Smoking Venue And Hoster

[marklwood]

Originally Posted by billyo

i kinda dis-agree with you bout the most behave people are non smokers, i play in a non smoker right now and i have a few that are the the most abnoxious people i've ever seen, they're non smokers and most of the time they will order a drink and sat there all night,waiting for their turn but my smoker people will order drinks as long as they still have packs of smokes in them..and they do go outside and smoke..but anyway pls. don't take it the wrong way, this is just my opinion and for the sake of conversation..

You are not just whistlin' Dixie.

I have been in the service business (rest/bar) for the last 30 years. One of those gigs was a 10 year stint as a manager for Red Lobster. As a corporation, General Mills restaurant division was concerned about the growing nonsmoking lobby even way back then. When I was in Orlando, for training they were mining data from the sales records over a 5 year period. Since the smoking/nonsmoking sections are assigned by table number, they could get sales data separated by smoking preference. This was important to them because it could mean millions of dollars in sales every year. They either wanted to fight the legislation, or jump ahead of the market and make their restaurants nonsmoking ahead of the curve.

The gist of the results were that smokers not only drink more alcohol, they also ate more appetizers and desserts. I would say that bad habits do not stand alone I was not there for the final conclusions as I resigned shortly thereafter. What I do know is that they didn't open any nonsmoking restaurants if they weren't forced to. So I would surmise that the data supported the initial conclusions.

The winds of change are there though. I think that at some point people will realize that smoking is bad for you On the business side, the scale is still leaning toward the smoking side if it is allowed by law. Maybe, some day, it will tip the other way. I can see a lot of benefits to being nonsmoking when it comes to maintenance and such, but for now, I just don't see it as a good business decision.

What I tell the zealots now is I would gladly put up a 20% stake in a nonsmoking venue in this market. There is a building that would be perfect right across the street. If you REALLY believe this is the way to go, you wouldn't mind putting up the other 80% because you would make a killing. I will be your silent partner and adviser on running the business. I will provide the exact same experience you would get in my place and we will see which one folds first.

Funny thing is, I haven't had any takers yet.

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by marklwood

You are not just whistlin' Dixie.
What I tell the zealots now is I would gladly put up a 20% stake in a nonsmoking venue in this market. There is a building that would be perfect right across the street. If you REALLY believe this is the way to go, you wouldn't mind putting up the other 80% because you would make a killing. I will be your silent partner and adviser on running the business. I will provide the exact same experience you would get in my place and we will see which one folds first.

Funny thing is, I haven't had any takers yet.

The way the wind is blowing is every state will be smoke free in public very shortly. You won't have to open a partnership across the street, your place will be smoke free the way things are going.
I don't take sides either way!!
muzicman144

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by marklwood

You are not just whistlin' Dixie.

I have been in the service business (rest/bar) for the last 30 years. One of those gigs was a 10 year stint as a manager for Red Lobster. As a corporation, General Mills restaurant division was concerned about the growing nonsmoking lobby even way back then. When I was in Orlando, for training they were mining data from the sales records over a 5 year period. Since the smoking/nonsmoking sections are assigned by table number, they could get sales data separated by smoking preference. This was important to them because it could mean millions of dollars in sales every year. They either wanted to fight the legislation, or jump ahead of the market and make their restaurants nonsmoking ahead of the curve.

And this is exactly what our (U.S.) founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Property owners using THEIR property in a way that best suits them (as long as it does not interfere with their neighbors property rights).

All civil rights stem from property rights.We have a right to free speech on our property but not on someone elses, we have a right to keep and bare arms on our property but not on someone elses property, by the same token we have the right to demand that our property be smoke free but no one has a moral right to demand that someone else make their property smoke free.

Barring property owners from permitting smoking is just one more step down a slippery slope.
Remember, anything government can do for you, they can also do to you.

