Smokng Banned In Bars In Washington State!

[Locke]

Originally posted by Jimi Ray Halen Boy, talk about "out of context".

How so?

[Prog]

You "men" sound like the ladies in the 1910's trying to ban liquor.

http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/prohibition/carrienation.jpg

Headlines:

Denver decriminalizes Pot
Seattle criminalizes tobacco

Where would you want to live? Being flexible and accommodating and allowing choice used to be the American Way.

Again, the Indian Casinos are the future.

[mrcpro]

So anyway I'm back...(I'm the guy who started all this)...

Played in Yakima over the weekend. The owner put it real simple..."The ashtrays get pulled on Dec. 8...that's it." He's a non-smoker. I don't think he totally understands. The bartenders sure do...they're freaked. They see their tips going down...way down...and wonder like I do if the place will be able to make it. Both Fri and Sat the whole place was lighting up. Everyone that spends money in there smokes.

And yeah...there's the casinos. I don't know if the two non-reservation casinos can still allow smoking after Dec 8, but the big one on the Yakima Indian Reservation certainly can and will. All are close by.

Went out with some friends to a Karaoke bar (yeah...I know ) in The Dalles Oregon on Thursday night. The place was jumpin'...there's gambling and smoking...the poker and slot machines were full the whole night... a light haze in the air... ahhh... a real bar. I can see what's going to happen all along the Columbia River...people are going to be pouring out of Washington and into Oregon to drink and party. I think my future is playing across the border. I'm glad I'm close.

[Prog]

Originally posted by mrcpro I don't know if the two non-reservation casinos can still allow smoking after Dec 8, but the big one on the Yakima Indian Reservation certainly can and will. All are close by.

The non-reservation casinos are Americans, so they will be restricted. Only Indians are allowed to run their businesses as they desire.

[Blackwatch]

"Probably not.

Everyone is moving to the Indian casinos. They cater to all of their customers, smoking AND non-smoking, gambling, underage, no cover charge, and free parking. You see, they are pro-choice amongst consenting adults. They also pay the bands twice as well.

You Americans haven't figured that out, yet. The irony is hilarious. The Reservations are going to control the entertainment."
____________________________


You know nothing of the area I live and gig in, if you did you'd know how far you have to travel out of the city to get to the reservations. The clubs I play will be just fine. And it takes "Men" to stand up to stupid {censored} like letting others, hooked on carcingenic subtances, from spewing forth those substances in public.. Just because people have gotten away with it for so long doesn't mean they should keep getting to.....

[mrcpro]

I'm not a big fan of second-hand smoke either, Blackwatch. But I'm a big fan of working. So I accept it. It's part of the job. Good luck to you with this new law in your bars in Seattle.

[Prog]

Originally posted by Blackwatch You know nothing of the area I live and gig in

I don't, huh? I wonder how that Ivar's got so close to me?

By the way, a private business is not public. Public access does not denote a public facility. But, you Americans don't understand this.

[Blackwatch]

So if you live so close to Ivars what's all this American crap? Are you living here by our good graces? You got a bad attitude for being a guest in our country....
And frankly I don't care what the legalise is, it's obviously a public issue or the man wouldn't have been able to shut it down....

[Prog]

Originally posted by Blackwatch ...it's obviously a public issue or the man wouldn't have been able to shut it down....

Ah, the government is always right, huh? You Americans ....

[Blackwatch]

Did I say the government was aways right? You make alot of assumptions. Do they teach you to be so assuming in this enlightened land you come from? Tell us where you come from so we can say " oh you French, or oh you Belgians"....

[wheresgrant3]

Get ready for the impact Washington. When NY banned smoking in bars back in 2003 the bars and niteclubs immediately felt the pain. Business dropped off as much as 50% in some clubs. In fact business dropped off so much that the band I was playing with at the time decided to call it quits. It's only been until this past Spring that it felt like bars were returning to their pre-smoking levels.... yet that is only in a handful of clubs. The truth is that overall alcohol consumption and traffic is down since 2003... 20-30% by most clubowners I talk to.

I've been a non-smoker my whole life and although I don't mind not breathing in tons of second hand smoke and my gear smelling like an ashtray, the smoking laws has certainly had a negative impact on the bar scene and clubs that book live entertainment.

[Locke]

Originally posted by Blackwatch Did I say the government was aways right? You make alot of assumptions. Do they teach you to be so assuming in this enlightened land you come from? Tell us where you come from so we can say " oh you French, or oh you Belgians"....

Dude, can't you smell a troll?

As for the topic: yeah, the number of customers will drop...initially. Once they're done bitching and moaning, however, they'll be back. It'll take a few years of course.

