Where's there's a will... there's a place to smoke

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:30 pm

OmahaChannel.com wrote: Flood Of Permits Request Beer Gardens, Sidewalk Cafes

LINCOLN, Neb. -- Lincoln's smoking ban has prompted a flood of applications for sidewalk cafes and beer gardens in the capital city.

On Election Day, voters overwhelmingly approved a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. When election officials certify the results Nov. 29, the ban will go into effect. Under the ban, only outdoor beer gardens, some hotel rooms and research studies that involve smoking will be exempt.

Now more bar and restaurant owners want to find a way to allow smoking.

Sidewalk cafes are different than beer gardens. They're located on city right-of-way and are leased on an annual basis. To qualify, the business has to either have a full kitchen or get most of its revenue through food sales.

"We're trying to support outdoor dining, not outdoor drinking," said Jeff Cole, the head of the committee that reviews sidewalk cafe requests.

Cole said there are a number of determining factors including sidewalk space, including traffic patterns and the historic status of a building. Historical buildings will not be granted permits.

Mary Rouner, a pub owner, fought the smoking ban and now believes the city has traded the problem of indoor smoke for outdoor drinking. On a weekend night in Lincoln, 3,000 to 4,000 people may be downtown at once.

"I think to monitor it outside is just opening a whole can of worms," Rouner said. "With us putting these sidewalk cafes in front of buildings, it pushes people out further into the street, so it's a safety concern."

The city is trying to come up with ways to work with businesses, like limiting the hours for sidewalk cafes, and requiring removable barriers for bar closing times.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:45 pm

Lincoln = Backwards Thinking

OmahaRules · Post by **OmahaRules** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:08 am

Maybe a smoke free environment is the wave of the future. I personally don't smoke and would prefer to go to places that are smoke free. Maybe not so much backwards thinking as for forward thinking.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:22 am

Yeah, I don't see a smoking ban as being anything BUT forward thinking. Although perhaps Streets is referring to these establishments looking for ways around the smoking ban.

Not entirely unrelated... but I have to say... looking over all of these most recent posts across these threads Aaron... someone has got to fill that half empty cup of yours! Gee whiz... you're depressing me.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:50 am

Can't wait until Omaha bans smoking in restaurants. Ruins a good meal and everything else.

DMRyan · Post by **DMRyan** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:56 am

I don't care about smoking in bars, but I agree that all restaurants should go smoke free. I hate it when the only thing seperating the smoking section from the non-smoking is six foot high piece of glass.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:41 am

I smoke every now and again and even I want them to ban smoking in resturaunts. There is no need to smoke while you eat. I just go outside if I REALLY NEED to smoke. Hate the smoking section.

edsas · Post by **edsas** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:42 pm

I think smoke-free public places encourage more business, because second-hand smoke drives away would-be nonsmoking customers, like my wife. On our last visit to Nebraska, we cut a visit with friends at a bar short because of all the smoke.

So good for Lincoln. Omaha should follow suit as soon as possible. Plus, having more outdoor cafes is a good thing. Except in January.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:10 pm

I agree, edsas. I generally go out to the bars at least once on the weekend. The other night, I stay in and hang out with friends or my girlfriend mainly because I don't want to put up with the smoke at the bars. None of my friends want to either. If the bars were smoke free, I guarentee we would go out both nights on the weekend, and probably another night during the week. Many times, people will ask me if I want to go out on a Wednesday/Thursday, and I'll decline strictly for the fact that I don't want to deal with the smoke.

People keep worrying that it will hurt business. I have two arguements...

1. Why should people's health come second to smoking?
2. If 80% of America doesn't smoke, wouldn't this help business? Non-smokers make up the majority, hence more people who are opposed to smoking would now come out as opposed to the number of people they would lose that are smokers. It's just simple math!

DMRyan · Post by **DMRyan** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:23 pm

That 80% number of people that don't smoke flies right out the window in a social setting with alcohol like a bar. The bar and smoking go hand in hand. People can socialize at home or at a smoke free lounge if they can't deal with this.

Do you really avoid going out one night of the weekend because your clothes will smell like smoke? People usually end up with some mystery stain on their clothes after a night out anyway, so it's not like the clothes aren't going in the laundry.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:59 pm

I don't think that bars and smoking do go hand-in-hand. From my observations, the majority of the people at the bar aren't smoking. Just about all my friends, with the exception of a few, don't smoke, but like to go out and have drinks.

You could reverse it and make the same arguement that you just made by saying that people can stay home and smoke or go to a bar that allows smoking in an outdoor patio area.

I don't just avoid the bars because of smoking for the reason of my clothes smelling bad. You're right, clothes can always be washed. I also don't like the idea of the smoke endangering my health. I think everyone deserves the right to go out to the bars and be social without having to have smoke thrust upon them.

We should just wait and see how the Lincoln community responds, and then we can maybe make a decision of how we should enact this in Omaha.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:28 pm

It would be nice if there were designated non smoking bars and smoking bars. That way you could have your pick.

I am still amazed at how many people smoke in Nebraska. I thought we had a well educated and more health conscience population. Just floors me. Why would you want to breathe poison? You might as well suck a smokestack. I digress?? Another forum.

sokkerdewd · Post by **sokkerdewd** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:02 pm

Studies in NYC, since it's gone smoke-free in bars, shows reciepts at those bars have actually gone up since the ban was put in place...

Many cities are following this wave, as are several states. It won't be long before this hits Omaha...hopefully they'll do it right and ban it in bars as well as restaurants.