Sam

[marklwood]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

The way the wind is blowing is every state will be smoke free in public very shortly. You won't have to open a partnership across the street, your place will be smoke free the way things are going.
I don't take sides either way!!
muzicman144

That is the rub though. Labeling the the building that I paid for, pay taxes on. pay the utilities on, should be labeled a "Public" place. If the government wants to create these kind of restrictions on actual public property, that is for the majority to decide. When it comes to private property, the line seems to get moved.

The only argument that holds any water at all is the health of the employees. All of mine are also smokers, so any health concerns seem to be moot. We have employers in this town currently that will terminate employment if you work for them and don't quit smoking. Although it hasn't been challenged in court, I think it would hold up in this state because it is an "at will" employment state.

I think I will go the other way and not hire anyone who doesn't smoke. Doing what no one else does has always served me well in the past. If the law passes to ban smoking in bars, I'll just make it a private club of some sort to allow smoking.

[Musicman51]

"Whenever smoking and smoker's rights are discussed."
I wasn't aware a smoker had "Rights". I thought it fell under the same catagory as driving. It's a privilege not a right. I must have missed it when i studied the constitution in school. I'll read it again, i'm sure it's there.

"On the business side, the scale is still leaning toward the smoking side if it is allowed by law."

Exactly, and now that smoking in my state is no longer allowed by law in public places, it's a level playing field for all indoor seating establishments. Which is a plus for the small independent business operator. He no longer has to compete with huge chain resturants and bars, because they are now also by the will of the majority to be smoke free. Private clubs fall under the clean air health act just established by the majority in my state. The only places that are exampt, are vehicles private of course, casinos, and your own home.

As far as government and your rights, you would have no rights if it were not for government. You would have mayhem, confusion, and no rights at all essentially. We elect of government to represent the will of the majority. Non smokers are the majority. Majority rules. Now...if i wished to change this law, and i could if i were to find enough people who were smokers, and oppose it. But not going to happen in this case. Because as i said..majority rules.

"And this is exactly what our (U.S.) founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Property owners using THEIR property in a way that best suits them (as long as it does not interfere with their neighbors property rights)."

There are no laws that i know of that prohibit you from smoking on your own property if you so desire to.

"We have a right to free speech on our property"
Yes and no... you do have the right of free speech on your property, as long as it does not interfere with the health and safety of others. You cannot for instance... umm lets say... stand in your front yard, and yell that a bomb will go off in 30 minutes, so everyone better get out. When in fact you know for a fact there is not one. Yes you have the right to say it, but not in the presents of others if it's an untruth. And here in lyes the non smoking VS: the smoking controversy. Notice, i didn't say "Smokers Rights VS: Non Smokers Rights" because smoking is not a right. When smoking interferes with the health and safety of others, its a no no. And that is what we have done here in michigan. It's that simple.

[ddouglass]

You are right George, Smokers don't have any rights because the state legislatures have been taking them away. I don't mind the fact that they want to have us go outside to smoke, but at the same time they should require that businesses and companies provide us with safe protected places to smoke. Here we are sitting out in the cold, wet area outside just begging to get sick and we have to pay extremely high taxes for that privelege because of our addiction. Tell me what prescription drug addict or alchoholic has to do the same?
We pay outrageous prices for cigarettes because of the massive total out of balance taxes they also passed. Consider that a pack of cigarettes has somewhere in the range of 50% tax and find something else that has that high a tax rate. Supposedly this is to pay for our higher medical costs, but to be able to afford smoking we have to make enough to buy the cigarettes and usually have insurance that pays for that. So what are they doing with the extra money? Using it to sue the tobacco companies for more money which raises the price of cigarettes even more.
Now I will get off my soapbox.

[billyo]

it's funny when you said that smokers should have a place to smoke, when i went to Japan in 2005, i was at the airport and they have a separate rooms for smokers, here in Fla. we still have bars that smoking is allowed as long as youre only serving a small percentage of food..