[Jimi Ray Halen]

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. You'll be able to remain in a smoke-free environment - your home - because business will drop and places will be forced to close. But why listen to bar and night club owners? Why listen to the people who actually run the places in question? What the hell do they know? The health nazis and gov't bureaucrats know what's best for everyone. The anti-smoking zealots and the federal gov't would never play fast and loose with the facts just to further their agenda, would they? Nah.

In fact, let's do away with everything that's unhealthy. Alcohol? Has to go. Very unhealthy. Oh, but wait, I heard on the evening news that a few drinks a night were good for you so it has to be true. Pay no attention to all the death and destruction that alcohol causes because - well, because I like to have a few drinks so it must be OK. So what if 90% of violent crime and 50% of car accidents are alcohol related? My beer doesn't smell. Sorry, has to go. Drink outside with the other losers.

Fast food? Has to go. Pizza, burgers, wings, fries, - all that stuff has to go. If fat people want to eat this poison then make them stand 25' away from the entrances (next to the barely human smokers and newly marginalized drinkers) to stuff their faces. Either conform or go outside with the underclasses.

Meanwhile, the elite healthy class of humans will be inside eating tofu wings, drinking healthy fruit shakes and taking hits of oxygen from big tanks while listening to bad kaoroke or a DJ play the latest Kelly Clarkson or Ashley Simpson hits. Songs about living a healthy lifestyle and going to church.

I'm sure that if we all try real hard we can safe-proof the world and homoginize all the music into meaningless pap.

Rock and Roll!!!?

[maxnew40]

This new law will most likely cause a lot of "Private" clubs to open. Private clubs can allow smoking if they wish. All you have to do is charge a "Membership" fee at the door and you are now a "Private" club just the the Elks or the Moose lodge.

Max

[Locke]

Originally posted by Jimi Ray Halen Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. You'll be able to remain in a smoke-free environment - your home - because business will drop and places will be forced to close. But why listen to bar and night club owners? Why listen to the people who actually run the places in question? What the hell do they know? The health nazis and gov't bureaucrats know what's best for everyone. The anti-smoking zealots and the federal gov't would never play fast and loose with the facts just to further their agenda, would they? Nah. In fact, let's do away with everything that's unhealthy. Alcohol? Has to go. Very unhealthy. Oh, but wait, I heard on the evening news that a few drinks a night were good for you so it has to be true. Pay no attention to all the death and destruction that alcohol causes because - well, because I like to have a few drinks so it must be OK. So what if 90% of violent crime and 50% of car accidents are alcohol related? My beer doesn't smell. Sorry, has to go. Drink outside with the other losers. Fast food? Has to go. Pizza, burgers, wings, fries, - all that stuff has to go. If fat people want to eat this poison then make them stand 25' away from the entrances (next to the barely human smokers and newly marginalized drinkers) to stuff their faces. Either conform or go outside with the underclasses. Meanwhile, the elite healthy class of humans will be inside eating tofu wings, drinking healthy fruit shakes and taking hits of oxygen from big tanks while listening to bad kaoroke or a DJ play the latest Kelly Clarkson or Ashley Simpson hits. Songs about living a healthy lifestyle and going to church. I'm sure that if we all try real hard we can safe-proof the world and homoginize all the music into meaningless pap. Rock and Roll!!!?

There's a valid point in banning smoking inside bars and restaurants (which you, amazingly, don't seem to grasp) that doesn't hold on any of the other "realistic" examples you gave. Sorry, but your inability to understand such a simple argument forces me to doubt your mental capacity since the point in question is so utterly simple. The main argument is, again, that smoking directly affects others, drinking or eating does not, hence nobody in their right minds are seeking to band alcohol or junk food. Capiche? I don't know how many times you need to hear this in order for your brain to register it.

By the way, if you can't be "rock'n'roll" except by smoking, drinking a lot, eating only junk food, and doing drugs I don't know if I care to be "rock'n'roll." To me things like drinking and smoking are more about image and in my opinion image has very little to do with being "rock'n'roll." Of course many think otherwise and Fred Durst, for example, is very "rock'n'roll" to them because he clearly puts a lot of thought into his image. I think being "rock'n'roll" is more about your attitude and your music, not about what products you consume (or don't).

[Prog]

Originally posted by Locke Sorry, but your inability to understand such a simple argument forces me to doubt your mental capacity since the point in question is so utterly simple.

Typical.

When you have investment on the line, you can talk of decisions made by others.

Legal Age is 21 in all states. Adults don't need, or want, to be "saved from themselves". "Pro-Choice" should not appy to abortion only, of all things. I can not see any reason why all alternatives aren't allowed.

