Electrolicious

16 Responses to “Reek”

1. paisley
   November 6th, 2003 at 12:24 pm

   

   as much as i don’t like inflicting non-smoking rules on folks - i’d rather that then having second hand smoke inflicted on me..
   i think it’s a fair deal ..

2. tlc
   November 6th, 2003 at 1:12 pm

   

   I’ve always been divided about this issue. What if it were up to the owner of the bar to decide whether to have a smoking area, or something, and pay a fee for the license, much like a liquor license?

3. greta
   November 6th, 2003 at 1:19 pm

   

   before i moved to CA, i never really thought much about the issue. but now that i’ve been here for almost two years, i LOVE the fact that i can go to a bar or a show and not come home feeling like i smoked a whole pack too. (in fact, this is one of the few things i love about CA.) i’m generally in favor of allowing folks their freedom, but this is one thing where it does affect the people around you. and here at least, most bars have an outside patio where smokers can pollute freely, so it’s not like saying they can’t, it’s just saying not in here. i

4. sophia
   November 6th, 2003 at 1:23 pm

   

   Speaking as a smoker, who doesn’t smoke inside her own home, and who’s in Vancouver where smoking in bars & restaurants has been banned for a while (like San Fran), I have to agree. If I can go outside for a butt at home, then the person sitting next to me at dinner, or at a nightclub, can take a few minutes and stroll outside as well. I don’t like my clothes and hair all smoke-stinky, either.

5. Ariel
   November 6th, 2003 at 1:31 pm

   

   For what it’s worth, I read an article in Paper magazine about NYC nightlife, and it portrayed the smoking ban as a good thing: both smokers and non-smokers are bar-hopping constantly, taking the party to the streets as they smoke-n-stroll from club to club, making for a festive street atmosphere. Sounds good to me.

6. rebecca
   November 6th, 2003 at 2:18 pm

   

   I just moved to a new city within Canada that has no smoking bars. It is so nice. You do not have to shower when you get home and you can were your cloths one more time. Where I used to live I hardly ever went out because of the stink factor.

7. donut
   November 6th, 2003 at 5:14 pm

   

   Personally, I don’t understand why we can’t have some tobacco friendly bars that non-smokers need never enter. I’d be happy to never enter a non-smoking bar again, if I had the choice.

8. philippe
   November 7th, 2003 at 1:53 am

   

   Well, Tia, non-smokers sections are mandatory in restaurants in France. And most public and covered areas are non-smoking. But a non-smoking bar sounds like an oxymoron to me. Bars are non healthy anyway. What’s next ? Non-alcoholic bars ? Non-smoking jazz clubs ? I understand that second hand smoke can be bothering, but it’s a price, IMO, one should pay to socialize. I may be offended by cheap perfume or poor body odors myself, well, I get over it ! Or I stay home, or take a walk outside…
   Actualy, as a cigar smoker I’m getting a little touchy about the issue. I understand and respect smoking prohibition in most places, including my own home as a father of 2. But I’m getting tired of being considered by some (no, I’m not thinking of you as a stinking monster, spreading cancer all around him. So far, tobacco is still a legal drug, as alcohol. I can buy it, let me smoke it or drink it in a bar ! And go to the gym.
   :=)

9. donut
   November 7th, 2003 at 7:53 am

   

   Philippe, I love you.

10. Ariel
    November 7th, 2003 at 7:56 am

    

    My head totally agrees with the French perspective. Liberty! Freedom! Coughing! But my lungs deceive me. My lungs say smokers should be outside.

11. Cameron
    November 7th, 2003 at 8:14 am

    

    There are several non-smoking bars in seattle. Why not patronize them? Perhaps there is a specific bar you’d like to see as a non-smoking joint, why not ask the owner to make it so, and threaten to take your business elsewhere if he does not comply?

    What you’re really saying is that bar owners who choose to run their establishments (in most of which, you have never spent a dime) in a way you find unpleasant should be forced to close.

    And no, it has not “improved the new york nightlife”. It’s not exactly the end of the world, but:

    1) The law is routinely violated, especially late, and on weekends.

