Do you agree with Minneapolis' recently passed law?

[dazzleman]

For restauraunts, it's ok, though I'm still not a huge fan of it. For bars, no.

I personally hate the smell of smoke, and it makes me sick, but restauraunts probably should be able to have a smoking section, provided that it's clearly seperated from the rest of the restauraunt. A bar is a different case, however, and I don't think smoking should be banned there. It's part of the bar experience, for better or for worse.

Well, Eric, we've found an issue in which I have a more liberal position than you.

I support the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars.  We have one in New York City, and one was just recently passed in Connecticut, and I love it.

I can go out for a drink, and not go home stinking.  Not to mention the health effects of breathing in second hand smoke.

I don't deny people's right to smoke, but to smoke in a closed environment infringes on the rights of those who don't want to breathe in that disgusting smell.  If you need to smoke, go outside.

I allow no smoking in my house or my car.  I grew up with constant smoking, and it's probably the reason that I have a respiratory weakness today.  I'm done with it.  I'll never live with smoking again.

Separate smoking sections don't work all that well in many restaurants.  There has to be real physical separation, and a ventilation system that doesn't mix up the air from the two sections.  Few places have this.

My sense is that in NY, after suffering some temporary loss in business, the business in bars is bouncing back.  It may even end up better because non-smokers who couldn't stand the smell previously will find a trip to the bar more enjoyable.

Some parts of California banned smoking in bars 15 years ago.  I was out there at that time, and it was a really novel idea then.  But I thought it was a great idea then, and I do now.

You Michigan guys just haven't caught up with us coastal elites yet...

[dazzleman]

Ban in restaurants. Smoking sections in bars.

Most bars aren't big enough for a separate smoking section, and few have the physical separation necessary to keep the smoke from the smoking section from going into the non-smoking section.

It would end up like the old "smoking sections" on the airplanes, before smoking was banned entirely.  The smoke spread beyond the smoking rows, and was carried further by the ventilation system, so the whole plane ended up being the smoking section, whether any cigarettes were actually being lit there or not.

I would even go so far as to allow bars to have a smoking section as long as there was physical separation and a separate ventilation system, so that no smoke from the smoking section would drift into the non-smoking section.  But practically speaking, few bars would be able to provide that, given restraints in size.

[dazzleman]

Hah, it was bound to happen eventually.

I'm definitely with you on the hatred of smoking. It's certainly a tough issue.

I agree that restauraunts should have to have clearly seperated sections, physically, and the seperate ventilation systems, too, if they are going to allow smoking.

I guess I just view a bar as being something different. Children can't enter them, for one thing, and helping children by protecting them from second hand smoke is one of the best reasons for a smoking ban. Unlike adults, they can't choose whether or not to enter a restauraunt, and whether to be in the vicinity of smokers, so the state definitely has a compelling interest in protecting children from smoke.

I agree that it's often in the best interests of a bar to be smoke free, but I'll side with the libertarians on this one (scary, I know ) and say that if that's true, the bar will choose to ban smoking on their own, which they certainly have the right to do.

I guess I'm an extremist on this issue, but I really don't think smoking should be allowed in any public place.  I think smoke is just as dangerous to adults as to children, and just as unpleasant.  I don't even find it necessary to rely on the children crutch in order to support a full smoking ban.

I think it's simple.  Your rights end when they begin to harm other people.  And smoking in public places does that.  Since it is the smoker, and not the non-smoker, who is creating the problem, it is incumbent upon the smoker, and not the non-smoker, to adjust his behavior.  That's why I don't buy into the "if the non-smoker doesn't like the smell, he can stay home" argument.

Long-term, I think the smoking bans will be good for business.  Smokers will go to bars anyway, and adjust by going outside, which they have been doing with increasing frequency anyway.  And non-smokers will go more often, not having to deal with the noxious smell, not to mention the cleaning costs.  To go there after work, wearing clothes that need to be dry-cleaned, can be very expensive, because when you leave the bar, everything reeks and all needs to go to the cleaners before it can be worn again.

[dazzleman]

Of course, I'm sure Dibble is ready to fire back with "restauraunts and bars aren't public places", so I'll let him handle the libertarian argument. He's better at advocating it than I am.

Which is true, they aren't, though I think of a restauraunt as more public than a bar, since the main focus is the food, rather than alcohol. It makes it more of a family environment; although as Dibble pointed out, technically kids can be in bars, the main focus of a bar is on a product that it's illegal for kids to buy or consume, so it's clearly not a kid-friendly environment. The Supreme Court also has ruled before that restauraunts and hotels are in a different category for things such as civil rights laws, since they deal with interstate commerce.

Smoking definitely is dangerous to adults just as much as kids, but at least adults do have choices about whether they'll subject themselves to it or not; kids obviously can't choose, and shouldn't have to suffer because their parents force them to be around smoke.

I guess maybe my argument isn't clear from a philosophical point of view, but I clearly see a restauraunt as more of a public place than a bar. I guess the primary focus being on alcohol (non-essential for survival, though I suppose some could disagree on that point ) rather than food (essential for survival) changes the atmosphere in my view.

They're both public places according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which I support.  That law delineated which types of establishments were denied the right to claim privacy and were forced to give up total control over who they wanted to serve and under what circumstances.  Neither a restaurant or a bar owner has the right under current law to unilaterally determine the circumstances under which he/she will serve patrons.

Private clubs are exempt, and private clubs may also discriminate in their membership practices.  This I support, because you have to draw the line somewhere.  But there is definite precedent for calling both restaurants and bars public places.