Smoking bans in bars

[wanna be drummer]

This is real simple; either enforce the non-smoking ban or lose your liquor license.

I'm not saying break the law, but I strongly take issue with laws such as these.

What is more important to these business owners? Losing all their business because they can't serve alcohol anymore (which is the point of a bar/pub/nightclub) or having to adapt their business because of non-smoking ordinances?

The way I see it, one allows you to continue to make money the other doesn't. And in good ole capitalist USA, making money is the name of the game.

But they shouldn't have to ban smoking from their building.

Smokers can still go to these establishments, they just can't smoke. Or they can go to the special area designated by the owners to smoke. So no one is telling them they physically must stop smoking, they are being told they must smoke in a different location on the premises than before. They can still drink, order bar food and have a good time. And the non-smokers who patronize the establishment can have a good time as well.

Bars need smoking sections now? Why does a bar owner, who built his enterprise, have to force those who choose to come inside to stick to only one side of the building because they smoke? To please non-smokers? What gives them that authority over someone else's business?

I live with 2 smokers who have no problem with this ordinance. They don't like smelling smoke when they eat either. When they smoke they go outside, or they have a smoke before we leave the house.

That's all fine and dandy, but I don't like babies crying when I eat either. Should we ban children from retaurants because my ears hurt every time I sit next to one?

[JimmyPage1977]

Bars need smoking sections now? Why does a bar owner, who built his enterprise, have to force those who choose to come inside to stick to only one side of the building because they smoke? To please non-smokers? What gives them that authority over someone else's business?

That's all fine and dandy, but I don't like babies crying when I eat either. Should we ban children from retaurants because my ears hurt every time I sit next to one?

Crying babies do not cause innocent bystanders/patrons to be exposed to cancer causing emissions.

What gives smokers the right to expose non-smokers to their foul fumes? They have the right to harm themselves, but not others. They have the right to smell like an ashtray, but not to cause others to stink like them. You can ask a waiter or waitress to be moved as soon as another table becomes available to avoid the baby's sounds, but second hand smoke cannot be moved away from unless designated areas are created. How about the rights of the people who made a decision to not smoke because it's healthier? Is it fair that they can't go see a band at a bar because smokers are allowed to poison the inside of a building?

My wife smokes and chooses to not smoke in our house...her choice. She didn't like going to bars and end up smelling like an ashtray by the end of the evening. She loves that smokers go outside to smoke, it makes the bar far more comfortable for everyone. There are others that go with her and they enjoy a separate social situation.

The thing is that it did impact bars for a short time, but patrons have adapted and go outside to smoke. Most smokers that I know agree with my wife, that it makes the bar a more pleasant place to go to.

[bouncing~ship]

I just quit no lie...

[Dzldoc]

Good for you Jahfin. Glad to hear that your having success. My next attempt will be with that fake cig that Nicorette has come out with. Wait till I pull that out in the pub Continued success to you my friend

Believe it or not these were a big help for me

[BUCK'EYE' DOC]

All I'm saying is that no government should have the authority to dictate whether the establishment you own can have smokers in it or not. It's the equivalent of the government banning smoking in your own home.

I agree with you on the point that I don't like the government dictating everything that you can and cannot do.

But as an ardent anti-smoking proponent, I feel that a smoker does not have the right to pollute the air that I breathe, as their actions are taking away my right to not be subjected to their smoke and to breathe clean air.

My right to breathe non smoke-filled air supersedes the smoker's right to smoke.

Not to mention the health factors with breathing second-hand smoke.

Ohio prohibits smoking in any public building. I am so appreciative of this.

I went to dinner with my brother in Kentucky where smoking is permitted and I couldn't believe how bad it was being subjected to that smoke. I was so used to not having it around in Ohio, that I forgot how horrible it was to be around, particularly when you are eating. I couldn't wait to get out of the place.

[JimmyPage1977]

All I'm saying is that no government should have the authority to dictate whether the establishment you own can have smokers in it or not. It's the equivalent of the government banning smoking in your own home.

