Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Smoking ban in clubs ! ! !


stoo schultz

Recommended Posts

Well I returned home to Miami at the end of the summer to find that a new Floria law bans all smoking in "enclosed indoor workplaces" including clubs/taverns/bars !

 

I found out about the ban Saturday night at a gig in a small jazz club that used to be so filled with smoke that I could barely see the bar from the stage. What a surprise to find it utterly smokeless, with a line of smokers out on the sidewalk.

 

I know a lot of you folks are smokers and probably think this is political correctness gone nuts, but I couldn't be happier . . . . inhaling second hand smoke is probably the only health risk of being a gigging musician.

 

No longer will I come home with clothes that stink, a body that stinks, gear that stinks all the way down to the cables and solder, and clogged lungs. It was the first thing the wife noticed when I got home.

 

How common is this now in the U.S.? (In Europe it's still unheard of). Anybody else?

 

This is one happy camper :D:thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think it's cool. Don't know where else in the country that this is the case. I know in Austin, Texas, that there is no smoking allowed in restaurants at all, but don't know about the clubs.

 

In response to the new law, many clubs in South Florida are now serving "Nico-tinis," which apparently are made from alcohol that has had tobacco leaves soaked in it so that the alcohol absorbs the nicotine. :eek: Yuck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent news! Here in the Netherlands they were going to implement that Jan 1, 2004 in restaurants, clubs, cafés, etc., but too many owners objected. There's a very high percentage of Dutch who smoke it seems. The date was pushed back to Jan. 1, 2005. I can't wait.

No guitarists were harmed during the making of this message.

 

In general, harmonic complexity is inversely proportional to the ratio between chording and non-chording instruments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by felix.:

I think it's cool. Don't know where else in the country that this is the case. I know in Austin, Texas, that there is no smoking allowed in restaurants at all, but don't know about the clubs.

 

In response to the new law, many clubs in South Florida are now serving "Nico-tinis," which apparently are made from alcohol that has had tobacco leaves soaked in it so that the alcohol absorbs the nicotine. :eek: Yuck!

california's had this law for years...it's just second nature here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the gig doesn't fade away with the smokers, and you remain a happy camper. The experience in many places has been that clubs have fewer patrons, and therefore are no longer able to pay musicians. Ask any coal miner - workplace health hazards are worthwhile if eliminating those hazards also eliminates your ability to pay the rent.

 

These laws are a disaster on many fronts.

First off, anytime someone steps outside a bar for a cig they've already left the building. The temptation to then move on is enhanced, AND if the club does cover charges it now has to administer a re-entry policy of some sort.

 

Next comes freedom of choice. If I'm a smoker I can no longer choose to patronize places that cater to me. Nor can I choose to work in a place that allows my choice. If I'm a business owwner, I am now forced to ignore a large potential market which is consuming a PERFECTLY LEGAL PRODUCT.

 

It would have been far better had clubs & other establishments instead been required to post some sort of warning, such as

 

"NOTICE: SMOKING IS PERMITTED ON THESE PREMISES. SECONDHAND SMOKE IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. You may therefore choose to enter or not."

 

In case you are wondering, I am a nonsmoker who very much dislikes the smell of smoke. But I dislike even more the abandonment of individual choice and responsibility.

 

Originally posted by stoo schultz:

Well I returned home to Miami at the end of the summer to find that a new Floria law bans all smoking in "enclosed indoor workplaces" including clubs/taverns/bars !

 

This is one happy camper :D:thu:

I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist.

 

This ain't no track meet; this is football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Doron says, this has been in place in California for the last six or seven years. Although I'm very understanding of the second-hand smoke position, the result here has not been good for clubs.

 

Several of my non-smoking friends who gig professionally were very happy about this at first, but have done a 180 when they realized it was eating into their paychecks, for the reasons that Coyote describes above.

 

Personally, I don't mind. I haven't been able to smoke indoors anywhere in California (not even my home) for years. It's second nature. When I visit Vegas, it's very strange for me to light a cig inside a casino (or especially a restaurant).

 

- Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who recently quit, I appreciate being to go out and not be tempted and tormented.

 

But I think it's false advetising to suggest that the ban is going to encourage this large, untapped club market to start coming out and enjoying the other fruits of the nightlife, like drink and live music.

 

Face it, bars are dens of sin. The affinity between smokers and night life is a natural one. The ban is going to alientate an audience that it can't replace.

 

At my last gig we played to what seemed to be a small and intermittently appreciative crowd. At the end of the night, I was paid FAR more than I am used to, esp. given what seemed to be the modest crowd size. Then I went out on to the newly enlarged deck! AHA! There they all were! No wonder I made so much.

