After the smoking bans, local governments consider earlier last call.

[Cascadian]

I have been predicting this and I have gotten a lot of grief for this. After local governments place their smoking bans, they are going to go and close down bars and clubs earlier. I will bet you they will clamp down on alcohol consumption next. This is one of the reasons I oppose smoking bans in bars and clubs. They are the first step towards putting a crimp on our nightlife. Though I do not think they would ban drinking altogether. That was already done. I think with earlier closing times, limit the amount of drinks one has and even lower alcohol content in alcoholic beverages are just part of the plan.

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/hot/May04.htm

NYC Mayor Bloomberg is considering it and so has Atlanta....

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/2675243/detail.html


Man. I am glad I am not in my 20's anymore. I would go out and have fun without any problems but now seeing what has been happening, maybe a night inside with pizza and a few beers isn't so bad.


John

[Dookus]

1. yup

the do-gooders are just modern day puritans, who worry that somebody, somewhere, is having fun.

[henrik larssonisking]

2. eek

where i live they enacted a smoking ban, the result one of the most popular bars in the area closed. basically people drove an extra ten minutes over the county line.

[SheilaT]

3. I know.

The scary thing about smoking bans is that bars and restaurants just close down and you can't possibly get a good drink or a meal anywhere. Look at California. It's just sad. Not a single decent restaurant left there.

(Sarcasm off)

Lots of places have last call earlier even than 2AM, and somehow bars and restaurants do stay in business. Plus, not every place chooses to stay open until the legal last call time.

Young people still manage to party, whatever the local laws.

[henrik larssonisking]

5. why the sarcasm

just pointing out the effects of these bans, personally when i go out with my buddies we no longer frequent the local bars anymore, we just drive over the county line. The businesses should be the ones making the rules for their place of business and the customers should be the ones making the choice whether to visit said business.

[SheilaT]

46. I'm heartily sick

of the claim that banning smoking will make restaurants and bars shut down. If that were true, as I pointed out above, there wouldn't be a single place in California where you could get a meal or a drink. Oddly enough, that's not the case.

Smokers just don't get it about how much they reek, and how their smoking makes their surroundings reek. I personally avoid places that smell of cigarette smoke.

The problem about the "choice" crap is that as soon as one person lights up a cigarette, the entire room smells it. Not too mention the second-hand smoke argument. And yes, second hand smoke really does do harm, despite what smokers like to pretend.

[Jose Diablo]

4. And after all of that

We will be deluged with encouragement to try the healthy benefits of drinking carrot juice.

It never ends, doing right. The world is full of people that know what is best for others.

[alarimer]

6. WHo cares?

My town just passed a smoking ban in rstaurants, for which I am extrememly grateful. There is NOTHING more disgusting and vomit-inducing than having to deal with smoke while you are trying to eat. Smoking is disgusting.

[henrik larssonisking]

7. whats next

no one allowed to eat meat in public as some people see it as disgusting. let the businesses decide this for themselves.

[Rainbowreflect]

9. Why can some people not understand the difference

between any of their silly comparisons (eating meat, drinking, etc.) and smoking. Your drinking or eating habits do not hurt my health by being in the same room with you, but your smoking does.
Our city just passed a smoking ban. I have been able to go out & have a drink with friends for the first time in years. And every time I've gone out since the ban the bars have been packed.
My city is actually discussing keeping bars open later with the smoking ban.

[henrik larssonisking]

11. i do understand

but you have to understand that you dont have to go into a cigar bar or place that allows smoking, people and business owners should have the choice to make these descisions for themselves.

[Cascadian]

14. I say let the market decide this one.

Let there be non-smoking bars and smoking bars. It's as simple as that. If the government wants to get serious about stopping people from smoking then they need to put their money into educating the public more about the dangers of smoking and maybe programs for people who want to quit.

John

[ultraist]

16. That's how it is in my state

Of course, I live in a big PRO tobacco state, NC. The best restaurants here do not allow smoking and the low end ones do, as do the bars. If you want to smoke in a resturaunt, there's always Denny's! LOL!

Of course, there is no smoking in public buildings, as it should be. If our tax dollars are paying for it, no smoking should be allowed.

I think any workplace will eventually not allow smoking. Smokey environments don't seem to meet OSHA standards, IMO.

This is a health & safety issue and a right's issue in that people should have the right not to be forced to breathe someone's filthy second hand smoke. Smokers rights end where they begin to impede another's right. People will always be free to smoke where it doesn't infringe on others' rights.

