Public smoking heavily restricted in San Antonio now?!

[ZedOmega]

I think some of the bar/club employees in San Antonio will agree with me on this, but I'm only speaking from my own opinion as both an employee of a bar and as a smoker.

Congratulations, anti-smokers. You've officially griped loud enough for the mayor to give in to your demands.

According to the mayor's decision, the only places where you can smoke in public now are Alamo Plaza and any location with a river-side patio. Everyone else has a full year to get their customers ready to bow down to these people. That only screws the rest of the city out of their rights. And using public health as the reasoning? Pfft. I like how the anti-smoking zealots are more concerned about the smoking in bars than they are about the 'getting wasted to the point of being unable to drive and doing so anyway' thing.

Also in the report, it was mentioned that 95% of all restaurants here are already smoke-free (no problem here as far as that goes, even though I miss being able to light up while eating; I even miss my old corner booth in the smoking section...), but they have no idea how many bars in the city will be affected. Translation: they didn't even do the research to find out the economic critical hit the city's about to take from their decision. Most of the people who come to the bar I work at smoke while they drink, because it helps them relax from an otherwise shitty day. Now, take away the smoking and just focus on the drinking now.

Have fun driving home.

Thank you, Mayor Castro, for fucking the bar and club scenes. Now please kindly go fuck yourself.

[Greenday]

So, what you are trying to say, is that your city is doing what most of the country has already done?

Or are you complaining that non-smokers want to enjoy bars too? That they actually followed the democratic process this country was based on...and it worked?

I see no wrong doing here.

[KnitShoni]

I've been smoking for a long time. I HATED being in places where you could smoke indoors. The amount of second-hand smoke in an enclosed area made ME sick. And from what I've seen in Houston, the smoking ban has not impacted business or drunk-driving rates as much as people feared.

[ZedOmega]

So, what you are trying to say, is that your city is doing what most of the country has already done?

Or are you complaining that non-smokers want to enjoy bars too? That they actually followed the democratic process this country was based on...and it worked?

I see no wrong doing here.

A non-smoker will see a sign that says 'this business does not provide a non-smoking section' and either walk in anyway or leave. An anti-smoker will see the same sign and start ranting about how the business doesn't care about public health. And if you think this situation's bad, wait until the eventual protest of the decision.

As far as the democratic process goes, yeah, it works, and I'm glad it does because it still proves that people still have a say in matters. Doesn't mean I can't bitch about being on the losing side, though.

I've been smoking for a long time. I HATED being in places where you could smoke indoors. The amount of second-hand smoke in an enclosed area made ME sick. And from what I've seen in Houston, the smoking ban has not impacted business or drunk-driving rates as much as people feared.

There's only one way to find out, though. What I'm going to do from this point is check and see how public smoking bans/restrictions affect tourist cities, since SA relies on its tourism industry pretty heavily.

That still leaves the question of what's going to happen to the small-business ice houses in the city. The ones I've been to have outdoor patio areas or otherwise open areas in the building itself (no walls), and if public smoking's restricted to just businesses with patios on the River Walk, that's going to put them at heavy risk of lost business and, worst-case scenario, foreclosure.

[Plaidman]

Plenty of places do not allow smoking in bars. Portland was hit by that a few years. Yeah, bars thought they were going to lose business.

Turns out that gained more business, as the masses of people that stayed away from bars because of the smoke, went in.

There are also plenty of loopholes around it, such as making an off section outside, (Littery it was a stand with three walls, a heater and chairs. Smoke away).

I'm a nonsmoker myself. I understand the want of health care. It's not fair to others that don't want to have that crap in their lungs to be force fed it.

Yeah, I understand the whole, "Well if they don't want it they can leave"

Really? I mean... really? Someone there first, enjoying themselves, and they must leave so you can enjoy yourself?

Nether is fair really. Nether should leave just for the other. One should leave if the first person was there FIRST however, and I've seen plenty of smokers just say fuck you, it's my right to smoke in your face, so to enact that would be impossible.

That being said, I voted against the bar smoking banned. Not that I was for it. I'm not. I enjoy bar food, but can barely breath in there.

No, I was against it because I feel that bars, as a place for adults, is a place to relax. It's a place where your no longer in front of minors and MUST watch out what you say or do or you injure their overstated egos and /impressonable/ young minds. It's a place where you can be who you are, and in some places, the sterotype gender, and have little to no worry about anything. It's an adults playground.

I would have PERFERED an option though, which I think would have been the BEST thing to do.

Such as a bar being ether smoke-free or smoker-friendly. It's proven that bars can make just as much money, if not more, from nonsmokers then smokers. Cleanup might be somewhat easier too, with the lack of cig butts to clean up.
That, and a worker can choose at that point to work at a smoke bar or smoke free bar. At that point they made the CHOICE to work ina unhealthy eviroment, rather then have it FORCE on them.

[daleduke17]

PThat, and a worker can choose at that point to work at a smoke bar or smoke free bar. At that point they made the CHOICE to work ina unhealthy eviroment, rather then have it FORCE on them.