 

Bars with big decks will succeed, at least in the NY Summer.

Check out the Sweet Clementines CD at bandcamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lexington Kentucky just passed this and a group of bars and restaurants are trying to block it in court. I am very happy about this because I am allergic to cigarette smoke. When playing clubs I used to run to the exit during breaks so I could breath for 15 minutes, then go back inside and suffer again. In restaurants, too many times my "non-smoking" seat happened to only be one table away from the smoking section.

 

I am very glad this is happening. It may be hard for smokers, but honestly, does anyone here want their children to smoke? Any deterrent is a positive step. For so long kids have been told that you have to smoke to be cool. It only takes a few weeks to get hooked. Then you spend the rest of your shortened life donating to the stock holders of tobacco companies. That is not what I want for my kids, nieces and nephews. Even if it means suffering a bit today and tomorrow.

 

Robert

This post edited for speling.

My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was much younger (21 or so), I tried smoking in order to become addicted so I would know what it was like to quit. I failed miserably and never became addicted. After one day of coughing, I gave it up.

 

Dumb, huh?

No guitarists were harmed during the making of this message.

 

In general, harmonic complexity is inversely proportional to the ratio between chording and non-chording instruments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Ask any coal miner - workplace health hazards are worthwhile if eliminating those hazards also eliminates your ability to pay the rent. ....

As someone who worked for a coal company for 6 years I have to disagree with this statement. Health hazards and endangering life is never worthwhile. Coal companies who place their employees in hazardous working conditions are no different than cigarette companies. They tell you not to worry and everything is safe. Then one day you find out that you have shortened your life so the company can make a profit.

 

Robert

This post edited for speling.

My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm.... What the heck are children doing in a nightclub or bar? This is an emotional strawman. "Save the kids by disallowing smoking in bars"???? C'mon now.

 

Originally posted by Rabid:

Any deterrent is a positive step.

Robert

BLECCHHHH. I recently read a letter to the editor of my local paper. The writer said about mandatory seatbelt laws: "It's not about civil rights, it's about saving lives". Clearly, the writer has no clue.... You know, in my area there are legislators actually considering getting involved in regulating fishing tournaments in the wake of a fisherman dying in high seas last summer. Will they next outlaw building skyscrapers because of the risk of steelworkers falling off? Are they ready to shut down the coalmines so these guys don't die of blacklung at age 52? They certainly were in a hurry to send us all back to work in downtown Manhattan two years ago despite the obvious contaminant levels in the air.

I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist.

 

This ain't no track meet; this is football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the smoking bans as long as they are state-wide. The problem with city ordinances is that unless every city/municipality in a metropolitan area has similar bans it discriminates against businesses affected by the ban. Enforcement also has to be universal. You can't have some locals where they look the other way and others where it it strictly enforced.

 

The smoking bans are really for the benfit of employees - not patrons. Second hand smoke IS a workplace hazard. You shouldn't have to accept a shorter lifespan just to earn a meager living.

 

I havn't smoked in years, and was never a hard core smoker, so I am a poor judge of smoker's preferences. However if all bars/clubs are smoke free, how many smokers are going to choose to simply not go to a club because they can't smoke inside?

 

Also - in California, the smoking ban also coincided with the beginning of the economy's demise, so I'm not sure how much the smoking ban contributed to decreased revenues at bars and clubs. Unemployed people are less likely to go out to clubs - particularly those with cover charges and live music.

Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong: James Bryce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been far better had clubs & other establishments instead been required to post some sort of warning, such as

 

"NOTICE: SMOKING IS PERMITTED ON THESE PREMISES. SECONDHAND SMOKE IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. You may therefore choose to enter or not."

Or, how about replacing the speed limit on the highways with signs at the onramp: "NOTICE: ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK."

 

I take your point, but really you can't escape the classic conflict between freedom and the "greater good". There are tons of laws like this: zoning laws, traffic laws, the sex industry, drug laws, noise ordinances, pollution, nudity, insider trading, gun control, anti-monopoly, etc. ad infinitum. Nothing new at all. Everybody draws the line somewhere, it's just a matter of where.

 

On topic, I can't think offhand of a club I've played at recently that hasn't had an outdoor seating area. A smoking ban might have less of an impact on business in Florida and California than in NYC. Who knows, maybe a study was done on this question before the law was drafted.