No it's not the same as banning smoking in a private residence. Why are there health department inspections in a bar, but not in your home. To protect the public consumers.

A private business that is open to the public has a responsibility to the public. That's why it's different.

If you opened up a private club that only allowed members to enter the building, you would have a chance at winning your argument, but you're not.

There also is a chance that smoking in a car with minor children may become an unlawful act. I like it!

[Dzldoc]

There also is a chance that smoking in a car with minor children may become an unlawful act. I like it!

They made that a law in Louisiana a couple years back. I don't know the results as far as how many people have been sited for that!

[JimmyPageZoSo56]

Open up a non-smoking bar? Go to a restaurant where smoke is generally fair? Just because you don't get your way, you can't tell someone that opening up a smoking bar is illegal because you yourself want to go there and not catch secondhand-smoke

You're reasoning is flawed. For example, take all the people in the world with peanut allergies. Now let's pretend that the majority of them love roller coaters but are deathly allergic to even the smell of peanut products. They'd all love to get into Cedar Point but they know that most of the food there has something to do with peanuts or peanut oil so they can't get in. Should a law be passed that forbids the use of peanuts in theme parks?

That is exactly the same thing as what this smoking ban is proposing

Non-smokers who don't want to catch any smoke don't have to be around them. They just don't have to go near them.

Dude, chill man. Stop trying to pick fights with people. It pisses people off. I think the point of this board is to be chill, talk about Zeppelin, and other things. I have noticed you on threads like this picking fights with people. I understand your points but you don't have to ram shit down people's throats so they agree with you. If longdistancewinner doesn't agree with you, agree to disagree and except her point.

And no, a business that is open to the public is not private at all. They open their establishment to welcome strangers who happen to be customers and patrons that don't want to taste smoke in their food.

[wanna be drummer]

Crying babies do not cause innocent bystanders/patrons to be exposed to cancer causing emissions.

Very true. Of course, you don't have to go into a place that has smoke emissions. Using hairspray depletes the ozone, leading to the exposure of more Ultra-violet rays which leads to the increase of skin cancer in the world (true story). Shall we ban hairspray? Letting the government decide stuff like this is a slippery slope.

What gives smokers the right to expose non-smokers to their foul fumes? They have the right to harm themselves, but not others. They have the right to smell like an ashtray, but not to cause others to stink like them. You can ask a waiter or waitress to be moved as soon as another table becomes available to avoid the baby's sounds, but second hand smoke cannot be moved away from unless designated areas are created. How about the rights of the people who made a decision to not smoke because it's healthier? Is it fair that they can't go see a band at a bar because smokers are allowed to poison the inside of a building?

Then you don't have to go in. They have the right to expose their foul fumes because the bar owner allows it.

My wife smokes and chooses to not smoke in our house...her choice. She didn't like going to bars and end up smelling like an ashtray by the end of the evening. She loves that smokers go outside to smoke, it makes the bar far more comfortable for everyone. There are others that go with her and they enjoy a separate social situation.

What she smells like is not an argument. What if I don't want to smell like french fries but I want McDonalds? Put a law in place that says french-fry making has to made in an environment where the fumes cannot reach me?

The thing is that it did impact bars for a short time, but patrons have adapted and go outside to smoke. Most smokers that I know agree with my wife, that it makes the bar a more pleasant place to go to.

If most smokers in general agreed with her, then these laws would be made national.

[wanna be drummer]

But as an ardent anti-smoking proponent, I feel that a smoker does not have the right to pollute the air that I breathe, as their actions are taking away my right to not be subjected to their smoke and to breathe clean air.

My right to breathe non smoke-filled air supersedes the smoker's right to smoke.

Not when you're in someone else's building. If you come into my house and I'm smoking (I don't), your right to clean air is not trumped by my right to do as I wish in my own home. You don't like it, you can leave. Plain and simple.

Not to mention the health factors with breathing second-hand smoke.

Over prolonged exposure. Sitting in a room for maybe an hour with smoke every few weeks is not going to hurt you at all.

