which plays into the biggest joke going around the bars Monday: How do you find the bars in Charleston? They're the places where everyone is standing outside, smoking.
But some won't.
"I probably won't stand outside to smoke, so it'll be better for me," Maria Fanning said, stubbing out a cigarette at Moe's.
Of course, this could lead to new advertising campaigns for cigarette companies: You don't have to walk a mile for a Camel, you just have to walk outside. Or, the Virginia Slims sidewalk sign: You've come a long way, baby.
The best sign for Charleston may be Club Habana. The cigar bar was granted a variance to continue operating because there's no doubt that it is one establishment that's all about smoking.
Justin Valakis, general manager at Club Habana, said the rush hasn't hit, yet, but he's looking forward to a boost in business.
The Post and Courier
A patron smokes inside A C's Bar & Grill in downtown Charleston before the start of city's smoking ban on Monday.
"We're hoping the word will get around, and we're happy to help out people looking for a place to smoke," Valakis said. "But even if it's good for us, I don't think the ban's a good idea. It should be up to the proprietor."
And that's what the legal arguments will come down to eventually. But that's not why most bars were careful not to let their ashtrays get away as souvenirs; mostly they just wanted to avoid any anti-smoking groups from getting their hands on trophies. As if they would touch those things anyway.
Besides, there didn't seem to be many anti-smoking advocates out bar-hopping Monday night, perhaps using the playbook that says you don't gloat in victory.
It's a victory for now at least. And unless something changes, Monday will be a day that will live in infamy among smokers.
"I had a couple of guys come in and order just one beer and light up," A.C.'s bartender Kevin Young said. "They said they wanted to say they had their last cigarette here."
Reach Brian Hicks at 937-5561 or bhicks@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
FreeThinker (anonymous) says...
Who would have thought in a capatalist society where business is consumer driven that government would be allowed to mandate that all private bars be no smoking?
We have a lot of bars in the city limits of Charleston.Bar owners strive to market to their patrons. In what screwed up world do 9 city council members pushed by an avid antismoking group decide the new personality of every single bar in the city limits? And even more ridiculous this same group has mandated there will be NO opening of new bars that cater to smokers. Now what difference does it make to them or their antigroups of nannies who want to act as if they are protecting workers? Hogspittle! These bans aren't about protecting workers. Workers choose where to seek employment and Charleston already had many, many no smoking venues throughout town. In fact few restaurants allowed inside smokers anymore. So why can't I open my Smoker's Martini Bar downtown? Oh because the nanny group has decided every single bar downtown has to push their patrons on the sidewalk to smoke.
Would it not have been more sensible to decide that a bar might buy a smoking license from the city if they wished to be a smoker's friendly bar? And then cater to their smoking patrons. Whose no smoking lungs would fave been harmed and what worker would have been hogtied to work at a smoker friendly bar unless they choose to do so? Well none right.
So why do we need a blanket ban that treats all bars the same? We don't. And in fact these bans are illegal in the face of the law as the State Attorney has said.
I read where one of the antismokers stated that every single city who has banned smoking has proved that business INCREASES after the bans. That is a lie. You have only to look over to Sullivan's Island at Bert's Bar. His business decreased by a third. His business, his livelihood slashed by a city council who decided adults at bars want to be protected. Hogspittle again! Adults who think of the whole picture cringe at the signs of government intruding into free trade and commerce. Especially in the hospitality industry where one always makes a choice where to work and where to consume.
Well it works in NYC. Oh no it doesn't work! Bars all over NYC are handing out ashtrays to their patrons. After 10pm or 12 mn patrons in bars all across town are lighting up. And policeman, who view enforcing these nanny laws as babysitting, are not enforcing bans on adult behavior. Smoking in bars doesn't interest them or rise to the level of a crime. No matter what Bloomberg says , it 'ain't' working.
Capitalism. Free trade. Commerce. Consumers. Marketing. These are all hallmarks of our American businesses. Well it was until city councils around the states started ripping away at basic private enterprise. I can't open a Smoker's Bar. Why?
Thomas Jefferson knew that any American willing to give up liberties for a little security deserved neither.
July 24, 2007 at 3:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mac0cm4 (anonymous) says...
(yawn) At least I won't have to deal with the congestion and headache after going out downtown anymore.
July 24, 2007 at 6:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GetFocust (anonymous) says...