 

Maybe I'll change my mind, but right now I'm enjoying my good fortune too much ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the politicians want to take away the rights of the club owners to manage their own club, then maybe the politicians should also be there to help pay the bills, when the smokers no longer go to the clubs. Costly mandates can put some club owners out of business. Last I heard, most clubs are private property. These laws take away from these rights. You can't have it both ways, you ban smokers, you're not gonna get their business. So let's not hear any whining about "nobody comes to our shows anymore", or "nobody buys our cd's". whada ya expect. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there. Play in church, or schools or other non-smoking venues, but stay out of the smokey bars, if that's what bothers you.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by coyote:

.... Are they ready to shut down the coalmines so these guys don't die of blacklung at age 52? They certainly were in a hurry to send us all back to work in downtown Manhattan two years ago despite the obvious contaminant levels in the air.

So, you think it is ok to die of black lung at 52, and think it was ok that they told workers to go back to work in downtown Manhattan while hiding the fact that contaminants were still at high levels?

 

My brother-in-law cannot stand people who are addicted to drugs. He cannot understand why they would get addicted and thinks they are destroying their lives. Two weeks ago he had cancer surgery. The day he got out of the hospital he went back to smoking again. He cannot stop, and he cannot see that he is addicted. When I mention that his smoking is an addiction he gets mad and goes into denial. He will defend his right to smoke until he and his family dies of cancer. Cigarettes will be legal as long as the big tobacco companies keep funneling money to our elected government officials. If people are so addicted that they cannot stop smoking then there is nothing I can do. But, I have every right to go into any public place without being put at risk. So the question is this; which right takes precedence, the right of the smoker to continue to smoke in public even though it has been proven to kill or the right of the worker who serves those drinks to be able to work without the health hazard?

 

Robert

This post edited for speling.

My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking doesn't effect everybody the same way. I knew an old WWII vet who smoked everyday for his whole life and died in his late eighties in a car accident. Should we ban cars ?? People die in plane accidents, should we ban planes ? I'd rather take my chances on cigarettes than flying, but that's my decision to make, not yours. One of my buddies hated smoking but drank and was a really bad driver. He's dead now. Car accident. I lived 20 years longer than him so far. So You're telling me it's okay to drink, as long as you don't smoke ? How about unprotected sex, is that okay, as long as you don't smoke ?? I know a mayor who thinks so. Sin taxes is a whole nother thread.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

google "restaurant smoking" and you will find many studies showing that restaurant and bar business does not decrease after smoking bans, and as far as I can see, no studies, even by the tobacco industry, that show that business decreases.

 

Banning smoking in public spaces easily falls under any reasonable concept of public health and safety, which comes before individual rights IMO. I believe that you have exclusive rights to smoke (or put anything else into your body that you choose, for that matter), but that right stops before the next person who can breathe your smoke.

 

You can't compare this issue to seat belt and helmet laws, since these only affect the person wearing the safety device, but second hand smoke unquestionably kills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we all quit crying!!!

I don't want to work in a coal mine, chemical plant or nuclear facility... SO I DON'T!

 

There are plenty of qualified bartenders and waitresses that smoke. There are plenty of qualified bartenders and waitresses that don't smoke. Why shouldn't there be smoking AND non-smoking bars and clubs. As a potential employee, if I didn't want to work in a smoking environment, I wouldn't. As a patron, If I was so concerned about the health effects of all the second hand smoke I was getting at the bars, maybe I should consider spending less time with a liver destroying beverage in my hand!

 

For the record, I am a smoker in California and I generally avoid drinking in places that enforce the Nazi no smoking laws. Fortunately, you can still find a true den of sin corner bar in this state if you look hard enough.

Ray Zarzaca

KMA Productions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad smoked all his life my mother didn't, both are still doing fine, and up around 70. Some people make it look like taking one sniff of smoke will knock you over dead. The worst ones are the ones who quit, one guy I know smoked, drank, the whole nine yards, we couldn't talk to him about anything, he nows plays guitar at church on Sundays, and hates smoking.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what one considers a public place. By your implied logic, it's a greater crime to smoke outdoors IN PUBLIC than in someone's business establishment.

 

But again, the "protect the worker" argument is disingenuous - not on your part but as public policy. There are so many hazards in various forms of employment.... offices have been smoke-free for years now, as are retail stores and just about every other indoor workplace. I've known people who choose to work as bartenders where one of their main reasons is "hey, I can smoke on the job". It's commendable of you to look after their health. But you also say you have the right to go anywhere in public without encountering smoke - why is 98% of places not good enough when you have the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE not to enter the 2% of establishments where smoking is the norm?

 

Yes, the right of the smoker to continue to smoke in bars trumps your right to have a 100% smoke-free world in my opinion.