No it's not the same as banning smoking in a private residence. Why are there health department inspections in a bar, but not in your home. To protect the public consumers.

Ok, ya caught me.

My point was that if I open a bar, and I'm a smoker, then it is my right to smoke in it if I wish. No one should tell me otherwise because if they don't like it, they don't have to come in.

A private business that is open to the public has a responsibility to the public. That's why it's different.

The public has the responsibility of taking care of themselves. If they don't want the health risks of secondhand smoke, then for god's sake eat at Olive Gardenn, not Glenn's Irish Pub.

If you opened up a private club that only allowed members to enter the building, you would have a chance at winning your argument, but you're not.

This has nothing to do with anything.

Dude, chill man. Stop trying to pick fights with people. It pisses people off. I think the point of this board is to be chill, talk about Zeppelin, and other things. I have noticed you on threads like this picking fights with people. I understand your points but you don't have to ram shit down people's throats so they agree with you. If longdistancewinner doesn't agree with you, agree to disagree and except her point.

You and longdistancewinner are the only two people that have ever complained about me arguing. I don't get it. I've been on many forums for years on years and only you two have ever said anything about me pissing people off and picking fights. Of course I'm picking fights! This is politics, we argue, that's how it's done. I'm not trying to trample on anyone, I'm just arguing, as is Doc and JP77.

And no, a business that is open to the public is not private at all. They open their establishment to welcome strangers who happen to be customers and patrons that don't want to taste smoke in their food.

I dno't think you understand the term private. I'm saying that it's owned and run by a man/woman with private interests (making money), as opposed to the government running the show. Thus, it is private. Yes, people are allowed to come in and eat but they do not have to. I worked in a printer shop, huge place. But anyone who wanted to drop by and stay behind the counter could do so as long as they were there for business. Should my boss (a chronic cigar smoker) not be allowed to smoke because the air is annoying to some people?

My answer is no.

[JimmyPageZoSo56]

You and longdistancewinner are the only two people that have ever complained about me arguing. I don't get it. I've been on many forums for years on years and only you two have ever said anything about me pissing people off and picking fights. Of course I'm picking fights! This is politics, we argue, that's how it's done. I'm not trying to trample on anyone, I'm just arguing, as is Doc and JP77.

Believe me, people talk. Everyone talks whether you want to hear that or not. You just don't know about it. Not everything is politics man. Its better to debate than argue. You use logic if you debate. If you said the sky is blue, ok great, why is the sky blue? What does that have to do with politics. You can't pull and answer out of your ass. Every one's opinion is right. Every one is entitled to it. But there is a civilized way of going about it, its called debating not arguing and not ridiculing a person about one's opinion. You are like Bill O'Reilly. Just shout someone down because they don't think the same. However, just because I can't hear you that doesn't mean I can't figure out what your tone of voice is.

[wanna be drummer]

Believe me, people talk. Everyone talks whether you want to hear that or not. You just don't know about it. Not everything is politics man. Its better to debate than argue. You use logic if you debate. If you said the sky is blue, ok great, why is the sky blue? What does that have to do with politics. You can't pull and answer out of your ass. Every one's opinion is right. Every one is entitled to it. But there is a civilized way of going about it, its called debating not arguing and not ridiculing a person about one's opinion.

So there's an anti-WBD group talking about me huh? Can't say I really care, to be honest. And I know I'm not winning brownie points for saying that, but I'm not going to lie.

And where am I ridiculing anyone? Where am I attacking anyone?

You are like Bill O'Reilly. Just shout someone down because they don't think the same. However, just because I can't hear you that doesn't mean I can't figure out what your tone of voice is.

I'm nothing like Bill O'Reilly. Not even close.

If you really believe what you're saying, then could you specify exactly where I'm being an awful person? Could you please literally read what I wrote and show to me which sentences I posted that are so awful and degrading?

On a lighter note: I miss the days of Hermit, Del, String, BB, Magic Sam, Bilbo, etc. where no one took all this stuff seriously and politics was the really the only thing discussed in the Ramble On thread. Ah well, all good things must end.

