Could This Be A Trend?!

[Edendude]

Our band is playing a gig downtown tonight at a new club that just opened this week. It's a classy jazz and blues joint where you have to be 25 years or older to enter, and there is no smoking allowed what so ever.

 

I sure hope this is a trend.

 

Even at the club where we perform as the regular house band, there is now no smoking allowed in the main room where we play, and only in the smaller enclosed bar room up at the back.

 

Anyone else experiencing and enjoying the wisdom of club owners who are tapping into that larger market of the 70% of the population whom don't smoke?

[61Pbass]

It's not just club owners, it's also municipalities passing no-smoking regulations. To get around it, I've noticed a lot of clubs opening up outdoor beer gardens w/stages. To me that's a plus as I LOVE playing outdoors (at least in good weather ).

[davebrownbass]

What? A music club with no sin?

 

In Dallas there has been a lot of politicizing of this issue. The mayor has endorsed a smoke-free city, with the exception of being bars which do NOT serve food.

 

We have had jazz/blues performance clubs in the DFW area, light alchohol and sandwich offerings. Both have gone belly-up over the past few years.

 

Still, Canada is different. I sure hope it's a trend, eh?

[Father Gino]

It's a trend all right. Even the Prime Minister of France has come out endorsing the banning of smoking in public places. I think you can smoke in the Library or church in France right now.

 

Soon they will ban drinking in bars. Then they'll ban cheese burgers. Then loud music, hard sidewalks, bad words, bad thoughts

[Thomas Wilburn]

Originally posted by Father Gino:

they will ban drinking in bars. Then they'll ban cheese burgers. Then loud music, hard sidewalks, bad words, bad thoughts

They're working on a smoking ban in DC. A lot of people are bringing up these kinds of fears. Sorry, but your cheeseburger doesn't give me a headache or increase my chance of asthma. Your cigarette does. And we do ban loud music in certain areas--noise ordinances, baby. I've got no problem with that at all.

 

More importantly, I really look forward to an evening as a non-smoker when I can come home from a gig and not smell like the inside of a pack of cigarettes. Not to mention having to smell it again for the next couple days every time I pick up the bass, because the strap has soaked up cigarette stink.

 

And I love playing outdoors. One of the great things about summer.

[Edendude]

Yep...

 

To assume that smoking bans will lead to the banning of drinking or eating fatty foods, is a pretty darned misinformed and illogical suggestion.

 

The only reason smoking in public places should rightly be banned, is because it directly effects the health and comfort of the person sitting next to you, when you do it.

 

My favorite analogy is this one...

 

Imagine if it was thought to be my 'right', that I should be able to hack up and spit flem on the floor and tables of public establishments, just because I like to do so myself for pleasure. Seems to me that since it's disgusting and puts the comfort and health of those around me at risk, that just maybe I shouldn't be allowed to do that.

 

But from a business point of view, it's a no-brainer. To allow smoking in bars means you are losing the potential business of a much larger patronage than you'll cater to if you do allow smoking.

 

But mainly for me I see this as my right to work free of obvious health risks, over-riding any 'rights' others may have to feed their addiction in public places.

[Thomas Wilburn]

I'm not entirely sure that there will be a loss of business. If it weren't for music, I wouldn't go to bars, personally, mainly because of the smoke. So there might be people like me who are more likely to get out and about without the smoke. And I can't really imagine someone saying "well, if I can't smoke, I won't go listen to music or drink."

 

I can understand if it's a single restaurant banning cigarettes, and therefore losing business to others, but a community-wide ban should be pretty effective without killing business. I've heard that when smoking goes away, food revenues tend to go up, and so do draft beer sales. Interesting.

[Edendude]

From my discussions with club owners in my area, there is a short (one to two month) lull in business, when a joint goes non-smoking. This is the period when the smokers abandon ship in droves, but before the much larger potential client base of non-smokers discovers a new place to go which can provide them with a smoke free night of live music to enjoy.

 

At that point business goes up to a slightly higher level than before the smoking ban, because not only are there the new non-smokers frequenting the establishment, but many of the smokers come back too, despite the ban.

[J. Robert Rennix]

I'm more worried about the "25 years or older to enter" than the "no smoking". Maybe it's because I don't smoke, but it seems to me that "no smoking" has worked in many places without abuses to our civil liberties getting out of hand.

 

The "25 years or older" bothers me though, and here's why.

 

The bar and club scence in the Kansas City area has been under going some changes over the last 10-20 years. Historically, the bar and entertainment district was in Westport, which is part of downtown Kansas City, MO. However, over the last few years people have started taking more of their business to bars and clubs in suburban Kansas City, KS because on weekends and during the summer the Westport streets at night are often overrun by teenagers, particularly black teenagers. In order to keep their business in Westport, local bar owners have tried everything from instituting curfews to playing loud country music on the street to keep the Westport crowd older and whiter, drawing accusations of racism for years.