[muzicman144]

I'm not taking sides either way. But it does seem to me that the government of this country is pretty busy deciding what is best for each individual, setting the rules for that reasoning, but not asking us how we feel. so far, we haven't answered at the only place we have power and that is the ballot box. If we don't wake up on a helluva lot more issues than smokin', You'll need permission to use your own toilet.
muzicman144

[billyo]

i dont think its just individuals they're looking at,and i dont think they care, theyre also looking at diff. countries, but thats how the u.s gov't. work, they just want us to pay our taxes and in return, they will tell us what we can or can not do in our on private place, but i think and sad to say it, smoking will not go away, as long as the tobacco industries are alive, and will give contributions to politicians, nothings gonna happen..

[bryant]

Originally Posted by ddouglass

You are right George, Smokers don't have any rights because the state legislatures have been taking them away.

Smokers have plenty of rights (in fact, the same as non-smokers). They just don't have the right to pollute someone else's air that they have to breathe.

Sounds fair to me. Correct me if If I'm wrong?

[marklwood]

This is a wonderfully spirited and quite civilized debate which I am thoroughly enjoying.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

"Whenever smoking and smoker's rights are discussed."
I wasn't aware a smoker had "Rights". I thought it fell under the same catagory as driving. It's a privilege not a right. I must have missed it when i studied the constitution in school. I'll read it again, i'm sure it's there.

Amendment 8: It would be cruel and unusual punishment to make me go that long without a cigarette at my own bar

Or perhaps Amendment 5: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

or possibly

discrimination is any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, opinion, descent, or national or ethnic origin which discourages or prevents equal recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Where exactly are the nonsmokers rights, based on the constitution or discrimination when it pertains to my PRIVATE property. Remember, I don't force anyone to come in, I only force them to leave based on age or irritation level.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

"On the business side, the scale is still leaning toward the smoking side if it is allowed by law."

Exactly, and now that smoking in my state is no longer allowed by law in public places, it's a level playing field for all indoor seating establishments. Which is a plus for the small independent business operator. He no longer has to compete with huge chain resturants and bars, because they are now also by the will of the majority to be smoke free. Private clubs fall under the clean air health act just established by the majority in my state. The only places that are exampt, are vehicles private of course, casinos, and your own home.

But first, is this a majority that actually go to a bar and spend money? Would those same people cry foul if we banned every fat person with a BMI over 1.00 from McDonalds? Even if the majority of people voted for this, the likelihood would be that people who aren't overweight don't go to McDonalds anyways, or they would be fat too. Do you think McDonalds would just lie down and take it, or do you think they would defend themselves as I do? And why are casinos exempt? Perhaps it is not really about the "good of the people" but about campaign financing. Let's see, I can get money from the anti-smoking lobby AND the casinos. The smokers don't vote, so this is a win win situation here. I might even be able to grab some money from those crazy MADD people. They will do anything to drive a stake in the bar business.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

As far as government and your rights, you would have no rights if it were not for government. You would have mayhem, confusion, and no rights at all essentially. We elect of government to represent the will of the majority. Non smokers are the majority. Majority rules. Now...if i wished to change this law, and i could if i were to find enough people who were smokers, and oppose it. But not going to happen in this case. Because as i said..majority rules.

To quote the oath I took when I joined the Army, the role of government is to "protect it's citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic" I would argue that anything further is an encroachment on my rights. If you chose to walk on a frozen lake, you assume the consequences of your actions. I don't need a law to tell me if I can, or can't, walk on that lake if I so chose. So would I say about a place that allows smoking. By implied consent, you are assuming the risk for going in there. No one is forcing you to.

You assume that the majority are not only smokers, but actually care about the issue. If it were actually cast as a ballot question with a yes, no, and I don't give a crap, which one do you think would win? The other side of this is what I had stated earlier. Bad habits don't stand alone. If you make a bubble chart with all the seven deadly sins smokers would be a majority in all of them. This would include sloth. Just too **** lazy to go out and vote.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

"And this is exactly what our (U.S.) founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Property owners using THEIR property in a way that best suits them (as long as it does not interfere with their neighbors property rights)."

There are no laws that i know of that prohibit you from smoking on your own property if you so desire to.

That is exactly the subject at hand. My bar is not a public park. It is a privately owned business which I pay dearly to the government just to keep open. If I were infringing on the accountant on one side, or the car wash on the other, I would comply.

