Comments | tania78: No smoking!

tania78

No smoking!

Jun 07, 2006 10:43

I heard on the radio today that Urbana is making all "public areas" smoke free, and that either Champaign already did, or is going to. Supposedly this includes bars? Anybody hear this or is somebody messing with me. I would love to go down there and not walk out of a bar smelling like an ash tray, but that's just me.

Comments 10

gws57 June 7 2006, 16:12:22 UTC

Article

Looks like it goes into effect August 1st. Still don't know how I feel about these things. It's for everyone's health, safety and well being, and I'd much rather people smoke when people who didn't want them to smoke weren't around. On the other hand, complaining about smoke in a bar is like complaining there's loud music at a concert; smoking and drinking go hand-in-hand.

But it is nice to go out to the bars and not reek, I'll say!

interesting...thought qenvic2 June 7 2006, 17:37:26 UTC

Yeah, I can see both sides too. In restaurants, I totally want those smoke free, cause I'm eating and gross to have smoke while I'm trying to enjoy my chicken sandwich or whatever. But bars...? It'll be interesting.

Do you think this will mean the sohority girls will wear jackets to the bars in the winter now? Or will it still be the shivering nipple-cover walk they do now? I think the reason for not taking the jackets was the smoke.... TIme will tell....

Re: interesting...thought tania78 June 7 2006, 18:33:31 UTC

Oh, I figured the no jacket thing was because they had to look "hot" or whatever. I still think they are relatively skanky idiots for the most part.
But yeah, I'm ok with restaurants, but bars, it'll be nice, but I didn't think it was necessary. However, that brings the issue of the bars inside a restaurant!

Re: interesting...thought qenvic2 June 7 2006, 19:05:55 UTC

True, very true... on all parts (skanky idiots) yeah, that's true...

evilone79 June 7 2006, 19:38:16 UTC

Yeah, I think the no jacket thing is just so they look hot too, plus then they don't have to take the jacket off and leave it somewhere at the bar and try and remember to bring it home (well, at least to frat house) later.

I think as long as restaurants have smoking and non-smoking sections it's fine by me. As far bars, alcohol and smoking go hand-in-hand. Personally, I think it should be up to the establishment to decide, based on market demands. If non-smokers are demanding non-smoking places, then bars will decide on their own to be non-smoking. Why have the government regulate something that capitalism should work out on its own?

gws57 June 7 2006, 21:05:57 UTC

Hear, hear!

Hypocritical bearsfan76 June 8 2006, 04:14:40 UTC

How can you guys state that drinking and smoking go hand in hand and yet still be in favor of a smoking ban? I couldn't disagree more that they go hand in hand. I have no problem drinking without any smoke around me, and would much rather have it that way. You talk to any smoker, though, and they will probably say that eating and smoking go hand in hand, or sitting around in a coffeehouse and smoking go hand in hand. That is the most ridiculous statement around.

As far as a ban goes, I'm completely in favor of it. Smoking/non-smoking sections don't work...smoke doesn't just keep to those boundaries. And frankly, why should I be imposed upon by someone else's smoke if I don't want to? Sure, some may say it is their personal freedom to smoke. But it isn't when it imposes on my freedom to breathe fresh air.

Re: Hypocritical evilone79 June 8 2006, 16:04:07 UTC

I hardly think that saying the market should determine what restaurants and bars be smoke-free or not is hypocritical of recognizing that smoking and drinking go hand-in-hand. And by saying that they go hand-in-hand, I'm not saying this from the perspective of the smoker, (who might associate smoking with any number of activities) but from the perspective of the non-smoker. I know full well that if I go to a bar to drink, people will be smoking, and I'll come out smelling like an ashtray. I have come to associate bars with smokey atmospheres. Same as I have also come to associate restaurants with either smoke-free facilities or as having both smoking and non-smoking sections. While it would certainly be nice not to come home all smelly from a bar (or from a restaurant, for that matter), I don't think the government should get involved. When non-smokers refuse to frequent establishments because they allow smoking, the market will adjust and those places will change their store policy on their own.

Re: Hypocritical bearsfan76 June 9 2006, 04:36:38 UTC

I wasn't talking about the market...I was talking about your comment about drinking and smoking going hand and hand. I have been to many bars that do not have smoking around them. I have also been around many people who have been drinking who are not smoking at the same time. To say that they go hand in hand implies that just because you seem them both occuring at the same time in an instance, that they belong together. Why would that be any different from any other location where people smoke ( ... )

Re: Hypocritical evilone79 June 9 2006, 14:00:22 UTC

Your comment about smoking going hand-in-hand is noted, but see my previous comment about what I meant about smoking going hand-in-hand.

I would like to point out that you yourself stated that business improves for bars where the smoking ban has been enacted. Why would that happen, I wonder? Maybe it's because people who for whatever reason don't appreciate smokey bars now have a place to go? This is why I said let the market correct. If there was a need for this, some bar would become non-smoking, and if they advertised (which undoubtedly they would), they would obviously have a market to cater to, since in your own words, business improves after bars go smoke-free. So explain to me again why this is a bad thing?