 

So I wonder what possible purpose could a "25 or older" rule have? Jazz and blues music aren't going to draw much of a young crowd anyway. Why should it bother anyone if a few 21 year olds listened to some music and had a few drinks? Surely, age itself isn't the problem. I would have to imagine that the goal is to keep young blacks, or possibly binge drinking frat brothers, out of the club. I suppose a private club has the right to maintain a "mature" environment, but I would rather see a club do so by using higher prices, a bouncer and possibly a dress code. That way, you are discriminating against the actual unwanted behaviour, not the people you assume will display the behaviour.

[Edendude]

I agree...

 

I don't understand the age restriction, either.

 

The place also has a no jeans rule, which I don't have a problem with, but I also don't understand completely.

[Edendude]

P.S....

 

I assure you it's not a race thing here in my area...

 

I think there might be 100 black people in the entire city. And if you are a black person here, you are pretty much treated like you are god, just because there has never really been an opportunity for the locals to develop any racial biases, apart from what is learned by watching American TV.

 

I think it may indeed be age discrimination, however...

 

There is a big problem on 'George Street' which has more bars and clubs per square foot than any other area in any other city in Canada. There are numerous clubs which cater to the heavy drinking 19 to 25 college kid crowd.

[jeremy c]

Here in California, we have had a law in place prohibiting smoking in public places for several years. That includes all restaurants and bars.

 

I haven't noticed any clubs going out of business, in fact there are people going out to clubs and restaurants who never did before.

 

And it is really nice to come home from a gig and not have to hang my clothes up outside, not have a sore throat, and not have red eyes.

[coyote]

I'm a nonsmoker. I do not allow smoking in my house.

 

I am all for a business owner making the decision to operate a "no-smoking" establishment! It is his right to maintain a way of doing business, and to seek a particular clientele.

 

I am dead-set against the Government telling a club owner he cannot allow smoking! The purported "health reasons" are a crock.... No one forces patrons to sit in the smog - they are free to exit (or not enter to begin with). No one forces people to seek employment there; they can always apply for work at the local coal mine (notice the Government overlooks the obvious health hazards of mines, as well as many other work locations).

 

On the other hand, there are many folks who want to work in a place where they can smoke on the job. And there are many people who want to socialize in a place where they can drink, smoke, and listen to music.

 

Did I mention that demand for live music falls off when these laws are instituted? Much as I disliked reeking of smoke when arriving home from a gig (and my wife disliked it even more), I'd rather that musicians have the opportunity to gig & reek than not have the opportunity to gig at all.

 

I understand and support the general removal of smoke from most contained public spaces such as office buildings, theaters, etc. But when you start eliminating it entirely, you're no longer doing sound public service - you're on a "moral crusade". There's nothing more unseemly than these types of moral crusades.

[J. Robert Rennix]

There is a big problem on 'George Street' which has more bars and clubs per square foot than any other area in any other city in Canada. There are numerous clubs which cater to the heavy drinking 19 to 25 college kid crowd.

Yeah, in Canada I thought college binge drinking might have been the bigger reason. Still, why not raise the drink prices a little and keep the dress code? College students are poor, they're not going to overrun a bar if there aren't cheap drinks. Why turn down money, if a few responsible 21-25 year olds want to hear some jazz?

[Edendude]

Absolutely! I agree 100%.

 

I'll ask the club owner that very question tonight, and try and get an answer right from the horse's mouth.

[Edendude]

Saying that no one forces workers to enter smoke filled bars is as Draconian a perspective on the issue, as suggesting that the employees of sweat shop factories all along the Pacific rim are not forced to work under such conditions, and therefore should find work elsewhere. That's absurd.

 

By your logic, hard drug users should have the right to shoot up with dirty needles in bars and restaurants, and child labor laws are not something which governments should legislate.

 

It's a simple matter of which group is 'imposing' a health risk upon which in this case. With regard to the smoking issue, smokers are clearly the offending party.

 

Legislation simply insures the balance is respected.

[Thomas Wilburn]

Originally posted by coyote:

No one forces people to seek employment there; they can always apply for work at the local coal mine (notice the Government overlooks the obvious health hazards of mines, as well as many other work locations).

 

Yes, but I think you're underestimating the importance of the service job to this country. And having lived in Kentucky mining country, I can tell you that modern mines do have health regulations in place, and I'd love to have more. Just because the government overlooks it is not a justification to overlook this hazard.