They made the choice to work in an unhealthy environment even before the smoking bans.

[Plaidman]

That is true daleduk17, but alot of them were claiming they only could do bartending, or stripping, for various reasons.

Some claim that stripping in a smoke filled area made them loose their looks, their primary way of income and some sued.

Just is life. Rather then work hard, or try a different line of work, they try to find ways to make money off their so called difficulties.

[ZedOmega]

I was waiting for you to show up in this thread.

Plenty of places do not allow smoking in bars. Portland was hit by that a few years. Yeah, bars thought they were going to lose business.

Turns out that gained more business, as the masses of people that stayed away from bars because of the smoke, went in.

The results of business increases/decreases varies on the crowds they bring in. Portland is one thing, but cities in Hawaii experienced a drop in tourism income (an estimated 12% from Japanese tourists in particular), and in Denton, TX (the town nearest to Texas A&M), the reports of lost income ranged from 9% to 50%. And I'm guessing that the higher loss reports came from the town's hotspots.

There are also plenty of loopholes around it, such as making an off section outside, (Littery it was a stand with three walls, a heater and chairs. Smoke away).

We've already had something like that implemented here. Restaurants can elect to make their outdoor areas smoker-friendly, but most of them don't. Bingo halls have an enclosure for the players who smoke, complete with ventilation systems. But unless there's some sort of compromise brought up within the next year, all of those measures go bye-bye.

I'm a nonsmoker myself. I understand the want of health care. It's not fair to others that don't want to have that crap in their lungs to be force fed it.

Yeah, I understand the whole, "Well if they don't want it they can leave"

Really? I mean... really? Someone there first, enjoying themselves, and they must leave so you can enjoy yourself?

Nether is fair really. Nether should leave just for the other. One should leave if the first person was there FIRST however, and I've seen plenty of smokers just say fuck you, it's my right to smoke in your face, so to enact that would be impossible.

And unfortunately, that mentality goes both ways. I've had personal experiences where I light up while nobody else is around, an anti-smoker walking up to me, and saying 'Turn that shit off! I want to breathe!' I also don't smoke around people who ask me politely to put the cigarette out; I'll either put it out on the spot or move downwind of them. The smokers that tell someone 'fuck you' in that situation are giving the rest of us a black eye, and I fucking hate that.

That being said, I voted against the bar smoking banned. Not that I was for it. I'm not. I enjoy bar food, but can barely breath in there.

No, I was against it because I feel that bars, as a place for adults, is a place to relax. It's a place where your no longer in front of minors and MUST watch out what you say or do or you injure their overstated egos and /impressonable/ young minds. It's a place where you can be who you are, and in some places, the sterotype gender, and have little to no worry about anything. It's an adults playground.

And honestly, that's the way it should be.

I would have PERFERED an option though, which I think would have been the BEST thing to do.

Such as a bar being ether smoke-free or smoker-friendly. It's proven that bars can make just as much money, if not more, from nonsmokers then smokers. Cleanup might be somewhat easier too, with the lack of cig butts to clean up.
That, and a worker can choose at that point to work at a smoke bar or smoke free bar. At that point they made the CHOICE to work ina unhealthy eviroment, rather then have it FORCE on them.

I've already touched on the variations on how smoking bans affect businesses earlier in the reply, so I won't repeat myself on that. But I'd also like to interject that if someone wants to work at a bar that allows smoking, they don't have any right to complain if they can't handle the air in there. By law (well, up until this point, anyway), any establishment that doesn't have a non-smoking section has to show signage saying so. But we all know how some people will claim not to see a sign in plain view...

[Plaidman]

Not sure if it thats a complitment or an insult that you were waiting for me. I know I have very adnormal views compared to others, but... you think I'm that bad a person?

Curious if my view was radically different from waht you were expecting.

Yeah, the smoking in face was a bad example. It does go first. My main point was, whomever is first, it isn't fair to basically enject them so you can ether enjoy your smoke or enjoy your nonsmoking.

If I'm with friends, and they smoke? Then they smoke. I don't cough, or hack, or act overdramatic like some people that are NOT allergic to smoke do. If we are at my place, they do NOT smoke inside. They smoke outside. They respect me that much. But anywhere else where's its allowed? Smoke away. Hell I've bought them cigs before.

I do agree that if someone chooses to work in a place that allows smoking, then they really can't complain about any issues that may arise. Even with todays job market, they can use it temporary as a stepping stone.

Point is, as much as I do not like it, it's not harming me in anyway advertly. Yeah, secondhand smoke exists. I've dealt with insane customers extremly pissed off that they belive it's MY fault the cig prices are high.

Smokers already have major chances of getting cancers and various diseases, ontop of many antismoker crusades. It's getting to the point they can only smoke in their own home, and even then, with some people pressing, they may not be able to do that if they have babies. Cigs are also extremly expensive in some places.

There no need to further badmouth people who made the choice to do so, as LONG as they're respectful about it, to a certain degree. (Such as an antismoker screaming to for you to put out your cig when they're just walking by, deserve to be told to fuck off in no uncertain terms).