 

Some bacckground: I frequent nude beaches, and we constantly have to fend off the puritans who believe they should be able to go everywhere on the planet without ever seeing a naked body. I defend the smokers' rights to smoke in bars in hopes they will defend my right to sunbathe & swim without clothing on beaches set aside for that purpose. (One wonders how such puritans make it through the shower each morning without having a heart attack or something, or if they keep their eyes shut tight the entire time.)

 

Originally posted by Rabid:

So the question is this; which right takes precedence, the right of the smoker to continue to smoke in public even though it has been proven to kill or the right of the worker who serves those drinks to be able to work without the health hazard?

Robert

I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist.

 

This ain't no track meet; this is football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by djwayne:

Smoking doesn't effect everybody the same way. I knew an old WWII vet who smoked everyday for his whole life and died in his late eighties in a car accident. Should we ban cars ?? People die in plane accidents, should we ban planes ? I'd rather take my chances on cigarettes than flying, but that's my decision to make, not yours. One of my buddies hated smoking but drank and was a really bad driver. He's dead now. Car accident. I lived 20 years longer than him so far. So You're telling me it's okay to drink, as long as you don't smoke ? How about unprotected sex, is that okay, as long as you don't smoke ?? I know a mayor who thinks so. Sin taxes is a whole nother thread.

WTF?!! let me point a couple of things out: drinking and driving is ILLEGAL. Applying unprotected sex to second hand smoke is ridiculous. Look, I'm all for people's rights, but where the hell is all this ultra-capitalist "only about me" mentality coming from? First off, private property is still subjected to laws, hence, I can't do drugs, have sex with minors, produce contraband, or BREAK any other law within my "private property." Now there is empirical data that smoking is dangerous not only to the smoker but to those around him/her. That's a little different than having unprotected sex, sin't it? I can choose to have protected sex, but I can't choose to wear some special filter to avoid second-hand smoke. To which I'm sure many will argue, "then don't go where smokers congregate." Well, the adult Entertainment Industry (yes, the porn industry) is subjugated to making adult films (porns) with partners having protected sexual intercourse. So, since there's empirical proof of risk associated with unprotected sex, as well as smoking, and though said employees CHOOSE to work in porn, they're still protected under laws meant for the betterment of all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of it from the club owner's point of view. You spend $500,000 building a new club, and some politician decides to pass a law that stops you from using that club to serve 30-50 % of your clientel. Are you gonna build another club, when who knows what law they'll dream up next week. As far as facts and figured are concerned, you can juggle them to say anything you want. Toronto passed a no smoking law and I haven't been back there since, and yes the restaruant & club business has been down, from what I've read. Even the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that was built with taxes on cigarettes, begs me to come to their events, when I get there, I'm kindly shown the door to go outside and smoke, as it's a non-smoking venue. Did I renew my membership there ?? no. Do I even go back there ?? no. Do you blame me ?? They don't want smokers there, so I don't go there. Yet the thieves want to impose taxes to pay for the place, on the very people they don't want there. Same with the sports stadiums. They should ban all public drinking at the stadiums, and see how well that goes over.

 

As fars a planes go, my life is at risk everyday with them flying over my head, and I didn't even buy a ticket. They could crash into my house anytime, and don't tell me planes don't crash.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Doug Osborne:

google "restaurant smoking" and you will find many studies showing that restaurant and bar business does not decrease after smoking bans, and as far as I can see, no studies, even by the tobacco industry, that show that business decreases.

 

Banning smoking in public spaces easily falls under any reasonable concept of public health and safety, which comes before individual rights IMO. I believe that you have exclusive rights to smoke (or put anything else into your body that you choose, for that matter), but that right stops before the next person who can breathe your smoke.

 

You can't compare this issue to seat belt and helmet laws, since these only affect the person wearing the safety device, but second hand smoke unquestionably kills.

Yeah, I don't get the "clubs will go out of business" argument. First of all, clubs go out of business all the time - regardless! As for smoking bans, it won't put clubs out of business any more than it put restaurants out of business. I'd be surprised if people go to clubs to smoke. Seems like music, socialization, drinking would be better reasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that's the thing. It is NOT "only about me" as I am NOT a smoker. In fact, I don't even permit it in my house.... but that's in MY house. I don't tell my neighbor he cannot smoke in his house on the chance that I may someday be inside it.

 

In my opinion, the "only about me" folks are the ones who insist that there be no smoking in bars because "I have the right to go everywhere on the planet without encountering that EVIL CIGARETTE SMOKE". Until the no-smoking laws went into effect, something called a Cigar Bar was gaining popularity. It's a place where people go specifically to enjoy cigars and... oh wait a minute, the new laws prohibit such an establishment. Now, as a nonsmoker I will NEVER go into one of those places. But I'm incredibly selfish if I claim my right to not encounter smoke in public places means such an establishment may no longer exist. And that is exactly what has happened; cigar smokers may no longer congregaate there or work there.