[JimmyPage1977]

Very true. Of course, you don't have to go into a place that has smoke emissions. Using hairspray depletes the ozone, leading to the exposure of more Ultra-violet rays which leads to the increase of skin cancer in the world (true story). Shall we ban hairspray? Letting the government decide stuff like this is a slippery slope.

Then you don't have to go in. They have the right to expose their foul fumes because the bar owner allows it.

What she smells like is not an argument. What if I don't want to smell like french fries but I want McDonalds? Put a law in place that says french-fry making has to made in an environment where the fumes cannot reach me?

If most smokers in general agreed with her, then these laws would be made national.

Silly. Silly. Silly.

I'm sorry, but you've run out of logic.

I want less government in the private sector, just like you do, but we do need boundaries within which we can all live without harming one another!

Smoking bans will become federal laws in time...trust me on this. If the state laws were deemed unconstitutional they would already be abolished.

Hey wbd, I think that it's great to argue these points, and I agree with the spirit of your argument, but not the practical application in this issue.

BTW.... I don't think that they will be banning french fry fumes anytime in the near future!

[Wolfman]

I live in NJ and I love the smoking ban. Why should we non-smokers have to suffer because smokers want to slowly kill themselves? As long as bars have some sort of patio or separate smoking room (which most have now), I think it's fair for everybody. I used to hate going to bars because you'd come home feeling like you had been smoking yourself, plus your clothes would have that disgusting smell.

[~tangerine~]

There also is a chance that smoking in a car with minor children may become an unlawful act. I like it!

I think this should be made into law... i also believe that no child should have to be subjected to cigarette smoke around them in their homes. I hope one day soon the innocent are protected from this hazard.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/second-hand-smoke/health_kids.htm

Anyone who disagrees with my post, please read this link (it's too long to print).

edit: great point JimmyPage1977!

[~tangerine~]

I fully understand and appreciate that non smokers don't wish to be subjected to second hand smoke and it's well within their right , not to be. Sorry if it sounded like I feel every non smoker is a zelot. I know that is not the case. Most non smokers and people who wish to quit are on the same page when it comes to the subject. My only beef is that government has a habbit of sticking it's nose in too many places. When it does, some people take it upon themselves to act like agents of the government. It's those people that I have a real issue with and it's not just about smoking. I liken those types of people to flunky cops who've never been able to fulfill their quest. The Anti - Everything brigade are the same people who managed to get a laughing ban in taverns through out Whatcom County in Washington State. The Laugh Police exist because people in government empowered them. It's my opinion that too much of our lives are being dictated to us by these zelots. Smoking is a tough one for me to argue though. It becomes a shared experience when done inside and as I've stated, I support the ban in that sense. Outside and away from other's ? There is no way that is imposing on anyone but me.As long as it stay's that way then I don't believe I need the Smoking Police to stand in my way. I have plenty of reason to quit, their input is not required.

Thanks for the well wishes Tangerine. I shall be making another attempt soon. Hopefully it will be a successful one

Laughing police? I had to laugh when i read that! Is that a joke? Well i do hope you try again soon to quit... as an ex-smoker from my teenage years, i know it can be done (i quit over 20 years ago)! Do it, ally!

[Electrophile]

I'm not saying break the law, but I strongly take issue with laws such as these.

I'll probably regret asking this, but why? To me, it's cut and dry....not everyone thinks that way, I understand that. If I run a business and the local government comes to me and says "We have a non-smoking ordinance for all _____ establishments. We ask that you comply within 30 days or lose your liquor license." If my livelihood depends on that business remaining open, why would I jeopardize that? Making money, keeping my bills paid and a roof over my head is more important than whether I personally think it's fair or not. I don't necessarily like having to drive the speed limit, especially when I'm in a hurry or there's no one on the road, but the "fairness" of the ordinance doesn't matter - I have to follow it.

But they shouldn't have to ban smoking from their building.