If someone wants to endulge in an unhealthy habit, that's their choice, but they don't have the right to impose it on me. I wouldn't dream of forcing someone to smoke crack, why do smokers feel we should be forced to take in their second hand smoke? Or worse yet, why do people think they have the right to smoke around children?

Some people believe that parents who smoke in their houses around their children should be charged with neglect. Pregnant mothers who smoke are looked down upon, why not mothers/fathers who smoke around the baby after it's born?

[makhno]

19. Was that post slapstick?

Please tell me you understand the concept of simply not patronizing a business that doesn't meet your requirements.

[ultraist]

64. What's slapstick about the post?

This comment?
"People will always be free to smoke where it doesn't infringe on others' rights."

As I wrote, in my state, it's the decision of the OWNER of the business but I think eventually that smoking will be banned in all work environments as other environmental hazards are banned in work environments.

There are environmental standards regulated by OSHA to ensure workers are not forced to be in an unhealthy environment. Remember the sweatshops and how unsafe they were? Have you read any current cases where employees have lost limbs or been poisoned due to unhealthy work environments? These regulations are a neccessity.

It's selfish for smokers to think they can force us to breathe their carcingons in a PUBLIC place or a work environment. Smoke yourself to death, but don't blow your fucking smoke in my kids' breathing space.

I would not dream of walking up to a child and sticking a needle full of heroin in their arm. What the fuck is the difference? Pushing addictive drugs onto kids is sick.

[Cats Against Frist]

20. Right, but for people in fucking BARS

I can understand why some restaurants go smoke-free, and why public buildings are smoke-free, and I can sort of understand why businesses would be smoke free (though I don't always agree), but for FUCK'S SAKE can't we make an exception for the goddamn bar?

If people don't want to breathe smoke -- they don't have to fucking go. Same with TV channels. Same with pornography. Same with abortion. It's the same damn argument. This crosses over into GOP-style totalitarianism, and this is what I HATE about the left.

You could make the argument that "employees" at bars shouldn't have to bear second-hand smoke, but, then, again -- those employees can go work at the preschool, if they don't want to work in a smoking environment. If everyone were so worried, bars that allow smoking would have a dearth of employees. I don't think this is the case.

Someone upthread I think lauded the "do gooder" charge. It's more than "do gooder" -- it's fucking nazi shit.

[makhno]

21. It's not the left, my friend

It's a selfish sense of entitlement that crosses party lines.

[Cats Against Frist]

22. No, I agree

is IS both! :)

[Dems4HowardDean]

28. Because the smoker is doing something dangous to

me and not just himself! Another person drinking doesn't harm my body but the second hand smoke does...

[Cats Against Frist]

32. Then. Don't. Go. There. n/t

[Dems4HowardDean]

34. You should stay home and smoke if you don't care about the risks of

cancer but don't endanger others. Not trying to take away a smokers right to smoke just not to give me cancer in a public place!

[Rainbowreflect]

35. Ok, so since I am allergic to smoke, too bad, I can never

go hear a band I want to hear or have a drink out with friends.
Smokers can still go where ever the hell they want when there is a smoking ban, they just cannot smoke while they are there.
Without the ban people who have allergies or asthma, etc. have no choice.
I am really sick of the selfishness of some people who think everyone should just shut up & deal with their second-hand smoke or stay home.
We have many regulations on all types of business for public health & safety. Not allowing smoking is just one more.
Kill yourself if you want to, but don't poison me & those I love.

[Dems4HowardDean]

37. Good post!

[Rainbowreflect]

38. Thank you & Welcome to DU.

I have to admit this is a very passionate issue for me, if you could not already tell.
I got in a yelling debate with my boss right before the vote to ban smoking in our city.

[makhno]

39. Please don't be disingenuous

Going to see a band is a luxury, not a right. If you can't deal with cigarette smoke being part of a concert, then simply don't go. I'm sure there are quite a few agoraphobics out there who can't attend concerts - yet you don't see them lobbying to reduce venue capacity to levels they would deem acceptable.

The blind selfishness of anti-smoking nanny state advocates borders on sociopathy.

[Rainbowreflect]

41. Smoking is a luxury, not a right.

Breathing is a right & when you smoke where I am you are violating my rights.

Please explain how I was disingenuous.

I am so incredibly sick & tired of the best argument from the other side is "Don't go". Why should I have to stay away from somewhere I want to be because you cannot go somewhere without lighting up?