 

Anyone can see that the nonsmoking movement ain't about limiting secondhand smoke - it's about a drive toward eventual eradication. It's become a morals crusade, much as the nation eventually built up to the 18th Amendment early in the previous century. That was an abject failure which had the added 'benefit' of creating an entire criminal class & infrastructure.

 

There are a great many socialistic concepts which I favor. Seatbelt lawws, helmet laws, and these new antismoking laws ain't among those concepts as they cross the line from public good to private infringement. You wanna do something about bars? Mandate certain airflow/filtration requirements for establishments which choose to allow smoking. That's what we do about all other 'hazardous' workplaces. It would significantly reduce or eliminate the secondhand smoke problem, as well as cleaning the air before releasing it into the atmosphere. Instead, the "morals squad" is out there clamping down on our individual choices once again. How pathetic.

 

Originally posted by schmoron13:

but where the hell is all this ultra-capitalist "only about me" mentality coming from?

I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist.

 

This ain't no track meet; this is football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking bans have not hurt sells to sports arenas. It has not kept people for applying for jobs now that the work place is smoke free. A lot of restaurants are already smokeless. So are malls, libraries and classrooms. And I dont really see a correlation between drinking and smoking. Southeast Kentucky has maybe the highest ratio of smokers in the nation, and most areas there prohibit alcohol sales.

 

Robert

This post edited for speling.

My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baloney!! Lets see how many stadiums get built with no sin taxes. Just another easy way to pick your pocket. Oh yes sin taxes, those are easy to get passed. Eliminate sin taxes. I was a dj, I saw first hand what goes on. Non-smoking drunks puking it up, passing out, ect... this is one of the reasons I don't dj anymore, nor do I drink more than an very rare occassional beer or single glass of wine. But that's my personal choice. Imposing that on a stadium full of drunken non-smokers, would be a nightmare.

Living' in the shadow,

of someone else's dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by djwayne:

Baloney!! Lets see how many stadiums get built with no sin taxes. Just another easy way to pick your pocket. Oh yes sin taxes, those are easy to get passed. Eliminate sin taxes. I was a dj, I saw first hand what goes on. Non-smoking drunks puking it up, passing out, ect... this is one of the reasons I don't dj anymore, nor do I drink more than an very rare occassional beer or single glass of wine. But that's my personal choice. Imposing that on a stadium full of drunken non-smokers, would be a nightmare.

-7th inning limit: no alcohol sales thereafter

-stadium kegs: distributors sell special beer that's wattered down to about 1 or 2%.

-Public drunkeness is ILLEGAL, you can get fined, or imprisoned.

 

plus, drinking and smoking are not the same thing. Their only similarity is that they produce mood altering reactions. THe physical act doesn't affect those around you, whereas smoking does. However, smoking doesn't lead to reckless endangerement (like DUI) whereas drinking does and thus certain actions are disallowed.

 

Rabid, as for imposing my preferances onto others, I'm not allowed to do a lot of things I might be inclined to do, yet that's part of the price we pay to live in a society. I can't deficate on the street, nor can I throw out my garbage on a sidewalk, but i make do cause it's the price I pay for living in this society.

 

That said, I have nothing against smokers. All the power to them. I don't even judge smokers for why they smoke. I simply understand that smoking affects those around smokers, and thus they are subjugated to "extra" responsibilties. Just like drinkers accept a responsibilty not to drive when inibriated, it doesn't mean that they can't drink, it just implies that someone accepts a certain responsibilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by stoo schultz:

Well I returned home to Miami at the end of the summer to find that a new Floria law bans all smoking in "enclosed indoor workplaces" including clubs/taverns/bars !

 

How common is this now in the U.S.? (In Europe it's still unheard of).

In Italy, smoking is banned in all closed (indoor) public places. The ban is often disattended, but the the situation is much better now for non-smokers.

 

About smoking... I quit a long time ago. I stopped all at once, from two packets a day - it was no picnic. A few years later, my uncle, who I loved dearly, died of lung cancer in front of me. It wasn't nice to watch, I swear you. He used to smoke two packets a day, and did that for most of his life.

 

Now, I'm very tolerant of smokers, even if they do that near me. My girlfriend smokes a lot, it doesn't bother me. I even smoke one myself sometimes, after a dinner with friends. But I won't start again - it's a stupid way to die I think. It's not guaranteed that you die, but given the high chances, why run the risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...