Personal experience: A couple friends of mine who only smoked when they drank (at bars) were finally able to quit when Minneapolis (where they live) banned it. They supported the ban because it would help them by not having to endure temptation.

OmahaDevelopmentMan · Post by **OmahaDevelopmentMan** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:28 pm

never thought about a ban helping smokers quit. If you're for the ban I'd write a letter to your city council men or something to get that point accross. I think that would help the cause alot.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:50 pm

It would help me quit

edsas · Post by **edsas** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:13 pm

In the 7 years California has been smoke free, I have yet to hear of a bar going under because of it. Clubs and bars are as busy as they've ever been out here.

As a nonsmoker, I was never really bothered by the bar smoke in my college days, but having lived under a ban for so long, smoky bars do annoy me now. The big reason my wife can't stand it is because she has respiratory problems. Why should she have to be subjected to coughing fits just so 1/5 of the bar patrons can get their nicotine fix? Go stand outside. I'm fairly libertarian in nature, but smoking in confined places is needlessly obtrusive to others.

OmahaDevelopmentMan · Post by **OmahaDevelopmentMan** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:44 pm

I never have understood the "This will hurt my business aspect" I mean I have never heard of someone who goes to a bar to smoke. They go to the bar to have a beer and some food and then the nicotine cravings come up and they lite up. And they also don't even care that 2nd hand smoke does kill people! Its just selfish to let bars and resteraunts keep smoking.

DMRyan · Post by **DMRyan** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:43 pm

You guys win. Adam, edsas and others make very good points. Smoking is pretty disgusting and unpleasant in many situations. I can't stand it in restaurants, people's houses and cars. I obviously can't lie by saying I don't dabble with the occasional spliff at the bar every now and then, so I really don't mind smoke in that type of social situation. And most of my friends are the reverse of yours Adam. They almost all smoke, especially on long benders that start out in the bar. It's still pretty selfish to non-smokers I guess, although you know what you're getting into when you go to the bar at this point in time.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:59 am

I'm sure in favor of a smoking ban at restaurants. It really annoys me when we go to Applebees (just as an example) with our daughter and request non-smoking, yet they seat us right next to the smoking section. But then you question its non-smoking status and they defend it, pointing out the table right next to you as the smoking section, and yours as *obviously* the non-smoking section.

Now I'm not an anti-smoking fanatic - my wife smokes (outside), I quit in April (cold turkey, woot!) and don't really have a problem sitting in smoking when its just my wife and I. A partial ban is the better answer, because it should be a business owner's perrogative (sp) as to whether or not they allow smoking when food service doesn't make the business.

IMO, its a simple decision; if you don't want to visit a smoking establishment, go somewhere that doesn't allow smoking. If you do go to a smoking establishment, don't gripe and get all offended because people around you are smoking - you chose to go there! I sure don't like it when my clothes get stinky, but I know that its my own fault because I chose to go to a smokey bar.

Smoking ban or not, I'm sure not looking forward to the overdramatic sensationalism that comes with the anti-smoking campaigns.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:03 am

Thanks DMRyan. I definitely respect your opinion, and understand where others are coming from who support smoking in bars. I just think that health issues and respecting others to breathe clean air should come first.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:09 pm

I was initially against any sort of smoking ban, but now I think that there should be one, as long as businesses can get a license to allow smoking.

My change in thinking came when my girlfriend moved to San Francisco. She was going to bars there and she said that it was so much more of an enjoyable evironment. But what makes it different to me is that she can't smell...so she noticed the difference purely by the reactions of her lungs and eyes. She oculd breeath much easier and her eyes didn't start stinging and watering.

Sodak · Post by **Sodak** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:31 pm

I think we are overlooking the employees of the establishment. They are the ones working in the environment every day.

Sure, we can all choose to frequent nonsmoking establishments or to smoke or not smoke, but the people working in such establishments are faced with a choice of quiting their job and their livelihood or putting up with it. They could find another job, but I can't think of another industry that would tell employees to just find another job or be forced to work in an unhealthy workplace if there was an established health risk that could easily be avoided. OSHA strictly regulates the workplace environments of every other industry. There are plenty of high-risk jobs, but the government has strictly regulated those to make them as safe as possible (radio tower repair, demolition, construction, mine workers, etc.) These jobs also pay a premium wage in recognition of the risk.

To me it is a no brainer....if the smoke is a potential health hazard that is related to the length of exposure, the employees of these establishments are at a much greater risk and shouldn't be asked to risk their health if the risk can be easily minimized or eliminated. OSHA regulates every other unhealthy workplace environment, why not bars and restaurants?

UNOstudent · Post by **UNOstudent** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:07 pm

this is what one of my co-workers says: having a smoking section in eating areas is like having a peeing area in a pool

im sure other people have heard this before

Post by **Brad** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:48 pm

As a college student who has two jobs, one in a restaurant and one in a bar, I feel that these are two different enviroments and should have two different rules. In restaurants you dont need to smoke, mostly because if you are in a restaurant that allows smoking you are not going to be in there for more than an hour anyway. Smoking also takes away from the taste of the food.

However in bars when the majority of their income comes from liquor and not from food, smoking should be allowed. In the particular bar I work in, 90% of the customers smoke. I do smell like heck when I leave there, however I would not want to be around these people if they could not smoke.

If Omaha bans smoking, it will just give people another reason to go spent their money in C.B IOWA.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:31 pm

I was kind of against the ban at first but after hearing how it hasn't hurt businesses I would be for the ban. Just as long as I can still shoot up though I'm fine.

Post by **Brad** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:11 pm

Just as long as I can still shoot up though I'm fine.

And as long as bars still have straws we can snort our coke.