Some people enjoy a beer and a cigarette while at bar, when and if they take that away of course it's going to hurt business. Nobody wants to just drink and then stand outside and smoke, are you out of your mind? Only non smokers will end up going to those bars. The best bar to smoke and drink and they can't really say anything about the smoking is Reds in Mt. Pleasant. Only because it's outside and so it doesn't get "smoky". Everyone will see its only going to cause problems and its a stupid idea to take smoking away from bars. Smoking in bars was beng done way back in the 30s and 40s and now you want to take it away because you cant stand the smoke? Go to a club, open area something else besides making a problem for others. Its just ridiculous
July 24, 2007 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlene68 (anonymous) says...
I can see it downtown in the streets, but in a bar, i think thats ridiculous, however I dont smoke or drink, but in a bar is where you go to do those things, you expect that in a bar, thats why this seems so silly to me.... Anyone agree?
July 24, 2007 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ktrillo (anonymous) says...
my bar, my bank payment, my choice.
July 24, 2007 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trm2105 (anonymous) says...
Perhaps it should be left up to the owners of the establishments. However, treatment and care for smokers with illnesses derived from smoking should not come out of non-smoker's wallets. I don't want my insurance payments to go to pay for someone else's unwise, though rightful, decisions. And god-forbid that we do get universal health care in this country, the taxes from non-smokers will likely be used to pay for the care of smokers. That's not fair.
As a believer in liberties, liberties that don't interfere with others' liberties, I do have a problem with owners of business being told what they can and can't allow. However, its not so simple. There are all kinds of health and safety regulations associated with running a business. Its one of the reasons why child labor is no longer allowed.
It really comes down to the age old dilemma between the autonomous individual and the social collective. How much are we as individuals free to chose and to act in our own interest? How much is the community responsible for the safety and peace between individuals? Diverging in either extreme is arrogant and non-productive. One reduces us to the fatalism of individual isolationism, the other enslaves us in an orwellian police state. Neither is how we arrived this far.
What is really a shame is that a few rich white men, using a little plant, wrapped in paper, infused with all sorts of addictive additives (that they hid and lied about), and marketed as the coolest thing to do with your free hand, have divided the public down a single line of right to consumption. That's impressive for sure. And the debate spins on about rights: the right to smoke in public and the right clean air in public.
Meanwhile the rich white men peddling the sticks of tobacco will continue to market their cool and hip product because, well they want to continue to be rich white men, not poor white men. And the government, which should be reminded is the represented will of the people (someone tell GWB that next time you see him) is left with the obligation to protect and defend all our rights, but that takes compromise by everyone. The rich white men making tobacco sticks don't have to compromise.
So let's compromise. Non smokers will still have to endure smokers on the street and in open spaces on the way to enclosed non-smoking spaces where ventilation is a problem for everyone, and smokers will have to endure stepping outside to get a fix for the habit that the rich white men have so graciously provided smokers.
However, I still don't want to pay your medical bills.
July 24, 2007 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlene68 (anonymous) says...
If you dont want to be bothered with smoke then dont go to the bars, stay home and drink, or smoke, and make it comfortable to you....
July 24, 2007 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Girleygirl (anonymous) says...
Say it again Charlene!!!
I'm not against it and I'm not for it. I'm sad that there was an actual vote done on this. Why did we have to have a law on CIGARETTE SMOKING?!
If I see someone smoking I go the other way if I don't want to smell it. Some of these non-smokers are whiners and are taking experience that happened to others their own and found a couple of lobbyists to ban it. I don't believe alot of non smokers even care about this law. As far as a family restaurant, smoking should not be allowed where CHILDREN frequent, but a bar c'mon now!
July 24, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Jinxo (anonymous) says...
In my mind, what this comes down to is a workplace safety issue. The patrons of a bar can choose not to inhale secondhand smoke by not going to a bar. However, the bartenders don't have that luxury. They have to go into a bar for their livelihood. While just trying to make a reasonable living serving drinks to folks, they should not be forced to breathe air that would make a coal miner gag. And don't say that they can get another job; sometimes it's not that simple.
In the meantime, the people who pushed for the smoking ban now have an obligation to make sure that bar owners don't suffer financially. You wanted non-smoking bars? You've got 'em. Now go out and buy a few drinks.
July 24, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trm2105 (anonymous) says...
I'll get the first round!
July 24, 2007 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hazel (anonymous) says...
