🚀 go-pugleaf

carol wrote:
 
 > the survey's that have been done support
 > this.  more people say they will patronize
 > bars when the no smoking law kicks in. the
 > smokers will stay also, they will just go
 > outside.  so its really going to be a win/win
 > for everyone.

As an ex-smoker (5 years today- not a New Years resolution either), I'm
more concerned about losing more freedoms by Big Brother here. In as so
much, I've been hearing alot about all these statistics and surveys with
regards to this new non-smoking law.

Therefore questions-  I've heard it suggested (by you too) that 85% of
Californians do not smoke, and this figured is conveniently left up in
the air (by you too). I'm sure this figure is true which is good news,
but I would ask do 85% of all bar patrons also not smoke?  and is it
assumed that 85% of all bar patrons in all counties and regions of the
state also do not smoke? Accurate numbers should include small taverns
in rural communities etc., don't you think? That is if one is going to
utilize this figure as one of their argued premises for regulating non
smoking bars throughout the entire state.

I think the REAL answer here will be quite different.  After all of the
85% of Californians who don't smoke, many are children (although some
teens smoke), many elders don't smoke either and there are other groups
of non-smokers too who typically just don't frequent bars. Consider too
that most religious people don't smoke or go to bars, but they are part
of that 85% of Californians. The population under consideration here are
soley California bar patrons, right? not all Californians...

If one were to conclude that 99.9% of the population wear bras and
panties because 99.9% of the population wear under garments, this would
indeed be an obvious misstatement of facts (panties commonly understood
by this name being intended mainly for females that is). However in this
conclusion, one must also consider all the babies who wear diapers etc.
(Also, We should make sure we include the Marv Alberts of the world in
this equation of course*&^%$#@). In the end analysis, the TRUE FIGURE of
those who wear panties would probably be less than 25% (remember this is
a guess) and even less who wear both bras and panties.

What I am suggesting is, this PRESUMED 85% "number" of all bar patrons
are non smokers is BOGUS and QUITE INACCURATE! So let's tout correct
figures here...

 > > On the other hand, having a smoking bar could
 > > be good.  Since they have gay bars, why not have
 > > smoking bars?
 
 > they are gay bars only because happy people go 
 > there (just kidding : )
 
 > there should be no need for gay bars ... people
 > should be accepted for who they are, regardless
 > of who their dance partners are ... to segregate
 > gay people from straight people reeks of bigotry ...
 > but this is another topic altogether ...

Again why should anyone, especially government, regulate gay bars,
smoking, non smoking or otherwise (as long as they are ran legally).
I've heard you say because of health concerns, but this doesn't wash.
For waiters (male & female) there are other wait jobs available. It's
their choice where they work, and they must take the good with the
bad... that's the bottom line! Patrons who choose to go there or not
have made their decision too. There are many jobs with many hazards. Are
you as zealous about correcting all them too? People need to be
correctly informed first and then allowed to make their own decisions,
good or bad...
 
 > smoking bars should be allowed but i don't think
 > they will be very profitable ... most people don't
 > want to go places where they will stink to the high
 > heavens after being there 10 minutes.

 > carol

This is your opinion and you are entitled, but non smoking bars may not
work for everyone and everywhere in the state, right? So why should Big
Brother force this on those people and places where it won't work. I
know of some very rural towns where bars, if forced to comply will
indeed go out of business, in spite of your opinion. Is this fair or
right?

When it comes to drinking alcohol, for many smoking & drinking goes hand
in hand. I would suggest because more and more people than ever are not
smoking, we should let the free market decide not Big Bro. I don't want
to go to bars either where it's a smoke house, and that's my choice
(though I really don't go to bars anyway). I'm confident in time
eventually many bars will have gone smoke free. But I firmly stand
behind those PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENTS who choose to allow their
patrons the right to smoke and to make that decision on their own.
THAT'S THIER BUSINESS, NOT YOURS, NOT MINE OR BIG BROTHERS....

LN