[makhno]

42. Why indeed

Why should I stay away from the private golf club? They have beautiful landscaping and a great environment for a picnic, but instead prefer silly games in an invitation-only environment. Perhaps because it is a private establishment with its own set of rules that might not quite fit my overwhelming sense of entitlement.

As an aside, I certainly hope that you don't drive a car with an internal combustion engine or use fossil fuels in the heating of your home. Anything less would be extremely disingenuous coming from such a stark advocate of clean air breathing.

[Cats Against Frist]

43. Because the person who purchases the structure

and decides to open a business, can decide whether or not that establishment will be smoking or non-smoking. And the people who go there will decide to participate on the basis of whether or not they would like to attend a joint that has smoking, or one that prohibits it.

Government buildings, fine. Workplaces where people HAVE to be there, fine. Everyplace else is FREEDOM. Freedom to set the rules of your establishment. Freedom to smoke or not smoke. Freedom to attend or not attend.

You are trying to set up a standard wherein nonsmoking is somehow superior. You said that "smokers can choose to smoke or not to smoke," and "I can't choose not to inhale their smoke."

Here's the deal, in case you don't know. There are few simple pleasures in this big and complicated world that we have. For some people, it's chocolate cake. For some people, it's giving a birthday party for their kids. For some people, it's buying a new car. For some people it's sex, and FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT'S HAVING A GODDAMN WHISKEY SOUR WITH A CIGARETTE IN THE DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE'S CHOICE WITH MEMBERS OF ONE'S OTHER LIKE-MINDED SOCIAL GROUP.

People who don't like to smoke can open non-smoking establishments, and people who don't like to smoke can sustain non-smoking establishments by patronizing them, no? And then people who want to participate in the time-tested tradition of smoking and drinking, can support the smoking and drinking establishments.

It's really alarming to hear people suggest that city-wide smoking bans are "OK." Authoritarians are authoritarians, left or right, remember that. You don't like smoking. They don't like abortion. Everybody can make an argument. I have one: Freedom.

[Rainbowreflect]

44. Do business owners also have the right to follow OSHA rules,

or be handicapped accessible?
Our city voted on the smoking ban and it passed by a huge margin. Some bar owners even said they were thrilled it passed. They wanted to have a non smoking business but were afraid it might hurt their business, but with all bars having to be non smoking it would be an even playing field.
You talk about freedom, but you want to take away others freedom to go where they want to go.

You say
"Here's the deal, in case you don't know. There are few simple pleasures in this big and complicated world that we have. For some people, it's chocolate cake. For some people, it's giving a birthday party for their kids. For some people, it's buying a new car. For some people it's sex, and FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT'S HAVING A GODDAMN WHISKEY SOUR WITH A CIGARETTE IN THE DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE'S CHOICE WITH MEMBERS OF ONE'S OTHER LIKE-MINDED SOCIAL GROUP."

But I was not able to have the simple please to go have a drink with a friend or hear a band for years because of others habit to smoke.

Also remember you have the freedom to have sex, but you cannot do that in public either.

[Cats Against Frist]

45. Simply, this:

Tell me why some establishments couldn't be smoking, and others non-smoking? Even if I caved and said, OK, no smoking in restaurants before like 10 p.m.

You don't have any more of a "right" to attend a smoke-free private bar, than I have to attend a smoking one. However, I do have a right to smoke, and I think that the owner of an establishment has the right to set the smoking rules for his or her establishment. So why not, instead of a city-wide ban, just let owners decide? You honestly think the government has to make accomodations for YOU, at the expense of the time-tested tradition of drinking and smoking?

If the demand for "smoke free" is as popular as you say it is, why can't we simply have both? Or are you a fascist?

[Dems4HowardDean]

50. Hey, anything would be better than what we have in SC. Some

restaurants don't have the "No smoking" sections in the restaurants. What does your user name mean "cats against Frist"?

[Rainbowreflect]

52. I do not think a person is a fascist because they believe

the majority of the citizens has the right to protect themselves from a known health risk from a minority.

If the smoker or the business owner does not like it they can go somewhere else.

On edit; I do believe my or anyone else's right to breath is greater than your or anyone else's right to smoke.

[makhno]

54. Ok

Since we have come to the point in the discussion where one subjective opinion of the relative importance of some rights are pitted against another subjective opinion, let's try a different, hopefully more objective approach.

Let's assume we have three options:

1 - make all bars non-smoking
2 - make all bars smoking
3 - let both smoking and non-smoking bars exist

Let's further assume we have two types of people:

A - smokers
B - non-smokers

This produces the following satisfaction matrix, where each element represents either a satisfactory outcome (1) or an unsatisfactory one (2):

    1   2   3
A   0   1   1
B   1   0   1

It is plainly evident that option (3) produces the optimal outcome for both smokers and militant non-smokers.