From the building proper or from the premises? If you have a special enclosure on the property for smokers that is not the actual establishment, but is a part of the establishment, those consumers can still patronize your bar and you can still remain in compliance with the law. Look at restaurants that have outdoor patios. Those are smoking areas because you're outdoors. It's not inside the physical premises, but it's still on the plot of land. You have non-smoking indoors and smoking outdoors.

Bars need smoking sections now? Why does a bar owner, who built his enterprise, have to force those who choose to come inside to stick to only one side of the building because they smoke? To please non-smokers? What gives them that authority over someone else's business?

Public health would be my guess. Smoking is hazardous to the public health. Not just to the smoker but to those around the smoker. This to me would be no different than sanitation ordinances; it's to the benefit of both owner and consumer that some degree of cleanliness is expected.

That's all fine and dandy, but I don't like babies crying when I eat either. Should we ban children from retaurants because my ears hurt every time I sit next to one?

Some restaurants don't allow small children, some only allow them up to a certain time of the day. Babies aren't a public health hazard, unless the mother is changing a poopy diaper on your table.

[wanna be drummer]

I have like ten seconds to write a response so I'll have to be brief here, sorry

Silly. Silly. Silly.

I'm sorry, but you've run out of logic.

Um...ok?

I want less government in the private sector, just like you do, but we do need boundaries within which we can all live without harming one another!

I agree. But I think msot people are overplaying secondhand smoke and how awful it is.

Smoking bans will become federal laws in time...trust me on this. If the state laws were deemed unconstitutional they would already be abolished.

The government itself does so much that is unconstitutional, I've learned to live with it.

Hey wbd, I think that it's great to argue these points, and I agree with the spirit of your argument, but not the practical application in this issue.

While I disagree with the latter, I agree with you on the former. At least someone here knows I'm just palying the game and not verbally assaulting people

BTW.... I don't think that they will be banning french fry fumes anytime in the near future!

I work with french fries at school...honestly the absolute worst crap to make ever. Easy as hell, but I have jeans and shirts that are now permanently stained with french fry essence. It's disgusting really

[~tangerine~]

I agree. But I think msot people are overplaying secondhand smoke and how awful it is.

Get educated if you truly believe that.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

http://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2009/0...effects-of.html

to name a few good sources.

[ally]

Laughing police? I had to laugh when i read that! Is that a joke? Well i do hope you try again soon to quit... as an ex-smoker from my teenage years, i know it can be done (i quit over 20 years ago)! Do it, ally!

I wish the laugh police were a joke but sadly, they are not. In Bellingham there are citizen watchdogs that will sit in a tavern and take notes of how the bartender serves his or her patrons.These people are there primarily to decide whether or not patrons have had too much to drink and should be cut off. Sounds fairly reasonable right ! Nobody want's somebody hoping behind the wheel of a car if they are impaired. I'm the last person who wants to see that. The problem is though, they can have a bar shut down and the bartender fined. As soon as the first bar got nailed, it became a case of, how much is too much and how the hell do you tell ? How do you know if they are driving ? Not everybody passes out at the table when they've had a few. Some can handle more than other's. Because of this it was decided that if patrons were having a laugh or shouted when their team scored a touchdown or just showed any kind of emotion at all, they were cut off and asked to leave.Imagine walking into a tavern with your significant other, sitting down at the bar, having the first sip of your beer and something funny happens in the bar. You know, the bars in Bellingham are not going to go out of buisness because of this but I don't go anymore when I'm down there cause heaven forbid, I like to have a laugh when I'm out, maybe sneak a smoke outside when nobody's looking,sometimes my recycling goes in the wrong box and hell yes ,sometimes I even like to work for a little cash under the table. Oh Know....I just realized.... I'm a freakin' dinosaur Where's Dr Babs when you need him

[bigzepfan]