It seems odd to me that non-smokers are so complacent about second hand smoke simply because they have been conditioned to accept it. I rejoice in the fact that I don't have to sit in an expensive restaurant smelling the smoke of the people at the next table who have enjoyed and finished THEIR dinner. I am glad that I can now stop at the corner bar for a drink and not emerge 30 minutes later smelling like crap.
Non-smokers have rights too and I am very happy we finally have some relief!
A state wide ban, as in other states like Florida, would even the playing ground for all of the vendors in the state. Some establishments in our region could realize hardships if patrons choose to drive a few miles to a smoking bar. I guess we need representatives who will step up to the plate.
July 24, 2007 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sapientia2 (anonymous) says...
I agree with you jinxo.... support public decision--Drink on! But I have to ask the smokers.... are you really concerned with bar business? To me, it seems that smokers care more about the ten feet they may have to walk to enjoy a smoke; your intentions are hidden under the guise of "caring about commerce". Please.
Smokers--You're still able to enjoy the core pleasures of going out to bars: socializing with your friends, meeting new people, and enjoying some good booze. However, as stated earlier by Harpo, "smoking is a group activity when done indoors." Your core joys aren't stripped. However, when I can't open my eyes from the smoke, which is a problem in most of the smaller, more intimate bars I tend to enjoy, trust me, those core pleasures are definitely hindered. But you're telling me to stay home--or choose a large, obnoxious, airy CLUB? NOT FAIR!!! If smoking is the real reason you just HAVE to go to bars, which is something that affects EVERYONE around you, YOU'RE the ones hindering the good times. At least the non-smokers are compromising, instead of the smoker's reply, "don't like it, stay at home". I'm not telling you to stay home or stick to the tinderbox--I'm saying walk five feet and have a smoke for five minutes.
Let's do some math. How long does everyone stay out at bars?? Let's say hypothetically, 10:00pm to 2:00am, which I think is a pretty liberal estimate. That's four hours. How long does a smoke last??? Five minutes?? How many cigarettes are in a pack? 25? If you smoked A WHOLE PACK in your theoretical time out, that's only approximately two hours. Most people DO NOT smoke a pack in one "sitting", correct? So, let's say, half a pack in one sitting... that's about 12 cigs, five minutes each....So really, you're complaining to non-smokers about ruining maybe a quarter of your night because of this ban. Well, when you smoke me out of a bar with poor ventilation, you ruin my whole night.
If you want someone to point fingers at, point them at your bar owners. If they had taken the time to put up better ventilation (which in the overwhelming majority of bars, is quite poor), there would be hardly anything to complain about--no liability for employees, and no great divide between the two parties involved.
July 24, 2007 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chele93 (anonymous) says...
trm2105> Great point about the insurance issues. Not only do smokers increase the insurance rates for non-smokers, we ALL pay increased taxes to provide medical care for non-insured smokers.
Now I'll wait for a smoker to deny that they cause those costs... and I'll say: Have you ever smoked around anyone else? Ever consider that you could have caused or contributed to their medical issues? Who pays for that? Our employers do when they pay part of employees health care benefits. Employees do when they pay their part of the health care benefits, plus co-pays, deductibles, etc. And then smokers and non-smokers pay thru taxes.
I've avoided bringing my own experience into this until now, but it correlates to this part of the issue. Both of my parents smoked while I was growing up. In the car, windows up. In the house, doors closed. Back then, in the 70s and 80s, we, the public, didn't know the true extent of the effects of 2nd hand smoke. During this time I spent 14 years taking voice lessons. By the time I was 27 I'd had 2 major sinus surgeries and a throat surgery to correct damage caused by second hand smoke injury. All of my vocal training is worthless. These days only my steering wheel gets serenaded by me and my worthless voice.
Additionally, my 5-year-old nephew has respiratory issues because, even tho my family has learned to smoke only outside and rarely around non-smoking family members, my nephew was exposed to chemicals deposited on clothing from cigarette smoke. Imagine smoking a cig, outside, away from an infant, then going inside, picking him up, and placing his face on your shoulder, right into the shirt or sweater you just wore while smoking.
Okay, that's getting off the article topic, but I like the sound of the keys clacking...
July 24, 2007 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
da9 (anonymous) says...