    2) That “party in the streets” every single night is not generally described as a wonderful thing by the people who live nearby.

    3) People are starting to complain about the amount of smoke ON THE SIDEWALK outside these bars. We are going to be standing in the streets next.

    4) The law was passed in march… winter is just starting and it routinely drops below zero (F) here in nyc.

    and finally …

    5) When are they gonna pass a law against the patchouli-stinking, sage-burning, bean-eating vegetarian hippies who agititate for these laws in the first place. I can’t find a place that sells decent stir-fried tofu that isn’t oppressive with their stench, and I think I might be allergic.

    Sorry I’m so irritable… i need a butt.

    -c

12. esther
    November 7th, 2003 at 9:56 am

    

    Cameron, you make an excellent point about patronizing non-smoking bars and encouraging bar owners to make their bars non smoking . . but I dont think Ariel ever said anything about bars being forced to close because they allow smoking. Also, your point #1 about the law being routinely violated is just silly — people run red lights and murder each other all the time, does that mean traffic laws and homicide laws shouldn’t exist?

    I personally have never been a smoker but I know tons of former smokers who now hate smoky bars–just last night two of them and I were trying to go out for a drink but the one non-smoking bar in the neighborhood was closed, so instead we opted to buy some beer and drink at home instead. I’d bet that bars are losing just as much money for that reason as they would lose by not allowing smoking.

13. cameron
    November 7th, 2003 at 12:00 pm

    

    Esther,
    Passing laws against things is necessary when people are unlikely to engage in the desired behavior unless they are threatened with a penalty of some kind. The reason you have to be 21 to be in (most) bars in the us is because they are threatened with closure if they fail to comply with the dictate. The new york anti-smoking law works similarly. Bars are threatened with fines and closure if they violate the ban. So…. closure of bars that allow smoking is exactly what is being proposed. Let’s not put icing on it and pretend it’s a birthday cake.

    You’re point about the routine violation not being a reason to pass a law is a good one and well taken.

    You’re bet that bars are losing money by allowing smoking sounds like an interesting proposal. How much would you be willing to bet exactly? Enough to open a non-smoking bar? Bar owners are more expert in the business of running bars than anyone else. They know their markets and they know the effects of smoking bans on their business, which is why these laws become “necessary” in the first place. If it were that good for business, it would be enough to show the bar owners that, you would not need to threaten them with fines and closure.

14. Kool Keith
    November 7th, 2003 at 1:01 pm

    

    Cameron is right on about this. Non-smoking bars don’t exist (where they’re unlegislated)because not enough people who go to bars would go to them. Thankfully in NYC bar owners are starting to flout this oppressive law. I’ve been to several bars in the past month that openly allowed smoking after 12:00 or so.
    Given that bars are now flouting the law, does anyone really think that this is something we should be spending money to enforce? It’s would be worse than spending money on the drug war, which is already a terrible waste of money and effort.

15. Ariel
    November 10th, 2003 at 11:11 am

    

    There are indeed non-smoking bars in Seattle, including Tost Martini Bar, in Fremont. I will go there soon and enjoy a little sipping and breathing.

16. allie
    November 10th, 2003 at 1:59 pm

    

    I hang out in NYC all the time and catch probably 1-3 shows per month. I was absolutely ecstatic when they decided to pass the no-smoking ban, because I also hate smelling like an ashtray when I get home.

    I lived in the Bay Area for 3 years, including ‘97-98 when SF first passed their no-smoking ban, so I totally remember all the bars there too, freaking out that people would stop frequenting their establishment, etc so alot of smaller bars gave a minute % of ownership to their staff to beat the law. They figured a way around it, and I’m sure the smaller bars in NYC will too.

    Initially when I moved east in late 2000, going out to bars & shows in NYC was awful because of how much ciggie smoke was everywhere. Since the ban was passed, seeing shows in NYC has become just as much fun (if not 10 times MORE fun sometimes) than seeing shows & going to bars in SF…

    I smoked ciggies for 9 years (I quit on June 5, 1994.. what a glorious day), so I am not anti-smoker, I am just anti-tobacco smoke. Too bad this law doesn’t help more people drop the habit & quit altogether!!