 

Originally posted by coyote:

Did I mention that demand for live music falls off when these laws are instituted? Much as I disliked reeking of smoke when arriving home from a gig (and my wife disliked it even more), I'd rather that musicians have the opportunity to gig & reek than not have the opportunity to gig at all.

Can you give us statistics? My own anecdotal experience is that there are generally more people out and about when smoking is eliminated. It seems counterintuitive to me that people are going out solely to smoke, and that this has anything to do with the local music scene. If my band has to have smokers around to be successful, I believe I'll quit now.

 

Being from New York, I'm sure you've seen some of this first hand, but many of the reports I've heard from there also are that the ban has not had a terribly negative effect. Moreover, it's not a moral crusade--it's a restriction on behavior that harms others. We don't let people drink and drive because it's dangerous. We don't let corporations dump toxic waste because it harms others (it happens anyway, but we try). The health risks of smoking are documented enough I don't think we have to debate that. So where's the controversy?

 

Most people who object to this either see it as economic (it will cost business, a claim I've never seen substantiated) or political. However, on the Kojo Namdi show here in DC on WAMU, they had a discussion about this the other day, and one of the guests was a female musician who had been gigging as a folk/rock singer for years in smoky bars. Now she has severe asthma, and has to tour on a wider, more sparse basis in order to find non-smoking gigs. She never smoked, but she's been harmed by it.

 

My family has a history of cancer, and I love being a musician. I'd rather not see the same thing happen to me.

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by skinner_jrob:

So I wonder what possible purpose could a "25 or older" rule have?

Maybe they only allow parking for rental cars?

[wraub]

I agree it is very nice not to smell like other people's smoke. Except for the fact that the streets of NYC are now a giant smoking lounge, making a walk down the street an adventure in second hand smoke avoidance, I support fewer people smoking in public. But I have a question- What would be the harm in making this an issue of choice for bar owners and patrons?

You know, if I as a barowner want to choose to have a non smoking bar, knowing full well that I may alienate some smoking customers (but they may come back around eventually)...how is that any different from me, as a bar owner, wanting to choose to have a smoking bar, knowing full well that I may alienate some non-smoking customers (but they can go to the non-smoking bar next door, and may eventually come back around)?

Does it really need to be mandated by law, when the vicissitudes of the free market usually can shake this stuff out?

What happened to choice?

 

Peace,

 

wraub

[Thomas Wilburn]

Originally posted by wraub:

I agree it is very nice not to smell like other people's smoke. Except for the fact that the streets of NYC are now a giant smoking lounge, making a walk down the street an adventure in second hand smoke avoidance, I support fewer people smoking in public.

Good point. Don't have an answer. Except of course, banning all smoking in public, but I sense that saying such would have me crossing the line all by my lonesome.

[The Fonz]

Originally posted by wraub:

I agree it is very nice not to smell like other people's smoke. Except for the fact that the streets of NYC are now a giant smoking lounge, making a walk down the street an adventure in second hand smoke avoidance, I support fewer people smoking in public. But I have a question- What would be the harm in making this an issue of choice for bar owners and patrons?

You know, if I as a barowner want to choose to have a non smoking bar, knowing full well that I may alienate some smoking customers (but they'll come back around eventually)...how is that any different from me, as a bar owner, wanting to choose to have a smoking bar, knowing full well that I may alienate some non-smoking customers (but they can go to the non-smoking bar next door, and may eventually come back around)?

Does it really need to be mandated by law, when the vicissitudes of the free market usually can shake this stuff out?

What happened to choice?

as a smoker i have a dedicated smoking room in my house as i recognize that smoking makes everything stinky and it's really not very nice to smoke around non-smokers.

 

in regards to the non-smoking law in nyc, it hurt the bar and club scene. we have a heavy reliance on out of town suburban people and once the smoking laws passed they chose to stay where they live for their nightlife.

 

then there is the effect on the overall neighborhood. now that everyone has to go out in the street to smoke there are cigarette butts all over the street. then take into account people who live near bars. they're pissed because #1: they can't open their windows in the summertime as their apartments wind up smelling like smoke. #2: all those people outside make a lot of noise, and that noise increases as alcohol intake goes up: in other the words the later it gets the louder it gets.

 

i don't think the smoking ban is a bad thing overall. it certainly makes life better for non-smokers in bars, but that is a relatively small portion of the population. it effects more than just smokers who want to go out. when you play a gig you are in an establishment that has a license that is different from the normal liqour license. what's wrong with municipalities offering yet another license? for an extra fee you can allow smoking in your establishment. they do it in georgia and you wind up getting a variety of places, some smoking some not. everyone has an option for where they want to go/work and the neighborhoods are not adversly effected.

