CALIFORNIA: 5-year-old ban in bars leaves owners, customers fuming

Appeal-Democrat.com ^ | 5 January 2003 | Scott Bransford

[DoughtyOne]

Freedom of the business owner? What a riot. It's your selfish need to serve your own habit over anyone else's concerns be it owner or fellow patron that is the problem here. Talk about a self-reightous act, smoking is it.

The owner isn't desperate to let people smoke, except for the childish attitudes of people who smoke and want to punish anyone they can since they can't smoke inside any longer. If they can't smoke, they just won't go out. Now there's an adult attitude for ya.

[AppyPappy]

Open a business and post a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed". Let me know what happens.

[Protagoras]

I can't get away from them unless I completely give up eating out, going to a bar or dancing in public. Private property.

I fixed your little intentional error.

[Gabz]

Indian Casinos still allow smoking and I am glad there is a place for smokers to go. We are not or have ever been smokers and I hate the smell but we still go to the casinos including those in the Redding-Corning area.

Good point.

The casinos in West Virginia and New Jersey are doing major advertaising campaigns bout the fact that they permit smoking and the Delaware ones don't.

At 3 o'clock Saturday afternoon there was not one single bus in the lot of the casino at Dover downs.

The local tour bus company is loving it - they have seen a huge increase in their trips to Atlantic City - their trips had dropped dramatically after the openning of the three slots locations in Delaware.

[MeekOneGOP]

Puff the Magic Dragon.....

[kellynla]

This article is hogwash. First, restaurants and/or bars have patios where smokers are allowed to eat, drink & smoke. Second, there are bars in CA where the locals go and smoke. Period. And finally, the whole economy in CA is down not just restaurants and bars and "no smoking" has little to do with it. The Dimwit Davis is the butt of the problem not cigarettes.

[stylin_geek]

I don't smoke. I think smoking is stupid. However, I do not claim it is my right to tell a business owner how to run his business.

[MeekOneGOP]

Who's On First?

[philosofy123]

If you face the insensitive parent with baby’s diaper loaded with crap on every bus, and restaurant, what do you think you are going to do. As a consumer, you don't have the time to organize a demonstration against idiots with babies full of crap. Most of us are too busy with our lives to get into confrontation with insensitive stupid people. I was at a party last week, New Years eve, when this idiot lit a cigar, and stank the place. If the owner of the house offered him the cigar, I was not about to act offended, and offend my host. The smokers themselves MUST understand that they stink! They must try to be acceptable by the rest of us who do not stink! If you are going to walk around with a diaper loaded with crap, and sit in a meeting demanding that every one around the table respect you/accept you, you are simply being unreasonable.

[stylin_geek]

Tell you what, I think all the non-smokers who are offended by smokers should get up and move to the patio whenever someone lights up.

[Gabz]

Freedom of the business owner? What a riot. It's your selfish need to serve your own habit over anyone else's concerns be it owner or fellow patron that is the problem here.

Your self-righteous comments aside - what about the business owner who is a smoker??? And since it is perfectly legal in about 20 states to refuse to hire someone based upon whether they smoke or not, why shouldn't a smoking owner who only hires smokers have the freedom to cater to smokers???

[Gabz]

Open a business and post a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed". Let me know what happens.

A common enough and legal business practice is the posting of the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

[Gabz]

Everything you say is true - for California, that is.

It's been snowing in my part of Delaware since this time yesterday - it's very difficult to sit sit and enjoy a drink and meal on the patio or deck of a local bar or restaurant at this time of the year.

[AppyPappy]

Yes but the sign is not true. You cannot refuse to serve someone because of their race.

[droberts]

Sorry, the Goevernment has no business telling a bar owner how to run a business on such a micro-level as this, even if it does benefit you.

[KeepUSfree]

Not the same. The OWNER of the bar/restaraunt would probably ask the couple with the infant to leave - to avoid offending everyone else. With smoking, the OWNER wants these people in his bar. What right does the government have to tell him those people should/shouldn't be allowed???

[DoughtyOne]

The hospitality business hugh? And I suppose you think the epitomy of hospitality is for everyone else that doesn't smoke having to smell your filthy habit. My, isn't that hopsitable.

If I don't smoke, I don't stink you up. I can sit less than five feet from you and your clothing won't cost ten dollars to clean before you go to work the next day.

I have had to clean pants, shirt, coat and overcoat after visiting an establishment so full of smoke that it practicly made me sick just to patronize the place. And if I mention it, I'm the bad guy. LMAO, you folks take the cake.

You state that I still don't get it. How charming. One evening my wife and I took our two young children to the Spagetti Factory. We sat down and were eating dinner when it hit my wife and I at the same time. All of a sudden there was an overwhelming amount of smoke at our table.

When we walked in there were a couple of people smoking about twenty feet from our table. When we looked up there were ten people smoking within five feet of our table.

Well, you're right. One of us certainly doesn't get it.

As for the heavy hand of government, it really is a shame the government had to do what simple good manners could have accomplished all along.

One of my absolute favorite observations of all times is this. I can't tell you how many times I've had a smoker hold their cirgarette out in my direction because they didn't want the cigarette smoke in their eyes. While the line of smoke goes right in my face they're just happy as little larks looking in every direction but my face. Then they take another drag and momentarily forget to move their hand away from their own face. All of a sudden they get a line of smoke in their face and they rinkle up their puss, shake their head and fan the smoke away. Hell, smokers can't stand the same thing they do to non-smoking fellow patrons constantly. And it never even dawns on them.

[Age of Reason]

I'm a long time ex-smoker who is well past any nicotine addiction.

But I am not among the "reformed" ex-smokers.

I do wish they'd spend as much effort developing a safe cigarette as they spend figuring out how to ban them.

Then I can go back to smoking my brains out.

[DoughtyOne]

Thirty percent of people smoke. What was it you were saying about the few impossing on the many?

Yep it is sad isn't it. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to be an idiot.

As a non-smoker I have talked to management about the problem of smoking. I knew some restaurant owners quite well. They wanted to ban smoking but felt it would hurt their business. They were as thrilled as I was when the ban went into effect. As a matter of fact they get more business from from me now. And smoking patrons can't go down the street to stink up some other place to stick to the owners that were doing the right thing. Gotta love it.