Smoke Free Rock Bar

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Friday Mar 04, 2005

I don't really know what to think of this topic. The music industry is a bitch to be in. I have bigger concerns than getting a little second hand smoke in the clubs. *shrugs*

Jerry C · Post by **Jerry C** » Saturday Mar 05, 2005

I personally would like to see it tried. We're not talking about outlawing it, (GOd knows the tax money that would be lost),just not allowing it in public buildings, so there wouldn't be a need for black market or prohibition.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Saturday Mar 05, 2005

Jerry C wrote:just not allowing it in public buildings

Yes, but clubs aren't public buildings. They are privately owned businesses in which the public chooses to attend or not attend. This website is privatley owned. I must adhere to the rules put forth by Ron. If I don't like it, then I can choose to leave.

Again, I say if I bar wishes to differentiate its product and offer a smoke-free environment, then great. Since clubs are offering a product, it should be up to the market to determine whether to be smoke-free or not. There has to be a certain amount of demand for a smoke-free club scene. The question is whether the equilibrium price is enough for club owners to make a profit.

HurricaneBob · Post by **HurricaneBob** » Saturday Mar 05, 2005

Ill go doen wif a smok in mah mouf....waanna fight?

HurricaneBob · Post by **HurricaneBob** » Saturday Mar 05, 2005

Hurricane wrote:Ill go doen wif a snok in mah mouf....waanna fight?

Bob quit now.....or fight?

Ill go doen wif a snok in mah mouf....waanna fight?

Hey yous, wanna fight?

Bob now cmon, quit bein a goof..

Ok damnnet

HurricaneBob · Post by **HurricaneBob** » Saturday Mar 05, 2005

talking to myself again...

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Saturday Mar 05, 2005

Ron wrote:I am confused by what you mean by "demand side prohibition". Maybe I'm misinterpreting your intent.

Demand-side refers to the economic object that creates the demand for a product. In this case, it is smokers. So, demand-side prohibition is prohibiting smokers from smoking, even though they can still buy tobacco.

It isn't here now, but the incrementalism is in progress and will lead to an all out ban on smoking. It may take 20 or even 50 years but it will happen. Tobacco companies are already preparing with diversification and a slow movement out of tobacco production. They know they can make as much or more profit by using that land for other products. There are tax revenue implications, but the politicians know this will dry up as more and more people quit smoking with every new tax and tobacco price increase.

I would not compare tobacco with alcohol or weed. Tobacco doesn't do much more than destroy your lungs and speed up your heart rate. At least the others produce definite results. Many smokers that would like to quit would welcome a ban on tobacco, myself included. It would make it that much easier to quit if it was difficult to buy. Tobacco's effects just aren't worth the hassle of going to a dealer and paying $100/ounce and then rolling it up yourself.

BTW, Prohibition was the biggest misuse of the Constitution in history. The Constitution was never meant to act as a federal statute for "things". It is only there to lay down the federal government's operating rules and to preserve ideals.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Saturday Mar 05, 2005

Jerry C wrote:I personally would like to see it tried. We're not talking about outlawing it, (GOd knows the tax money that would be lost),just not allowing it in public buildings, so there wouldn't be a need for black market or prohibition.

I have never wanted to own a bar...too many restrictions, liabilities and just hassles in general. However, this thread really has me thinking about it. Imagine a non-smoking Cisco's (now Red Lobster in Altoona for you newer arrivals). Since there are more non-smokers that smokers, you'd probably have to close the entrance by 10:00 if it was the only game in town.

hiflyer1970 · Post by **hiflyer1970** » Sunday Mar 06, 2005

All these places are going smoke-free and that's OK, but give us smokers a place to take up our bad habit, a smoking room or something. When I'm at the airport for hrs. waiting for a flight or just flew 8 hrs. and get off the plane and need a smoke and the whole place is smoke free I'm a little on edge. I would be more than happy to go to a special designated area. I can't reallly leave the airport to go outside and go back through all the security and miss a flight. It feels like us smokers are being descriminated against.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Sunday Mar 06, 2005

hiflyer1970 wrote: All these places are going smoke-free and that's OK, but give us smokers a place to take up our bad habit, a smoking room or something. When I'm at the airport for hrs. waiting for a flight or just flew 8 hrs. and get off the plane and need a smoke and the whole place is smoke free I'm a little on edge. I would be more than happy to go to a special designated area. I can't reallly leave the airport to go outside and go back through all the security and miss a flight. It feels like us smokers are being descriminated against.