I am even nice to the people that live across the alley by keeping my back door closed so they don't have to hear the noise. Even though they were fully aware when they moved in, and told me so when I introduced myself.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

"We have a right to free speech on our property"
Yes and no... you do have the right of free speech on your property, as long as it does not interfere with the health and safety of others. You cannot for instance... umm lets say... stand in your front yard, and yell that a bomb will go off in 30 minutes, so everyone better get out. When in fact you know for a fact there is not one. Yes you have the right to say it, but not in the presents of others if it's an untruth. And here in lyes the non smoking VS: the smoking controversy. Notice, i didn't say "Smokers Rights VS: Non Smokers Rights" because smoking is not a right. When smoking interferes with the health and safety of others, its a no no. And that is what we have done here in michigan. It's that simple.

Most, if not all municipalities have laws regarding "your rights to quiet enjoyment of your property". This is what allows you to call the police on those kids next door having a loud party, or the durn dog keeping me up all night. That "Right" however is preempted in my case by zoning of my property as a bar. If I chose not to keep my back door closed, possibly to allow the smokers to congregate out there for a quick smoke, it would override their right to quiet enjoyment no matter how loud it was. They should have voiced their concerns when the property was zoned as a bar in 1972. Not born yet? Too bad, you chose to live there. Your choice would be to remove yourself from the offending circumstances.

I would say the same for the nonsmokers. You know full well that the place allows smoking. If that is not to your liking, don't go in there. If I had a person that was subject to vertigo from the flashing lights, i would respectfully say the same thing. If you know what the result is, avoid places with flashing lights. This is part of the atmosphere, and I won't just shut it down because you are here.

It is not your God given right to come in to my business.

I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. I not only don't allow anyone under 21 inside, I also won't serve pregnant women, or people with a prison ID. I have been called to the carpet about doctors recommending a glass of wine occasionally for a pregnant woman, but I don't care. I have that "RIGHT" in and on my own property.

The reason I said I would make it a private club is the fact that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I hear the rhetoric, but no one is willing to put their money on the line. If it was actually profitable to have a nonsmoking bar in a market that allows it, someone would already be doing it. I'm even willing to put up money to prove them wrong. If a smoking ban were to allow for private clubs, I would do so. And guess what, I bet I would be the only one making any money. Well, me and the VFW.

George, I truly am enjoying the debate. I don't wish to offend anyone. It is just nice to have a "civil disagreement" without a judge present.

[marklwood]

Originally Posted by bryant

Smokers have plenty of rights (in fact, the same as non-smokers). They just don't have the right to pollute someone else's air that they have to breathe.

Sounds fair to me. Correct me if If I'm wrong?

Correction commencing
I would totally agree that the majority has an absolute duty to regulate the environments that are either owned, or maintained by public funds.

I would also submit to you that there are environments that everyday citizens are compelled to go to even though they are privately owned. Examples include:
Grocery Stores
Doctor's offices and hospitals
Some people may even include WalMart
Even though I would disagree with regulation of a privately owned business, I could see those places being a good idea to be smoke free. Guess what? The marketplace has already determined that. They all are indeed smoke free.

Bars and restaurants are not a public necessity no one is compelled to go there. If the marketplace determined that they needed to be smoke free, then they already would be. There are some chain restaurants that are smoke free in this market already. They are quite successful in a certain demographic, one that my business does not share. Crackle Barrel does a bang up job here. My crowd is just a wee bit younger than that.

Correction terminated.

[bryant]

Originally Posted by marklwood

If I chose not to keep my back door closed, possibly to allow the smokers to congregate out there for a quick smoke, it would override their right to quiet enjoyment no matter how loud it was. They should have voiced their concerns when the property was zoned as a bar in 1972. (That was then, this is NOW)

Not born yet? Too bad, you chose to live there. Your choice would be to remove yourself from the offending circumstances.