I see that we have started a race-card game. I don't want to play that just as much as you don't want to pay my medical bills. Stop making other races (mines being Filipino) feel and look like victims all the time. Are we going to blame all the Hispanics for cocaine and all the Canadians for marijuana? Point made, I digress. But I think that the bartenders who don't like cigarette smoke should work at bars that it's not permitted or choose a different profession. I'm not a smoker, but I do drink and have always prepared myself for what I call 'the bar scene' which includes ciggie smoke. NOBODY is FORCED to go to a bar where smoking is allowed, there are OTHER BARS.
Another thing is, they are forcing drunk people out onto the streets-threatening my safety. Wouldn't this just push more (perhaps a lot less) public drunkeness offenses? Maybe it's going to bring back 'prohibition-esque' actions. It is a great idea to feel like it shouldn't be allowed in family restaurants, but bars should be allowed.
I don't think this ban will last very long.
July 24, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
comorse1217 (anonymous) says...
I lived in NYC after they banned smoking, I was actually a bartender, and it didn't hurt business much at all. People smoked outside in the cold, rain and whatever weather was upon us. They just got used to it, without too much complaint, might I add. At least Charleston's weather is more agreeable year-round to that of NYC. I believe this is a change for the best.
July 24, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sapientia2 (anonymous) says...
Insurance subsidies and healthcare costs have nothing to do with race. It's about projecting the costs and consequences of a habit on to others who do not contribute to the problem. When you go in for lung cancer, and can't pay for it, the government does. Where do you think that money comes from? Tax-payer's wallets--regardless of race or socioeconomic status. Besides, smokers exist across all nationalities and ethnicities. So I don't think the "race-card" was pulled whatsoever.
As someone who works in the food and beverage industry, I can assure you that switching jobs within this industry is no easier than any other. The good paying jobs are hard to come by (oftentimes those are BARTENDING positions), and we've all got to pay our bills, too. That's our livelihood. Smoking indoors versus smoking outdoors is just a trivial aggrivation.
By the way, forcing drunks onto the streets? I can only assume most people GO BACK TO THEIR DRINKS after finishing a smoke, since we have an ordinance against drinking outside of bar properties. And also, when you have to leave your drink to smoke, you're drinking less. Less drunk=you're safer--just to counter that point. Besides, most of us like to close out our tabs BEFORE embarking on the "streets". Also, most smokers tend to stay on the sidewalk. Look on the bright side, you get to commiserate with people you have something in common with--outside.
July 24, 2007 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
da9 (anonymous) says...
Hmmm....sapentia2, appears you looked over the part where I stated that I'm not a smoker; therefore, I have nothing in common with those people. I'm not worried about people ditching their tabs, I think most people are honest about that. Nothing was said about ditching tabs, where'd you even get that? What I meant by forcing drunks onto the streets is-some people aren't nice when they're drunk and they will taunt passers-by (on occasion). The race thing came from an earlier post saying that basically this is the white mans fault...please read what is being typed before countering my points so your countering makes sense. I work too, I actually did some food and beverage industry myself, and you know what, when I began to not like it-I left. I continued my education so that it was easy to find a job. I'm not calling you undereducated, but if you're having a hard time finding work that everyone can enjoy-do something else.
sapentia2, please read all of the comments so you can understand the GROUP discussion. I know my post isn't the only one showing. It helps build up better 'countering'.
July 24, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
da9 (anonymous) says...
Since the smoking ban doesn't directly effect me (1. I don't care whether people smoke around me or not, 2. I don't smoke)is it wrong to ask why they didn't put the legislation into more risky situations? I think they should have spent this time working on the crime rate in the city of Charleston than the smoking rate. They keep making everything a crime, but they aren't upholding the crimes as punishable. There should be more time spent on things like peeping toms, domestic violence, weapons charges, and gangs.
July 24, 2007 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sapientia2 (anonymous) says...
All my uneducated self is saying is that smokers don't need to muscle people out of jobs (which isn't trivial) for the sake of being able to smoke indoors (which IS TRIVIAL)--WALK FIVE FEET. The "if you don't like it, leave" line of reasoning is extreme and dividing. And leaving a job at the drop of a hat is something I consider irresponsible if you are not in the position to do so. That's a completely unfair line of reasoning.
I think your point about "forcing drunks on the street" is rather weak. Most smokers are content to chill out and smoke outside without bothering people on the street. Look at Raval. And IF they ARE bothering people on the street, that isn't a smoker versus non-smoker situation, that's an issue of intoxication and belligerence--something that should be remedied by a taxicab, not keeping them in the bar, smoking, and drinking MORE.