I wish the laugh police were a joke but sadly, they are not. In Bellingham there are citizen watchdogs that will sit in a tavern and take notes of how the bartender serves his or her patrons.These people are there primarily to decide whether or not patrons have had too much to drink and should be cut off. Sounds fairly reasonable right ! Nobody want's somebody hoping behind the wheel of a car if they are impaired. I'm the last person who wants to see that. The problem is though, they can have a bar shut down and the bartender fined. As soon as the first bar got nailed, it became a case of, how much is too much and how the hell do you tell ? How do you know if they are driving ? Not everybody passes out at the table when they've had a few. Some can handle more than other's. Because of this it was decided that if patrons were having a laugh or shouted when their team scored a touchdown or just showed any kind of emotion at all, they were cut off and asked to leave.Imagine walking into a tavern with your significant other, sitting down at the bar, having the first sip of your beer and something funny happens in the bar. You know, the bars in Bellingham are not going to go out of buisness because of this but I don't go anymore when I'm down there cause heaven forbid, I like to have a laugh when I'm out, maybe sneak a smoke outside when nobody's looking,sometimes my recycling goes in the wrong box and hell yes ,sometimes I even like to work for a little cash under the table. Oh Know....I just realized.... I'm a freakin' dinosaur Where's Dr Babs when you need him

Reminds me of a time in my younger days. Worked overnite shift. On my night off I woke up at 10pm and went to a bar with a friend. We both liked rock and roll and it was more of a country bar but they had rock(zeppelin) on the jukebox. I only had about ten bucks and put two in the jukebox to hear some good music. The bartender recognized me as a rocker and abruptly turned off the jukebox and put on the radio. I complained and he told me that it's still the jukebox and not the radio and that my songs would come on. When they didnt' come on in half an hour I complained and he told me that I was drunk and had to leave. I was still on my first beer!

As far as smoking I've always thought it should be up to the bar owner whether they want to allow smoking or not. If they allow it or not it should be posted so that anyone would know before entering. In many areas it is just not feasible to have indoor and outdoor lounging areas. As someone else said if the law demands that you prohibit it, you need to protect #1, but i feel it should be optional, and up to the owner who is the one who will suffer the financial consequences. I have a feeling that in areas where it is strictly prohibited a bar would have a financial windfall if they fought the law and allowed it - and at the same time the people who dont' smoke can go somewhere else - somewhere they will be more comfortable.

Freedom = Freedom to choose.

[longdistancewinner]

You and longdistancewinner are the only two people that have ever complained about me arguing. I don't get it. I've been on many forums for years on years and only you two have ever said anything about me pissing people off and picking fights. Of course I'm picking fights! This is politics, we argue, that's how it's done. I'm not trying to trample on anyone, I'm just arguing, as is Doc and JP77.

No. I never complained about you. I complained to you. You're a very articulate and intelligent guy, but I'm someone who doesn't appreciate other people ramming their opinions down my throat. That's why you have yours, and I have mine. I find it aggressive, and you don't need to be. You might like to pick fights, but that just comes across as slightly immature to me. You don't need to argue with people, especially as you appear as intelligent as you are.

So there's an anti-WBD group talking about me huh? Can't say I really care, to be honest. And I know I'm not winning brownie points for saying that, but I'm not going to lie.

Don't, for one second, think I'm part of any such group. Others may talk about you (not that I'm aware), but I don't. Whatever you say doesn't bother me, and there are plenty of people on this board that disagree with others - they just aren't so argumentative about it. You only lose your Brownie points when you make others feel they have to fight their corner. It's an opinion, and you are no one to argue that.

[ally]

Reminds me of a time in my younger days. Worked overnite shift. On my night off I woke up at 10pm and went to a bar with a friend. We both liked rock and roll and it was more of a country bar but they had rock(zeppelin) on the jukebox. I only had about ten bucks and put two in the jukebox to hear some good music. The bartender recognized me as a rocker and abruptly turned off the jukebox and put on the radio. I complained and he told me that it's still the jukebox and not the radio and that my songs would come on. When they didnt' come on in half an hour I complained and he told me that I was drunk and had to leave. I was still on my first beer!

As far as smoking I've always thought it should be up to the bar owner whether they want to allow smoking or not. If they allow it or not it should be posted so that anyone would know before entering. In many areas it is just not feasible to have indoor and outdoor lounging areas. As someone else said if the law demands that you prohibit it, you need to protect #1, but i feel it should be optional, and up to the owner who is the one who will suffer the financial consequences. I have a feeling that in areas where it is strictly prohibited a bar would have a financial windfall if they fought the law and allowed it - and at the same time the people who dont' smoke can go somewhere else - somewhere they will be more comfortable.