I would say the same for the nonsmokers. You know full well that the place allows smoking. If that is not to your liking, don't go in there. If I had a person that was subject to vertigo from the flashing lights, i would respectfully say the same thing. If you know what the result is, avoid places with flashing lights. This is part of the atmosphere, and I won't just shut it down because you are here.

If you own a place that allows public to freely walk in, it is also you're responsibility to protect those that do (in the same sense you protect pregnant women and the same reason why one leaves their household to go outside and smoke ). Many aren't aware (and apparently you may not be either) that breathing smoke filled air is very very dangerous. Only a small minority are affected by lights causing vertigo(poor example by the way), however, every individual on this planet is adversely affected by a smoke filled environment.
.

.

[bryant]

Originally Posted by marklwood

Bars and restaurants are not a public necessity no one is compelled to go there. If the marketplace determined that they needed to be smoke free, then they already would be. There are some chain restaurants that are smoke free in this market already. They are quite successful in a certain demographic, one that my business does not share. Crackle Barrel does a bang up job here. My crowd is just a wee bit younger than that.

You mean they aren't where you are, man, i thought "Maine" was the most backward state as it always has been known to be.

[marklwood]

Originally Posted by bryant

. If you own a place that allows public to freely walk in, it is also you're responsibility to protect those that do (in the same sense you protect pregnant women and the same reason why one leaves their household to go outside and smoke ).

First off, no one is allowed to freely walk in. They are there at my whim. For example, but not exclusive to, proper ID to show you are 21 or over. Sometimes I refuse entrance just because you look like trouble. Other times, I may have kicked you out before, or your ex wife/girlfriend is already in here.

2nd, it absolutely is NOT my responsibility to protect everyone who walks in the door. If I did something that were to cause injury, say electrocution by microphone, I would be responsible. Unless it were an act of God like lightning. If, however, someone is involved in an altercation, I am NOT responsible. Even if it was an innocent bystander that was inadvertently injured, it is still not my fault. Anything that happens while a crime is being committed is the perpetrator's fault, not mine.

Originally Posted by bryant

Many aren't aware (and apparently you may not be either) that breathing smoke filled air is very very dangerous. Only a small minority are affected by lights causing vertigo(poor example by the way), however, every individual on this planet is adversely affected by a smoke filled environment.

Sure, I'm aware that it is bad for me. It's smoke for goodness sake! You avoid the downwind side of the campfire for the same reason. But if you CHOOSE to set there, who am I, or the government for that matter, to tell you otherwise? Personally, after I go camping, I sleep with the camper blanket for the next week just because I like the smell.

Originally Posted by bryant

Only a small minority are affected by lights causing vertigo(poor example by the way)

Why is that a bad example? Are you absolutely sure that every single person that is exposed to second hand smoke is adversely affected by exposure to it? I have heard doctors connecting second hand smoke to everything from stomach aches to hangnails. If that is true, how do you explain the people who never smoked, or were exposed to smoke still dying from diseases? One example I can give right this minute is my grandfather. He grew up on a farm, totally isolated. My father tells me he had something akin to agoraphobia. He absolutely refused to leave the farm. He didn't smoke, or have any other bad habits. He died from heart disease at the age of 48. My father, on the other hand, drank like a fish and smoked 2 packs a day. He died of heart disease at the age of 48. I'm 46.

I am by no means defending the health risks of smoking or second hand smoke. I am only saying that it is not, in my opinion, the government's place to manage my risk. If I chose to drive a race car, I may kill myself and take a couple of people in the crowd with me. How about we make that illegal? I chose to fly a stunt plane at an airshow and I may even crash into the crowd. Are the Blue Angels subject to a new law too? We assume a risk every time we get behind the wheel on the streets. Heck, even just going outside is risky business. But don't stay inside, that air is worse than a factory smokestack if you have an energy efficient home. There ought to be a law!! Where does it end.

Any step restricting my rights on my property is a step in the wrong direction. I ask again, where does it end. Ask the people who grew up in Nazi Germany before the persecutions started. They will tell you, it starts with little steps taken over time. Before you know it, you have no rights left.