Now could you please explain what your opposition is to letting people choose what environment to expose themselves to, rather than denying either smokers or non-smokers the opportunity to live life as they see fit?

[ultraist]

65. A luxury only smokers should be able to enjoy?

[ultraist]

66. LMAO!!! It's the non-smokers that are selfish!

"The blind selfishness of anti-smoking nanny state advocates borders on sociopathy."

Try this: "The blind selfishness of smokers advocates borders of sociopathy." Ya, I think that fits better.

You can't have it both ways. You can't call out big daddy for not providing safe and clean working environments and then turn around and call them fascists for having regulations to ensure a clean and healthy working environment.

One thread is a string of bitching that business owners don't have safe enough environments while another is a thread that says business owners are fascists for having a safe and healthy work environment.

Sounds like a passive, dependent, we hate big daddy no matter what attitude to me. The man fucks us no matter what. We are the victims. The work environments are not safe but we want the work environments less safe. This is schizoid.

[K-W]

56. I say lets decide for ourselves,

and not let the chaotic functioning of profit make our public health decisions.

[makhno]

18. Evil smokers dragged you ...

... kicking and screaming into smoke-filled restaurants? It's an outrage!

[Dems4HowardDean]

27. why would I want to give up my right to go to a resturant just

because someone thinks they have to smoke their cancer sticks while eating plus forcing me to inhale it. If a smoker doesn't care about their health doesn't mean I don't.

[makhno]

31. They were holding you down ...

... and forcibly blowing smoke into your face? Terrifying!

Why not be a responsible adult and pick businesses that cater to your needs, such as restaurants that prohibit smoking? If the majority of people share your concerns, restaurants that do allow smoking will see a decline in their business and mend their ways.

Democracy in action; a scary thought, I know.

[Dems4HowardDean]

60. not any that doesn't allow smoking in my area

[Cats Against Frist]

33. You don't have a "right" to go to any restaurant. n/t

[Dems4HowardDean]

25. I agree! Second hand smoke can be just as dangerous as

smoking yourself. I sure don't want to have to suffer for someone else's bad habits. It's a nasty habit that I don't want to be a part of. As far as the drinkers in bars they are hurting themselves and pose no threat to me unless they get on the road drunk. ( I'm only harmed by the Vodka that I drink ;^))

[Walt Starr]

8. They don't need to ban drinking, they can let employers do it for them

Opening up mandatory urinalysis tests was the first step to making it economically unviable for people to use whatever substance the big brother government decides they should not use. Banning nicotine by an employer is step one. Step two, banning the consumption of alcohol in your own time.

Imagine in five years time when if you want a job, you cannot consume chocolate!

This is the fgenesis of corporate slavery and we are on the fast track to it.

[rucky]

10. Crime will go up.

Domestic violence will go up.

Bars are the adult equivelent of after-school programs for at-risk youth.

[flobee1kenobi]

12. look no further

that Ohio State University to see how this will turn out. Will the fact that bars close early mean that the drinking stops?-NO
What happens is the people leave a place that monitors drinking age and your drunkeness and will stop serving you if you have had too much-and will also call you a cab if you cannot drive.
These people will throw their own parties, minors will sneak in, people will drive drunk, and people will get hurt or killed.

[KurtNYC]

13. All this while they open more and more casinos

:eyes:

[depakid]

15. Last call in Britain is 11:00

Used to be 10:00.

[Cronus Protagonist]

49. You mean England - in Scotland, there is no time limit

Drink 24 hours a day. When they did that, alcoholism and public drunkenness levels in Scottish society plummetted. It allows people to drink more leisurely and removes the tendency to stack up drinks near closing time and having to down the lot of them before you leave.

England is not so enlightened but took a small step in the right direction by increasing closing time to 11pm.

That was from my memory of over 20 years ago... perhaps they've become more enlightened since then, but I doubt it.



http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[ConcernedNonpartisan]

17. How about opening a "smoker"?

For those not opposed to smoking! Smoking bars, smoking restaurants, etc. See if you can get that past the Puritans! Of course smoking is bad for you, it's a choice! Being where there are smokers is also a choice. Laying out in the sun is bad for you. Are we going to ban bikinis? Beaches?