Freedom = Freedom to choose.

When I entered this debate it was in reaction to somebody suggesting a total smoking ban in all public places. This would include outside. My arguments have been based with that thought in mind.

Here in BC, the ban falls under the Workers Compensation Act and was designed to protect servers from being subjected to hours of second hand smoke on a daily basis. The ban also includes your own personal residence should you have reason to call in a plumber etc. The smoking ban has now been expanded by the provincial government to include outside areas. For the time being, individual cities and towns are allowed to decide if they wish to impliment to that degree . Many have and some have not. The rules on smoking inside are still in effect province wide and there is a time limit attatched to the implimentation of the total ban for outside areas. Any bars that built outside smoking areas to meet the requirements of the original WCB act, will now have to remove them.

It should be noted that all the fears of lost buisness due to not being able to smoke inside have proven to be unfounded. Many bars that have openned since the ban became law have never had

smoking patrons. Older establishments haven't lost a cent. It remains to be seen if removal of outside smoking areas in these older establishments will lead to any loss of buisness. My guess is that it will not. The arguments against a ban for financial reasons are lame ones and I'll be the first to admit it. The smoking arguement period is a lame one. My concern is that some good ideas just get right out of hand. Am I some kind of criminal because I have a bar in my garage that's used year round and I allow people to smoke if they wish ? It's totally vented and most of the time the garage doors are wide open and any of us that do smoke alway's make a serious effort to accomodate those that don't. Will my bar be a thing of the past if one of my nosey neighbours decides that they don't like the fact that people are having a laugh or two and having a few cigs along the way ? The further these types of bans go, the more some people feel they have a right to intrude into other peoples privicy. I am an old school guy and believe that "Rat's don't rat on Rat's ". When provided with the means, some people just can't resist the temptation to be a "Ratfink"

[~tangerine~]

I wish the laugh police were a joke but sadly, they are not. In Bellingham there are citizen watchdogs that will sit in a tavern and take notes of how the bartender serves his or her patrons.These people are there primarily to decide whether or not patrons have had too much to drink and should be cut off. Sounds fairly reasonable right ! Nobody want's somebody hoping behind the wheel of a car if they are impaired. I'm the last person who wants to see that. The problem is though, they can have a bar shut down and the bartender fined. As soon as the first bar got nailed, it became a case of, how much is too much and how the hell do you tell ? How do you know if they are driving ? Not everybody passes out at the table when they've had a few. Some can handle more than other's. Because of this it was decided that if patrons were having a laugh or shouted when their team scored a touchdown or just showed any kind of emotion at all, they were cut off and asked to leave.Imagine walking into a tavern with your significant other, sitting down at the bar, having the first sip of your beer and something funny happens in the bar. You know, the bars in Bellingham are not going to go out of buisness because of this but I don't go anymore when I'm down there cause heaven forbid, I like to have a laugh when I'm out, maybe sneak a smoke outside when nobody's looking,sometimes my recycling goes in the wrong box and hell yes ,sometimes I even like to work for a little cash under the table. Oh Know....I just realized.... I'm a freakin' dinosaur Where's Dr Babs when you need him

I can see where this can become a freedom of speech issue. I think the best solution for both protection of human rights and protection of innocent people falling victim to drunk drivers is (and i'm serious) employ a police officer to give sobriety tests or a breathalyzer test as patrons leave a bar. The extra funding for this could come out of an admission fee to enter each establishment so it doesn't effect the taxpayers. May sound a bit radical, but just a thought

[Little Miss]

I don't know if many UK people realise this... but the smoking ban is not quite as it seems.. If you're in a public building and nobody works there, you're allowed to smoke. So, theoretically, if someone opened a pub with no staff, and you could pour your own beer/wine/whatever out of a vending machine of sorts, it'd be legal... crazy eh.