[ZedOmega]

Not sure if it thats a complitment or an insult that you were waiting for me. I know I have very adnormal views compared to others, but... you think I'm that bad a person?

Curious if my view was radically different from waht you were expecting.

To be flat-out honest, I meant it as a compliment. I won't pretend to agree with some of your viewpoints, but I respect the fact that your debate skills revolve more around decent counter-arguments and a lack of ad hominem. As far as what my expectations of your views were, I really didn't have any. Anticipating a partiuclar response based on reputation is the worst mistake anyone can make.

Yeah, the smoking in face was a bad example. It does go first. My main point was, whomever is first, it isn't fair to basically enject them so you can ether enjoy your smoke or enjoy your nonsmoking.

If I'm with friends, and they smoke? Then they smoke. I don't cough, or hack, or act overdramatic like some people that are NOT allergic to smoke do. If we are at my place, they do NOT smoke inside. They smoke outside. They respect me that much. But anywhere else where's its allowed? Smoke away. Hell I've bought them cigs before.

My girlfriend and I have a similar understanding as far as the smoking issue goes. When we're out on the streets and it's one of the rare weekends I have off from work, she'll put up with me lighting up in front of her. Most of the time, she won't even complain if I smoke in the car unless the wind blows a particular way when we're at a dead stop and the smoke ends up inside the car. At home, though, it's a different story: I've got my own little smoking area on both the front and back porches.

I do agree that if someone chooses to work in a place that allows smoking, then they really can't complain about any issues that may arise. Even with todays job market, they can use it temporary as a stepping stone.

Point is, as much as I do not like it, it's not harming me in anyway advertly. Yeah, secondhand smoke exists. I've dealt with insane customers extremly pissed off that they belive it's MY fault the cig prices are high.

Smokers already have major chances of getting cancers and various diseases, ontop of many antismoker crusades. It's getting to the point they can only smoke in their own home, and even then, with some people pressing, they may not be able to do that if they have babies. Cigs are also extremly expensive in some places. [/QUOTE]

Me and my $6-a-pack Camel Wides agree with you on that. Since the first time we've had the great smoking-ban debate down here, I've been attempting to get myself used to the snus that Camel has been pushing pretty hard lately. They're cheaper than smokes, averaging roughly $2.50/tin down here, and they're good for when I'm out of cigarettes. Adapting myself to them's a stone bitch, though.

There no need to further badmouth people who made the choice to do so, as LONG as they're respectful about it, to a certain degree. (Such as an antismoker screaming to for you to put out your cig when they're just walking by, deserve to be told to fuck off in no uncertain terms).

God, I'd love to do that. Unfortunately, the mindset nowadays amongst most anti-smokers is that smokers are evil, evil people who don't care about everyone around them. At this point, the joke I made a while back to my boss about comparing smokers and anti-smokers to Democrats and Republicans (one side believe the other is a bunch of malicious jackasses) might be a little closer to the truth.

...oh, fuck. TheTruth.com. Don't get me started on those assholes, please.

[Greenday]

Just to point out with losses in revenue by Hawaii, that probably is more likely due to the crappy world economy and how expensive it is to travel there. Traveling across an ocean becomes a tough choice when money is tight. I was also not aware smoking cigarettes was such a big fad in Japan either.

As for how tourist areas will do, I live on the Jersey Shore, one of the biggest tourist regions in the country. We were one of the first states to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. People claimed it'd kill those industries. Multiple years later and I don't see any difference. No bars or restaurants closed down because people stopped coming since they couldn't smoke.

[Plaidman]

Whew. I thought I just made another person hate me for me.

But I do agree with everything you said. I may not smoke, but doesn't mean I'm against it. It's a choice people make that only harms themselves.

You should been here in Portland. Snus was FREE at our stores for the longest time. Along with the Orbs, Chew, Stripes. All of them. Didn't even have purchuse anything. We had a giaint stack on the counter, free for anyone 18 and over.

[ZedOmega]

How'd that promotion go over?

[Hobbs]

Thank you, Mayor Castro, for fucking the bar and club scenes. Now please kindly go fuck yourself.

Hey, Mayor Castro's done a lot for our city. Don't getting pissy at him for doing one thing you don't like.

As a person who has to work in a club that gets very smokey, I'm so glad that they've done this. I'm so sick of people walking up and breathing half a pack into my face when they request a song. All my clothes get that smokey smell in them and it ends up permeating my room at night, giving me a headache.

Nicotine also affects eye-sight, and as someone hoping to become a pilot, it really pisses me off that I have to be exposed to that crap.

[Plaidman]

How'd that promotion go over?

Eh. Depended on the store.

Some stores we couldn't ever have enough of the free product, and would run out of the 288 + product from Coremark same day we'd get in.

Other stores.... we couldn't PAY customers to take it, so we had to do alot of store exchanges.


Overall, it was a success as told by company. Not sure HOW having something for free is considered a success, but whatever.