As far as the race-card thing goes, you didn't exactly reference that point very cleanly. Your next statement jumps to insurance gripes. And I agree with what you're referencing to, in that case. Mentioning "white rich men" does not contribute to the meat of the argument, simply put.
July 24, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlene68 (anonymous) says...
Amen da9 !!!!
July 24, 2007 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
da9 (anonymous) says...
Sorry I didn't reference it well and I jumped to the next issue. I'll be sure to do better next time.
Please please please don't say I called you uneducated. I tried to make a point to divert any of that implication, I'm sure you're great at what you do. My point wasn't to try and muscle people out of their jobs, I feel like if the environment that you're working in doesn't work out for you- I think you should find somewhere that you would be more comfy working in. You don't have to get up and quit on a dime; you should definitely find other work before you put in your two weeks.
About my 'forcing drunks onto the street', I don't see it as weak (which means it's trivial for people who feel the same as I do). Some aren't okay with going outside to smoke and they could become belligerent and annoying to tourists (one of our key money makers), whereas they could've been inside only messin' with other drunk smokers. Not all bartenders or anyone is going to hail a cab or call the cops because: they don't want to leave their car (irresponsible either way) and bartenders don't want to lose patrons. I feel that [some people] will remedy the "I don't wanna go outside" by, "I'll just have another few drinks." I know that leads to a whole other ballpark, but it's definitely a contributor.
July 24, 2007 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gcs (anonymous) says...
sapientia2-
Smoking in bars has been around longer than most (if not all) of the bartenders & other people that work in bars now & common sense should have told them that if they worked there they would probably run into clouds of smoke! Therefore they should have thought about that BEFORE they accepted or even applied for the job!! They knew what they were signing up for!!
da9-
I understood EXACTLY what you were saying, because I READ
the posts before you!! Good Point!!
**AND YES, I AM A SMOKER & I LOVE TO SMOKE!! FIRE UP CHARLESTON!! :)
July 24, 2007 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sapientia2 (anonymous) says...
da--I agree on terms of job comfiness, I really do, but at the same time, don't you think that it's more important to support our workers than supporting people who don't want to walk FIVE FEET??? You're not a smoker, so this isn't an attack by any means, but I feel like we could all take a step back a review the bigger picture. Smokers--you mean to tell me you care more about being able to stay seated smoking than being respectful of people around you and moreso, the bartenders that service you? The job's hard enough.....
...and yes I know, GO FIND ANOTHER JOB--heard that one enough. You know what, find me a job market in this town that isn't saturated, and I'd gladly step out and do other work. Most people in food and bev wouldn't be there if they didn't have to (but not ALL)--and most are actively working toward other goals. You take the jobs where you can find them, and yes, I'm sorry but the choices ARE limited, and bartending DOES PAY THE MOST. We can't all get the beaucoup job at Raval. It's just ridiculous that hear that people are less supportive and insensitive to that side of the issue. I'm just saying, more respect, please. I think it's ridiculous to ban smoking OUTSIDE of buildings, like they tried. Charleston doesn't own the air outside. That's compromise.
Also, out of curiosity.... how many smokers actually smoke INSIDE their own homes????
July 24, 2007 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sapientia2 (anonymous) says...
Harpo, I would be very supportive of that clause as well. There are no ill intentions here--just the desire to enjoy the same comforts when going out and working as most do.
Most offices do not allow smoking indoors, as it inconveniences those who are working. The same should go for all professions. That lack of consideration would undermine a whole industry of people who work very hard to provide good services. We're just trying to make it par for the course for food and beverage, which is unregulated and undermined enough as it is.
July 24, 2007 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gcs (anonymous) says...
Move to California or NY if they're SO smart & it's SO great!! It's a freaking BAR!!!! People in there aren't saints!! How about the liver failure that drinking is going to cause? All the "outside" smoking is going to do is cause piles of cigarette butts outside in the streets!!
July 24, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sapientia2 (anonymous) says...
How is disposing cigs any different indoors than out? Some people will clean up after themselves, and some won't. That's not a function of your surroundings, that's a function of your habits.
So. Now everyone should MOVE so you don't have to walk FIVE FEET OUTSIDE. That's incredibly short-minded and selfish.
Bartenders aren't saints, but neither are computer programmers, yet the latter gets the respect of not having smoke blown on them.
Oh, and when you drink, you don't cause anyone else in the room to have liver failure. Weak point.
July 24, 2007 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gcs (anonymous) says...