[wraub]

As Ace points out, the smoking ban in NYC has led to cigarette butts everywhere on the street, increased misdemeanor crimes, increased noise levels, and other neighborhood issues.

Additionally, there is a growing black market in cigs, guys standing on the streets with garbage bags full of smokes, $5 a pack. Plenty of buyers. This is leading often to territorial squabbles among smoke sellers, with violence following close behind. Several beatings and at least one death have happened so far, caused by the smoking ban and reactions to it.

There must be a better way.

 

Peace,

 

wraub

[bubba upright]

In Florida, a couple of years ago, a law was passed to not allow any smoking in restaurants, office buildings, etc.; however, in bars, smoking is still allowed where at least 85% of business comes from alcohol sales (not food.) There was talk about banning smoking from bars, but the bar owners that I play for were against it because they felt that it would kill their business. The faces I see at these places almost always have cigarettes in their mouths, so I tend to agree.

 

The non-smoking thing in general, though is a good thing. I smoke, but I don't want to smell it when I'm eating. Nor do I want those I love to be exposed to it if they don't smoke. I never smoke in the house or around the family. The more limitations there are against smoking, the fewer opportunities I'll have to do it--that's OK with me.

 

We were talking about cigarettes , right?

[Thomas Wilburn]

See, I am glad that we had this thread. Before I was all about a smoking ban, but the input of our NYC LD'rs has made me think more carefully about it. I'm still in favor, but it's more qualified now.

 

Impressive.

[jeremy c]

The ban has been going on in California for a lot longer than New York. I haven't heard any complaints in a long time. All I hear is how wonderful it is.

 

And there aren't any waiters suing their places of employment for health issues related to breathing second-hand smoke. Yeah, yeah, they could have worked somewhere else. Just like I could have found another profession instead of playing in clubs.

 

At the beginning there are always anecdotes and hearsay as to why the ban won't work.

 

There hasn't been a ban on selling cigarettes, so anything about a black market has nothing to do with the ban on smoking in public places. There is a black market because of the taxation on cigarettes, but that's a completely unrelated issue.

[The Fonz]

what i glean from why everyone in cali thinks the smoking ban is so wonderful comes from a few friends that moved to l.a. and gave me the lowdown: the modern-day speakeasy. apparently there are plenty of bars that "allow" smoking. the theory is just keep yer coffin nail under the table and when enforcement comes in the management says "we had no idea people were smoking." the only people who go to these places are smokers and effectively create a an enviornment where people have a choice as to which kind of establishment they wish to patronize.

 

the best comment i heard about smoking bans came from a really socially critical comedian whom i normally can't stand. he's himself a non-smoker but found the ban in bars a little rediculous. from the best of my knowledge he said: so you're drinking poison and trying to have unprotected sex with someone you've never met before and your primary health concern is second hand smoke?

 

again, the smoking ban is good intentioned but misapplied. allow bar owners the choice as to whether or not they wish to allow smoking. what you will end up with are smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments and let people choose. smokers will have their right to smoke, non-smokers will have their right to not deal with second hand smoke and neighborhood residents will have a cleaner, quiter neighborhood.

[getz out]

A.C.,

 

The only problem is no bar-owner will voluntarily ban smoking. They would be at a competitive disadvantage.

 

The average, non-smoking bar patron is going to go to a bar regardless of smoke. The average smoking bar patron would no go to a non-smoking bar.

 

I don't have empirical evidence (shoot me, SW), but I'm pretty confident that's the case.

[The Fonz]

yes they will. i've been in plenty of bars that did fine business where the owner chose to have a non-smoking establishment. by chose i mean literally that: he had the option of licensing his establishment for smoking or non-smoking and he chose the latter.

 

they way you do it is you make the fee for the smoking rider on the liqour license expensive. maybe you throw in employee health requirments such as making it mandatory to offer your employees health benefits. this way you force the owner to make a decision: "is the extra business i'm going to do going justify $5000 annually?"

 

i ran a restaurant in GA and allowing smoking in my bar would have cost me $5000 annually as an addition to my beer and wine license (more if i served hard alcohol) and it raised my tax rate. it didn't raise the rate of tax i collected (which was still 6%) but what i paid the county (to 7%, essentially i paid an additional 1% tax to allow smoking). i certainly had customers walk out because they couldn't smoke at my bar but not enough to justify the extra expense to allow them to.

[getz out]

That's fair, but there needs to be that mechanism in place.

 

With those terms, however, there will be very few club-type bars (a place to get beer and hear music) that will pass on the smoking tax. That tax would have to be very significant in NYC for that to work.

[...]

I would love it if the bars in Washington banned smoking. That would rule in such enormously huge ways, I can't even begin to find the words to explain it.