When something has to be enforced via government fiat, it shows that there is no demand. There is no law prohibiting ANY bar, etc. to become non-smoking. Yet, all the owners do not opt to do so? Why? If you can't answer this question, you are a nanny.

If there is such a huge demand, why didn't any of you nannies open a bar? None did because they felt it was a financial risk. They know it was not a popular demand.

Most of us moved out of our parent's house in order to run our own lives. Now we have nanny musicians?!?

[wheresgrant3]

Originally posted by Locke Dude, can't you smell a troll? As for the topic: yeah, the number of customers will drop...initially. Once they're done bitching and moaning, however, they'll be back. It'll take a few years of course.

I think it takes 3-4years for a full recovery... or for a full class of college graduates that never knew what it was like to smoke in a bar in the first place.

[Jimi Ray Halen]

Originally posted by Locke There's a valid point in banning smoking inside bars and restaurants (which you, amazingly, don't seem to grasp) that doesn't hold on any of the other "realistic" examples you gave. Sorry, but your inability to understand such a simple argument forces me to doubt your mental capacity since the point in question is so utterly simple. The main argument is, again, that smoking directly affects others, drinking or eating does not, hence nobody in their right minds are seeking to band alcohol or junk food. Capiche? I don't know how many times you need to hear this in order for your brain to register it. By the way, if you can't be "rock'n'roll" except by smoking, drinking a lot, eating only junk food, and doing drugs I don't know if I care to be "rock'n'roll." To me things like drinking and smoking are more about image and in my opinion image has very little to do with being "rock'n'roll." Of course many think otherwise and Fred Durst, for example, is very "rock'n'roll" to them because he clearly puts a lot of thought into his image. I think being "rock'n'roll" is more about your attitude and your music, not about what products you consume (or don't).

 

 

No need to get insulting. I just throw ideas out here for discussion. Not everybody has the same outlook on things. I like to get OP's opinions.

 

I see it as part of a larger picture. Who says we are dealing with folks who are in their right minds? They did try to ban alcohol and in fact had it outlawed. Which worked very well as we all know. It was a constitutional ammendment which caused all sorts of fun.

 

We are constantly bombarded with stories about how this or that food is bad for you. People spend billions on "health food" every year that in a lot of cases is no better for you than is junk food. But for some, perception is reality. Like when they attacked eggs. It hurt a lot of farmers when people reduced consumption. And a few years later they retracted this eggs=bad nonsense. Some people believe what they hear on TV more than they do their own life experience.

 

Yes, it's true that smoking can kill you. Over a period of 50 years or so. You don't smoke a pack of cigarettes and develop lung cancer. So if it takes that long for direct smoke to make you ill, how long does second hand smoke take? A hundred years? In the meantime you are inhaling things that you can't see or smell that are much worse.

 

So it comes down to a nuisance thing. Yes it is irritating. It smells bad to some. It clings to your clothes. It burns your eyes. Hell, I smoke and sometimes it's too much for me. But when it comes down to passing legislation for things like this, some folks aren't willing to compromise at all. You can't just go outside, you have to be 25' from the door. You can't have a smoking section with separate ventilation, it has to be illegal.

 

There are people who have it so good that they just sit around thinking of how to force people to be healthy and live longer. They lobby to pass laws to do this. This despite the fact that the average lifespan is longer than it has ever been in the history of mankind.

 

That being said, I have no problem with going outside to smoke. I don't dump out my ashtray in parking lots or flick lit cigarettes out of the car window. People who do these things should be beaten with sticks.

 

But the more laws that get passed like this just encourage the health police. Just don't be surprised if they go after alcohol again. It kills just as many people, if not more, than tobacco.

 

A good rule of thumb to use to filter out (so to speak) the bs is: do I know any body who has..... fill in the blank.

Do I know anybody who has died from second hand smoke. No.

Do I know anybody who died from alcohol poisoning? Yes.

Do I know anyone who has died from drunk driving? Yes.

 

Do I think alcohol should be illegal? Hell no. It comes down to personal responsibility.

 

But let's just agree to partially agree and somewhat disagree and let this thread go. I promise never to smoke around you, if we ever meet.

Peace

[Locke]

Originally posted by paostby Legal Age is 21 in all states. Adults don't need, or want, to be "saved from themselves". "Pro-Choice" should not appy to abortion only, of all things. I can not see any reason why all alternatives aren't allowed.

Nor can I: currently I have NO alternatives what so ever: if I go to a bar I have to breathe second hand smoke, I am given no choice in the matter. Well, luckily things will change soon enough.

Originally posted by paostby If there is such a huge demand, why didn't any of you nannies open a bar? None did because they felt it was a financial risk. They know it was not a popular demand.