The list of "things that are bad for you" goes on forever. If you have a problem with smokers, stay away from them. I don't hang around Port-a-Potties because (among other reasons) I don't like the smell. (That was a "tongue in cheek remark.)

I'm in Nevada so (to date) smoking in public hasn't been banned. Bars allow it and restaurants (most) have smoking sections. The few casinos that banned smoking have reversed their policy. Not good for business.

I can understand the smoking ban in the work place and in retail stores. However, I would have no objection if someone hired "smokers only" like some now hire only non smokers. Nor would I object if there were smoker retail stores. IT'S A CHOICE! You not only have the right to "do" but you also have the right to "not do".

I would strongly support plainly "marking" smoking and non smoking establishments. But, to ban them, well, I do not like others making my choices for me.

[sinkingfeeling]

23. The problem here is that the law was written so there can be NO

smoking-only establishments and that's where the rights of non-smokers infringes on those of smokers! It's in place here for both restaurants and bars!! So, for the last year, my couple of thousand eat-out dollars have gone to the next town (luckily it's only 3 miles away). I think a business should be free to decide for themselves which set of customers they will serve. We've had at least 4 restaurants close due to the ban. Someone else's livelihood was taken away by local government.

[Dems4HowardDean]

55. Wonder how many lives were lengthen from the absence

of smoke.

[ultraist]

68. Umm...a resturaunts and bara ARE work places, people WORK there

"I can understand the smoking ban in the work place and in retail stores."

[UncleSepp]

24. Your body belongs to the Volk

Sorry to go over the top on this one. It may be the NyQuil talking.

What I see in common between smoking bans, the war on chub, restriction of access to birth control/abortion, and opposition to same sex marriage on the grounds that marriage is for the production of new children is the idea that the body of an individual belongs to the people as a whole. Often this masquerades as concern over "those people who raise my insurance rates", but does not explain the lack of wrath directed toward, for example, lousy drivers. Were we truly concerned about all behaviors which are damaging to the self, potentially damaging to others, and costly, then we'd all be in arms for No Turn Signal Left Behind or the Crusade Against People Who Go Sixty Down A Forty MPH Offramp. Second hand smoke, given enough of it, may eventually make you sick. A crappy driver can kill you and everyone else in your car between "Can you hear me" and "now".

That's not even getting into the secondary front we could open up against those maroons who raise right-thinking peoples' homeowners insurance costs. You know who these people are. They leave their lawn furniture out in a hurricane so it can go through their neighbor's unboarded window. They build ground level houses in flood zones and wooden cabins in the middle of cyclically burning forests. But do we go after them! No! How about the third point, people who drive insanely expensive vehicles and park them on the street? Do we care? No! Because it's not about "raising my insurance rates". It's about telling other people what they can do with their bodies. Why do we do that? Because we feel we have a right to that body. It's not just your body, it's part of the living Volk.

Those are America's lungs you're polluting! Put down that cheeseburger, you're making America fat! Forgo that third martini - you're getting America drunk! Who knows where we all might wake up in the morning or where America's pants will be if you keep up that wanton partying? Remember, when you go to bed at night, you're not just there with your partner/lover/stuffed animal/magazine - you're sleeping with America, so watch what you do!

Bah. My body, my choice applies here too, as does the good old-fashioned free market system. If I want to have a martini at three AM or three martinis at one AM, and someone is willing to sell me martinis, that's between me and the bartender. It may not be the brightest idea, but the America that can stay out of my womb can stay out of my stomach, too. If I want to have a smoke while I'm drinking that martini, and the patrons and employees of the bar have all consented to being around smoke, fine - America can stay out of my lungs. I don't remember inviting America to come along on this date, anyway. If America decides to chow on a bacon double cheeseburger and a diet soda pop big enough to bathe a baby in, I promise to keep my mouth shut about it. When I go home, America can go sleep in its own bed and keep its damn cold feet out of mine, and what I do there is my business as well.

That screeching noise you may hear is my train of thought coming to a complete halt =) Imagine there is a really good closing paragraph here. Now if you'll pardon me, America and I have to go blow our nose.

[Withywindle]

30. This rant is a thing of beauty!

Bookmarked.


:yourock:


(It helps that I agree with every word.)

[bbgrunt]

53. Thank you Aunt Jen

This is my first post on this forum, and I choose to make it one of kudos for your great rant!! Hallelujah! Get out of my womb, my stomach, my lungs, and my bed!

[AlienGirl]

61. *mad props to AuntJen*

You put your finger exactly *ON* it in a way that tied the things together into one eerie brown package, and made me realize why all those sorts of things give me the willies. It's a really good read, too...have you ever thought about writing a regular column for DU or somewhere?

