Although the majority of the article is interesting, I'd have to disagree with Saletan's contention that banning smoking in pubs and bars is "strange". I'd imagine that any non-smoker living in California or NY would agree with me. As a native New Yorker, I can testify that the bar experience changed overnight (in a resoundingly positive way) after the smoking ban passed. Before, I was loathe to ever enter a bar, because even minutes spent inside meant that my clothes would stink of tobacco smoke all night. All of a sudden, I could actually sit down in a pub and engage in an hours-long debate with friends without stinking like an ashtray! My bar attendance and that of most of my friends skyrocketed.

I'd like to hope that Saletan's comment "There's nothing more annoying than a stinking cigarette when you're trying to get stinking drunk" was not intended to be as snarky as it comes off. Perhaps he's unaware that not everyone goes to a bar to get "stinking drunk"? When I was a grad student, the local bar was the hub of grad student social life. As we had weekly Monday exams, nearly the entire class would converge on the one bar with Monday-night drink specials every Monday night, even the teetotalers. While some were admittedly there to get "stinking drunk", most of us were there to socialize with our classmates, dance and relax. And yes, a bar full of stinking cigarettes would have been awfully annoying when I was trying to socialize, dance and relax.

I hate smoking, but I can see Saletan's point about going too far. Instead of banning smoking everywhere, they should have given bars and restaurants the choice of becoming exclusively smoking or non-smoking. That would have been fair.

The problem with that choice is that in practice it would be the same as giving bars the choice to either follow the rule or ignore it.

That's what I think too. They could have smoking and non-smoking bars and restaurants, just hang a sign out front to delineate...More bars, more restaurants, more people going to the places they want without any hassle or stink, more business owners making money.

Seems logical to me, but I guess logic doesn't usually rule in these sorts of things.

Howso? If the bar is designated as non-smoking, say they have to have a smoking license, then if someone lights up, all the patrons have to do is lodge a complaint with the licensing board. Hefty fine, non-smoking license revoked, there goes all your regular customers.

I like non-smoking bars. I go to my local bar a lot more now that it's nonsmoking, because I can sit, have a drink or two and something to eat, and watch tv and chat with my neighbors. Going to a bar is not just about getting drunk--it's also about socializing, relaxing, and spending time with friends. Now, you can still go to the bar and smoke, you just can be in the bar and smoke. If you need your nic fit, you just step outside for a few minutes. Not a huge imposition, really. Localities that don't want smoking bans can just not pass them. They seem to have worked out pretty well in practice.

I do agree with the point that demonizing tobacco and nicotine make for some silly results. The reason cigarettes are a health hazard is because they produce smoke, not because they have nicotine. So, the public health goal should be to reduce the smoking, rather than eliminate the nicotine. If you want to encourage people to quit smoking, you should allow for the availability of safe nicotine delivery products. The point should be to regulate the products for safety, and then let people who want them buy them.

"Not a huge imposition, really."

Depends where you live. In New England, in January on a cold and snowing day, it's a huge imposition. ;)

I noticed when I smoked that the few bars and restaurants which were exempt from the local smoking prohibition started doing a huge business when the ban was imposed. There is nothing preventing a bar from banning smoking on its premises voluntarily; presumably, most did not do so because they thought it would hurt business.

I love the smoking license idea! Extra source of revenue for the community, provides a place for the smokers to relax and hang with friends and since there's a good market for non-smoking bars also lets us nonsmokers have a place to go...

First let me state that I will NOT go into ANY bar or any other public place that allows smoking. I hate the smell of smoke in a 'closed' room.

BUT what right to FORCE what I like on EVERYONE else.

So even in CA where I live I believe there should be bars that allow smoking. Just grant a limited number of permits to, say, 25% of the bars in the area. This way there would be bars for non smokers AND still bars for the morons that like to stink!

This is fair. Why do people feel it has to ONLY be about what THEY like?

You have it absolutely right, and that is exactly the argument we made years ago in planning a civil litigation strategy to enforce the no smoking in pubs law in California -- even non-drinkers often go to bars with friends, colleagues, etc. They shouldn't have to leave eyes watering, throats constricted, reeking of smoke.

Also, Saletan, like many people, doesn't realize that for over four years after the Labor Code section applying to bars went into effect, the vast majority of bars were flagrantly violating the law with impunity. This, of course, allowed them to compete unfairly against those that were abiding by the law, in violaton of California's Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.)

Well done. How do I give your post a positive review?

Where I live, women are told that, when at a bar, they should keep their drink in sight (to prevent it from being drugged). In the next city over from me smoking is illegal in bars that serve food and it is also illegal for anyone to take their drink outside.

Has this led to problems in California, or other places where smoking inside a bar is illegal?

You got me thinking; Has there been an increase in sexual assults because women have to smoke outdoors here in CA?

I have seen the places outside of bars where one has to go smoke. They are dark and NOT very nice. Plus since they are outside and near parked cars it would be A LOT easier to gab a women and drag her away.

I don't have any facts to back this up but it is a good question. Something I'll have to look into.

CrookedCubed:

I hate smoking, but I can see Saletan's point about going too far. Instead of banning smoking everywhere, they should have given bars and restaurants the choice of becoming exclusively smoking or non-smoking. That would have been fair.

That's how we used to operate our public schools in the South. We called it "separate but equal". Just make sure that the second class citizens have their own facilities.

I'm just waiting to see who gets relegated to second class status next.

I guess I don't see why it's the government's responsibility to ensure that you have smoke-free bars to hang out in with your friends. If a bar wants to go smoke-free, good for that bar, it will have earned your business...if it doesn't want to, it doesn't get your business or those of people like you. Seems like the free market should be allowed to let that play out...