Comments on: Reek

By: allie

allie — Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:59:29 +0000

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!!

By: Ariel

Ariel — Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:11:35 +0000

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.

By: Kool Keith

Kool Keith — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:01:31 +0000

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.

By: cameron

cameron — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:00:30 +0000

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.

By: esther

esther — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:56:14 +0000

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.