What i am trying to say is, stay out of my personal life. The Republicans historically want to stay out of your pocketbook, but mandate social issues. (although you couldn't tell it this last go round) The Democrats want you to hand over your wallet, but leave you alone on personal freedoms. I say both of you stay out of my wallet AND my business.

[marklwood]

Originally Posted by bryant

You mean they aren't where you are, man, i thought "Maine" was the most backward state as it always has been known to be.

You aint got nuttin' on us hillbillys

[marklwood]

Oh yeah, and just to stay on topic
APPLE SUCKS

[billyo]

Originally Posted by marklwood

That is the rub though. Labeling the the building that I paid for, pay taxes on. pay the utilities on, should be labeled a "Public" place. If the government wants to create these kind of restrictions on actual public property, that is for the majority to decide. When it comes to private property, the line seems to get moved.

The only argument that holds any water at all is the health of the employees. All of mine are also smokers, so any health concerns seem to be moot. We have employers in this town currently that will terminate employment if you work for them and don't quit smoking. Although it hasn't been challenged in court, I think it would hold up in this state because it is an "at will" employment state.

I think I will go the other way and not hire anyone who doesn't smoke. Doing what no one else does has always served me well in the past. If the law passes to ban smoking in bars, I'll just make it a private club of some sort to allow smoking.

i remember a while back, there was a bar here in so. fla that's been here for quite sometime and very popular, they had karaoke 3x a week, when the no smoking thing came up, they decided to put up tents outside for the smokers, that lasted a few months, due to the fact that here in so.fla ( west palm beach )you'll never know what kind of weather you gonna get ( hot/rain,and sometimes both )and smokers/non smokers alike like to stay in a nice a/c room ,the place closed down. someone bought the business and opened again, this time had two separate closed rooms for smoker/non smokers, the non smoking section didnt do quite well, since all the fun was in the smoking section ( where the karaoke was), the owner decided to put up a sign on the door "smoking is allowed, enter at your own risk " or something like that.

[Musicman51]

If "Your" "private property" is open to the public. It is no longer private. Just because you own and run a bar, does not give you the right to pick and choose which laws you intend to keep. Under your theory, you can deny me the free equal use of your bar simply because i'm a hillbilly with bad spellen... lol You are again...by the "majority"..told, ordered, enforced to..keep noise at a minimum, not sell illegal drugs, allow prostatution, gamling etc. On your own "private" property. Unless of course the "Majority" say you are allowed to do so. So you are comparing apples to oranges here. I can expect to walk into your "Private" open to the public, licensed liquor establishment, and expect you to ensure my health, safety, and well being. If you choose not to because it is your own "private" open to the public for profit property. It won't be for long....

Dale...my brothers wife says his nasty disgusting football habit all winter is starting to git the best of her, and is taking a tole on her health. Under your therory. He has a "right" to his disgusting habit {according to his wife} as well. I will tell him, that he has the "right" to watch football at any bar and resturant in the area because he's a tax payer. And they best supply him with television sets. Or at the very least a seprate room away from his wife, and others who hate football to enjoy his nasty disgusting {according to his wife} addition.

[Musicman51]

Sorry for the double post. But i forgot to mention. That with michigan's anti get tough smoking laws. Starting next month. When you come to michigan for a visit, you better bring plenty of your favorite smokes with ya. Not only are we telling you where you can, and can't smoke. But we are also telling you what type of cigarrettes you can and can't smoke..yep. Starting jan 1st. This state will no longer sell regular cigarettes. We will only sell those that are "Self-extinguishing Cigarettes". Like the seat belt law, it's for a persons own protection. 1000's die each year in house fires caused by an unattended cigaro. Many of those killed never smoked, and through no fault of their own. Some who are complaining about their"rights" being violated should stop and think about the trmendious cost to others that smoking causes. lying in the hospital bed, assisted by breathing machines gasping for breath, running up a cost to the tax payers of around $3,000 a day. Like i said, i did it in my ummm...younger more foolish days. Now my only bad habit is karaoke......
http://www2.woodtv.com/dpp/health/La...s-some-smokers