Tucker

[jdj]

26. But all the repukes smoke and drink?

Will we be like Saudi Arabia, where the religious rules only apply to the destitute, there's no middle class, and the rich 1% get to do whatever they want?

[TyeDye75]

29. Ironic

our governments talking about 24 hour drinking

[Cleita]

36. Probably public watering holes will increasingly become

private clubs where you have to buy a membership, then you can circumvent a lot of the nanny laws they are trying to put in effect.

[Withywindle]

47. That's already happening in NYC, yes?

I suppose it makes sense. And it's just another way to gank money from us.

I completely the support the idea of separate smoking and non-smoking establishments. If the bar owners are so worried about losing business if there's not a "level playing field" then obviously the public demand for a non-smoking establishment isn't there, right? But I think it is: this thread suggests it. Hell, I'd even venture into a non-smoking bar if there was some hardcore motivation, like a band I really really wanted to see. (Probably wouldn't hang out there regularly, though--most of my friends and friendly acquaintances are smokers, so they wouldn't be there.)

"Level playing field" my ass. Bars located in the middle of nowhere, or bad neighborhoods, or bars that have shitty music or bad lighting or what have you, well, they don't have a "level playing field" either. Tough. That's business.

[Cleita]

51. I once lived in a little town in Idaho that had two bars.

Since Idaho, as a Republican state, doesn't have much regulation, the bars could chose to make their own rules. One allows smoking and the other is non-smoking. Since I have asthma I was always happy to be able to go have a drink at the non-smoking bar like many of the other patrons who didn't smoke preferred to.

Both bars had killer views of the lake they were perched alongside and both bars did well with their particular clientele. I really think owners should be free to decide whether they want smoking or no smoking, or if they want two separate rooms. Patrons can decide if they want to patronize the establishments or not.

[theboss]

40. I'm reaching the age where this is no longer an issue

I want to be home by midnight now. But at some point, the nanny-state stuff becomes too much. At this point, it would just make more sense to ban smoking and re-enact Blue Laws. That's the path we are on anyway.

[onethatcares]

48. what did that mean?

Seriously, "at this point". Does that mean you had your fun and the rest of those can go piss up a rope? Did you mean, IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE? or was that sarcasm? I'm trying to figure your post out, not meaning to flame you.

[K-W]

58. You misread.

The poster was just saying we are heading in the direction of blue laws, not advocating that move.

[theboss]

62. yep...that's what I meant

Trust me, the kids today are having much more fun than I did. I was in college during the "We're Still Afraid of AIDS and All the Women are Wearing Baggy Sweaters Era." I am very jealous of the "It's Okay for 20-Year-Olds To Dress Like Streetwalkers Era."

[DiscoStew]

57. the bars will fight it tooth and nail... n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

59. I was amazed that Italy banned smoking in places that serve food,

even more amazed to hear that business has actually improved for such businesses. "Bars" in Italy are places you can get simple food, espresso (and all its permutations), as well as alcoholic drinks, so I think this affects bars, too. Maybe not dance clubs.

Smoking is great fun, sometimes, if you're a smoker. Most of the time, it's just habit that you don't enjoy that much. Once you quit, it's difficult to tolerate secondhand smoke making it difficult for you to breathe, stinking up your hair and clothes, etc. Most non-smokers just quit going out to places that allow smoking, missing out on music, food, and drinks plus atmosphere they once enjoyed. Most of us never get involved in campaigns to ban smoking from public places. But the message from smokers to non-smokers in this thread is all too clear: fuck you, we don't care if our smoking makes you sick, we don't care if you die. We want to smoke wherever we want and we don't care about anyone else. Nice. Very nice.

:nopity:

[hijinx87]

63. jeez. why not just make fun illegal?

not to mention chocolate, all forms of entertainment, professional and amateur sports, books, and sex.

[ultraist]

67. Illogical stretch

When you have sex, eat chocolate, play sports, my children or I am not at risk of getting ill.

Smoke is air born, why is that so difficult to understand? Should we eliminate all emissions regulations too and throw out the idea that people should not be forced to breathe poison?

Let's overturn all of the regs that keep factory pollution at a certain level while we are at it.

[hijinx87]

69. I was actually speaking of the rollback on last call.

but now I would imagine that drunk drivers will be your problem.

[Undemcided]

70. Should be up to the business owner.

I already have one mother and I don't need the government to be another one.