I'm a non-smoker, but I think that militant anti-smoking mentality is funny. With some people, if you light up, it's right up there with infantcide and beastality.

People should do some research on all of the nasty shit they breath in during an average day, and that little bit of second-hand smoke will seem insignificant.

pxprocks · Post by **pxprocks** » Tuesday Mar 08, 2005

Oh I gotta jump in on the smoking thing here.... Where to start damn....I come from a smoking family everyone in my family with few exceptions smokes....My father smoked (2-3 packs a day) from the time he was 10 till the day he died he was 73 and people act like the second hand smoke at the bar a couple nights a month is going to kill them...granted smoking is a nasty habit i wish i could quit but i cant...but i work my ass off i pay my taxes and i think i have the right to have a smoke when i wake up or after a meal or while seeing a band...i am for the most part a courtious smoker...if i know it bothers someone i will usually put it out if asked politely....but dammit dont sit in the smoking section if you are a non smoker and ask me not to....lol....anyways ....with the way the LCB is crackin down on the area bands and bars i cant believe people want the govt. to take more things away....I am all for a smoke free night because that gives people a choice...choice as in free will as in what this country is supposed to be based on....non smokers dont think it is fair for bars to let people smoke....fine then how is it fair for them to tell us smokers we cant????...no smoking nights would be a great thing...if i wanted to see the band enough i would go and respect the night and go outside to smoke....but i think it should be up to the club owner to make the call....NOT THE GOVT. i mean come on people some one said it im not sure who i think bassist_25...but everyone breathes alot worse shit in a day....your car spits out more nasty shit than a bar full of smokers...ya want the govt to ban driving?...could happen if we the peoples keep letting them take things away...first its smoking then booze then who knows what else....hell as a smoker the second hand smoke gets to me sometimes...but ya know what i do??? i leave or step outside for a minute.....i dont know the exact numbers but i would bet the smoker to non smoker split is probably about 50/50...hell stand at sheetz for 10 minutes and have a coffee and count how many people buy smokes and how many dont...lol....but i think i am done for now...everyone has valid points on this but there has to be a happy medium somewhere....

Post by **Ron** » Tuesday Mar 08, 2005

I caught your drift, Lonewolf. My thinking was that prohibition can't really affect demand with an addictive substance.

I was looking at the normal supply/demand scanario based on the product (tobacco). Now that I look at it, tobacco doesn't fit that mold. Usually as demand goes down and the supply remains the same, the manufacturers lower prices to increase sales. With tobacco, the demand is dropping and the supply is relatively stable, but because of lawsuits and taxes, the price is increasing.

Getting one whiff of gasoline while filling your tank is probably more dangerous to your health than a night spent in a smoke filled bar. The vapors from a shot glass of gasoline being spilled contain as much carcinogenic material as the average exhaust output from 50 miles of driving. We are surrounded by nasty chemicals in the air. Cigarette smoke is but one of many carcinogens, and not a very powerful one when compared to something like the vapors from gasoline.

rreihart · Post by **rreihart** » Tuesday Mar 08, 2005

Ron wrote:Getting one whiff of gasoline while filling your tank is probably more dangerous to your health than a night spent in a smoke filled bar. The vapors from a shot glass of gasoline being spilled contain as much carcinogenic material as the average exhaust output from 50 miles of driving. We are surrounded by nasty chemicals in the air. Cigarette smoke is but one of many carcinogens, and not a very powerful one when compared to something like the vapors from gasoline.

Good points Ron, but I would still rather smell gasoline than cigarettes!!

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Tuesday Mar 08, 2005

Ron wrote: I caught your drift, Lonewolf. My thinking was that prohibition can't really affect demand with an addictive substance.

That's very true. Whenever there is a demand for a product and it is outlawed, it just pushes it into the black market. That's why the Drug War is a waste of time and money.

Ron wrote:

I was looking at the normal supply/demand scanario based on the product (tobacco). Now that I look at it, tobacco doesn't fit that mold. Usually as demand goes down and the supply remains the same, the manufacturers lower prices to increase sales. With tobacco, the demand is dropping and the supply is relatively stable, but because of lawsuits and taxes, the price is increasing.

Keep in mind though, when demand decreases due to non-price factors (i.e. ciggerettes cause bad health), it actually causes equilibrium price to rise. Of course, the lawsuits are also a major contributor to the price hike, since overhead is usually passed on to the consumer. It kind of reminds me of that scene in Fight Club where Edward Norton's character talks about doing the cost-analysis of getting sued vs. doing a product recall.