I don't really give a {censored} if it's a financial risk. Bar owners want to make money, hence they would never ban smoking on their own since no smoking = less paying customers = less money. As long as the money keeps pouring in they don't care if some of their clients and their employees don't like to inhale smoke. So yeah, couldn't give two {censored}s if they lose some $'s.

Originally posted by Jimi Ray Halen We are constantly bombarded with stories about how this or that food is bad for you. People spend billions on "health food" every year that in a lot of cases is no better for you than is junk food.

Yeah, and I agree that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't disturb others. I'm not on a quest to have people stop smoking; not at all. If it were up to me people could snort coke and what not legally as well. As you've probably noticed, I'm discussing from a purely personal point of view. Perhaps that's why we can't seem to find a common ground on this issue.

Originally posted by Jimi Ray Halen But let's just agree to partially agree and somewhat disagree and let this thread go. I promise never to smoke around you, if we ever meet. Peace

Cool.

[Prog]

Originally posted by Locke currently I have NO alternatives what so ever: I am given no choice in the matter.

 

Why don't you and all of the people wanting this open a non-smoking bar? Instead you want to go to an extreme.

 

Bar owners want to make money, hence they would never ban smoking on their own since no smoking = less paying customers = less money.

 

So you agree. These places pay musicians, but you don't care if they lose money? Other people should lose money because of your preference? Your logic escapes me.

[crisis]

Originally posted by paostby Why don't you and all of the people wanting this open a non-smoking bar? Instead you want to go to an extreme. So you agree. These places pay musicians, but you don't care if they lose money? Other people should lose money because of your preference? Your logic escapes me.

 

Or they can choose to have their arses sued of by litigous employees/patrons suffering lung cancer claiming it to be a result of passive smoking.

[Prog]

Originally posted by crisis Or they can choose to have their arses sued of by litigous employees/patrons

 

 

Impossible. No one is required to be a patron and WA is an "at will" work state.

[Locke]

Originally posted by paostby Why don't you and all of the people wanting this open a non-smoking bar? Instead you want to go to an extreme.

 

 

First, I would if I were in the bar business but I am not nor will I ever be. Second, if you think this is extreme you haven't seen extreme. This is just common sense; smoke if you want but don't force others to smoke with you.

 

 

Originally posted by paostby So you agree. These places pay musicians, but you don't care if they lose money? Other people should lose money because of your preference? Your logic escapes me.

 

 

Business will be a bit slower for a couple of years and then it'll be back to normal.

[Jimi Ray Halen]

Originally posted by crisis Or they can choose to have their arses sued of by litigous employees/patrons suffering lung cancer claiming it to be a result of passive smoking.

You don't have to work there. It's not mandated by law that you do so. They could choose to work in a non-smoking bar. Oh, that's right, there aren't any NS clubs because there aren't enough non-smokers to support them. So let's make them all non-smoking under the guise of we (and big brother gov't.) know what's best for you. We'll make you healthy in spite of yourself. It's not about us, we're just looking out for you. Well, bs.

What if someone loses a family member due to a drunk driver? Should they be able to sue the alcohol manufacturer?

You guys just watch the nightly news and swear by every word don't you?

If it takes 50 - 60 years to get cancer from direct smoking, how long would it take to get ill from second-hand smoke? One hundred years? 150?

Show me one documented case of a death caused by second-hand smoke. Please. Just one. Good luck.

Why don't you just be honest for once instead of hiding behind the all-emcompassing "health risk" tag. What we're really talking about is a nuisance, not a health risk.

If you think about it, public drinking establishments in general are a nuisance. People get all {censored}ed up and then get behind the wheel of their car. If the police wanted to they could wait outside of bars and arrest 9 out of 10 people at closing time. They don't do this because:
1. It would effectively collapse the bar/nightclub business, and
2. Police do it too.

Drunks annoy me as much as smoke annoys you. People are idiots when drunk. How many people have you seen smoke a pack of cigarettes and then start a fight? Otoh, how many drunks have you seen start trouble?

Bars are not healthy places. Their business is selling a alcohol to drunks. A lot of these drunks also smoke. We're not talking wholesome family entertainment here. I'd love to see someone come into one of the biker dives that I've played in and tell them that they can't smoke. THAT would be funny. Carry a little squirt bottle of water with you.

Maybe milk and cookies at church is more your cup of tea, so to speak.

[crisis]

Originally posted by Jimi Ray Halen You don't have to work there. It's not mandated by law that you do so. They could choose to work in a non-smoking bar.

 

 

Well here at least we have laws that compel the employer to make the workplace