So I'm short-minded & selfish!! Oh well!
I was actually referring to the health insurance "issue" that people were complaining about in the other posts, because of us smokers!
OH, BTW-Don't forget to put a mask on when you go outside so that you don't get exhaust from cars in your lungs!!
July 24, 2007 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bluecap (anonymous) says...
A private business should be allowed to choose both the customers and employees he or she wants to cater to. If they choose only purple-haired, pigeon-toed peanut eaters, so be it. It may be a stupid decision, but it's a free decision. Curtailing any freedom or liberty is a dangerous thing.
July 24, 2007 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bluecap (anonymous) says...
Sapentia2,
Should peanuts be banned because some are allergic to them? Do you realize that fat people consume more oxygen, thus producing more CO2, and contributing more to global warming? What is your criteria for deciding what conduct is acceptable in a private setting?
July 24, 2007 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sapientia2 (anonymous) says...
Hey, like I said, if there is an indoor solution that business owners want to pay for where smokers and non smokers can comfortably co-exist, I'm all for it.
bluecap, you're going down a slippery slope there.
i'm not even addressing the issue of liberties here. if I were even analyzing that aspect of it, i'd be arguing in the direction of free choice. but the simple fact of it is that this: smoking doesn't just affect you, it affects everyone around you. look it up.
geez, sorry you're SLIGHTLY inconvenienced.
July 24, 2007 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kennyt (anonymous) says...
Ok they ban smoking in business's because smoke is bad for you and the other people around you but-but what about the alcohol? I have never read where a person smoked a cigarette and killed someone because they were intoxicated by the nicotine. I would rather them smoke ten packs and drive than three or four beers and kill one of my loved one's. As usual the worse problem DUI is hidden by all the smoke. I know anybody leaving a bar has usaully had a few beers and smoked fifty cigs so which is worse behind the wheel?
July 24, 2007 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sapientia2 (anonymous) says...
Oh, and PS. bluecap: when YOU eat a peanut, it doesn't cause an allergic reaction with SOMEONE ELSE. whereas, when you smoke, it oftentimes does. that is definitely a distinction to consider.
July 24, 2007 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NN (anonymous) says...
I don't smoke, but I take issue with the crybabies and whiners. Life is relatively simple: If you're a female and you don't want to be sexually harassed, then don't go to work with a bunch of men. If you don't want to hear about soap operas and gossip, don't go to the beauty parlor. If you don't want to see porn, don't go to the adult book store.
And for goodness sake, if you don't want to smell cigarette smoke, don't go to a bar!!!!!!!
July 24, 2007 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
da9 (anonymous) says...
Wow, this sure turned into a heated conversation. Good to see the many different opinions, most of which are respected. There used to be smoke in my house until the roommate moved out, yup, it stunk. But that's my house...the other is a bar. A great way to get at smokers in the bar is to buy a good size, upright, oscillating fan, put this where you stand the most. From here, turn it on and blow the smoker's smoke (and possibly ashes) back toward them (smooth, subtle, entertaining). It's a great way to tell 'em to keep it to themselves. Just trying to end on a happy note. You can still smoke in Dorchester County--guess you're going to have to drive a bit farther if ya wanna smoke inside.
I know things change, but if there's no opposition, there's no reason for government or free will. I don't care what century it's brought in by. What if I told you--crystal meth-just part of the 21st century...stop fighting it, bet views would change. Or how about slavery.....it was over many years ago and tons of people still banter about it (as it was bantered about earlier).
July 24, 2007 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trm2105 (anonymous) says...
da9> Be careful about reading too much into descriptive words. "...a few rich white men," was used only to describe the top beneficiaries of the tobacco industry. It was not designed to rile up the race issue. I may be wrong, but I think rich white men would describe most if not all the ceo's and top executives of the tobacco industry. If there are rich non-white men in the upper echelon of the tobacco industry, my apologies for mis-representing them. However, the result would still be the same. A corporation, run by whomever, has managed to convince those that use their addictive product that they are somehow being denied a liberties. If smoking is a liberty, which I could acknowledge it is, then how can smokers insist that such a liberty is being violated by the smoking ban without insisting that it is also violated by the manufacturers that have secretly made their product more addictive with the use of additives. Which brings me to this question, are smokers really at liberty to not smoke.
No intention to bring race into the issue was ever intended. Seems descriptive words are now considered other than just that.
July 24, 2007 at 10:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.