Omaha/Nebraska Smoking Ban

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:44 pm

That's why I don't smoke near anybody, unless they're smoking w/ me outside. I don't want to upset anybody off, make them smell, or kill them. I really need to quite.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:47 pm

avanzee wrote:That's why I don't smoke near anybody, unless they're smoking w/ me outside. I don't want to upset anybody off, make them smell, or kill them. I really need to quite.

The world needs more people like you! Thank you!

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:51 pm

I'm pretty sure that is Methodist that is going completely smoke free on their campus - and that includes parking lots.

I've had to take so many food handler permit tests in my life for assorted crappy jobs. There are state and federal regulations on everything from what temperatures you have to store/cook different types of meat, what size and depth of containers you can store leftovers, how long you can take to reheat leftovers, what you can wear, how close to the floor food can be stored, what can be stored above/under what else, how hot your dishwasher must be, concentrations of cleaner in your sink.... it's just freaking endless.

Oh, but try to tell someone they can't blow cancer in your face...

-Big E

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:51 pm

Anytime Jake!

Asten · Post by **Asten** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:34 pm

Big E wrote:Feel free to move this to the Lincoln section if you'd like, but I think it fits here just as well:

Smoking bans not hurting hospitality, cities report/Lincoln businesspeople still have complaints

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/200 ... 888294.txt

What a bunch of whiners...

In other news - Chicago yesterday passed a full smoking ban... unfortunately bars and resturant/bars that generate 65+% of their revenue from alcohol are exempted for 2.5 years. But hey, at least there's something to look forward to. And, Cook County is considering a full band that would override Chicago's... We shall see. Like everywhere else, there's a bunch of people whining, and a lot more people thrilled.

Plus, Washington state's full smoking ban just took effect as well...

It's all just a matter of time.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:02 pm

Asten wrote:
Big E wrote:Feel free to move this to the Lincoln section if you'd like, but I think it fits here just as well:

Smoking bans not hurting hospitality, cities report/Lincoln businesspeople still have complaints

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/200 ... 888294.txt
What a bunch of whiners...

In other news - Chicago yesterday passed a full smoking ban... unfortunately bars and resturant/bars that generate 65+% of their revenue from alcohol are exempted for 2.5 years. But hey, at least there's something to look forward to. And, Cook County is considering a full band that would override Chicago's... We shall see. Like everywhere else, there's a bunch of people whining, and a lot more people thrilled.

Plus, Washington state's full smoking ban just took effect as well...

It's all just a matter of time.

Plus, Washington state's full smoking ban just took effect as well...

In the word’s of Napoleon Dynamite “Lucky”!

It's all just a matter of time.

Yes, yes it is.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:12 pm

Who the heck cares? Smoking is bad, yes, but if businesses want to allow it, let them. If they want to ban smoking in their own place, let them do that to. Give the smokers and non-smokers an option.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:39 pm

DTO Luv wrote:Who the heck cares? Smoking is bad, yes, but if businesses want to allow it, let them. If they want to ban smoking in their own place, let them do that to. Give the smokers and non-smokers an option.

That's a good idea. But those business should always have a non-smoking section.

Bars, it's suprising how many people smoke that you didn't know did. Well, they don't they just do it when they drink, weird. Most, NOT ALL, don't care because they're too drunk to care about it.

In Lincoln, there are loop holes (as there are in basically every law). You can still smoke outside in the dinning area. Since this law was eforced I noticed quite a few more ouside dinning areas. MMMMM....

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:10 pm

I'm with DTO on this one. I think a total ban is a bit extreme, if a bar owner wants to let people smoke, let them smoke. If there is this huge demand for non smoking places, why doesn't someone open a non smoking bar/resturant and make a killing. Perhaps some sort of thing like having a higher fee (2X?)for a liquor lisence for places allowing smoking and setting aside the extra funds for city promotion or projects (ped bridge). Speaking of higher fees for that, how bout higher fee to have a 2 or 3AM closing time?

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:19 pm

the1wags wrote:I'm with DTO on this one. I think a total ban is a bit extreme, if a bar owner wants to let people smoke, let them smoke. If there is this huge demand for non smoking places, why doesn't someone open a non smoking bar/resturant and make a killing. Perhaps some sort of thing like having a higher fee (2X?)for a liquor lisence for places allowing smoking and setting aside the extra funds for city promotion or projects (ped bridge). Speaking of higher fees for that, how bout higher fee to have a 2 or 3AM closing time?

If smoking didn’t put off smoke they go ahead (or just take up chewing tobacco if you need it that bad) and smoke. Why should I have to go to a select place because I despise smoke? I should be able to go to any place I want without breathing in someone’s second hand smoke. I don’t want what was already in their nasty bloody tour up lungs!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:22 pm

Well let the owner of whatever place you patron know that you do or don't want smoking. They'll go where the money is. I don't see why someone wouldn't want to open up smoke free places since so many people are against it. I might as well do it myself.

Also how much time are you spending around bars with smoking? The average non-smoker is probably around so little second hand smoke that it won't affect them.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:25 pm

DTO Luv wrote:Well let the owner of whatever place you patron know that you do or don't want smoking. They'll go where the money is. I don't see why someone wouldn't want to open up smoke free places since so many people are against it. I might as well do it myself.

Also how much time are you spending around bars with smoking? The average non-smoker is probably around so little second hand smoke that it won't affect them.

Bull |expletive|! Doesn’t matter I shouldn’t have to even smell it! And the business owners are too big of chicken poos with no giblets to even think about banning it themselves. Other than those big cooperate jobs.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:29 pm

Oh and also how much time are you spending around bars with smoking? The average non-smoker is probably around so little second hand smoke that it won't affect them.

O boy O boy, You don’t go into to many bars do ya? WHEW!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:32 pm

I think it wouldn't be any different from No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. I don't think that's a legit law but many businesses have laws like that. It's not like turning away people who are black.

I don't want to see everyone who is against something so trivial get there way. Everything gets reduced to litigation and who's right and who's wrong. It doesn't matter anyway. To quote a lyric from Dream Theater, "Living comes much easier, once we admit, we're dying." Unless you work in a place with constant smoking you aren't going to get hurt. Now I'm off to cash my check from big tobacco. *cough**cough*

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:36 pm

DTO Luv wrote:I think it wouldn't be any different from No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. I don't think that's a legit law but many businesses have laws like that. It's not like turning away people who are black.

I don't want to see everyone who is against something so trivial get there way. Everything gets reduced to litigation and who's right and who's wrong. It doesn't matter anyway. To quote a lyric from Dream Theater, "Living comes much easier, once we admit, we're dying." Unless you work in a place with constant smoking you aren't going to get hurt. Now I'm off to cash my check from big tobacco. *cough**cough*

Okay Okay you can smoke as long as I can upset in your cosmopolitan!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:38 pm

Deal. See you at Starbucks.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:41 pm

O heck,

starbucks

(the evil empire) has cosmos now?

IM THERE!!!!!!!!!!!

Asten · Post by **Asten** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:03 pm

DTO Luv wrote:Well let the owner of whatever place you patron know that you do or don't want smoking. They'll go where the money is. I don't see why someone wouldn't want to open up smoke free places since so many people are against it. I might as well do it myself.

Also how much time are you spending around bars with smoking? The average non-smoker is probably around so little second hand smoke that it won't affect them.

Bah, I love going out to bars with friends to watch games, talk, listen to bands, etc etc. With the absolute reek I usually come home with, I can only imagine what the heck I'm inhaling. I agree, anyone should be able to smoke or whatever on their own private property... but their right to smoke cannot infringe upon others' health. It's that simple.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:28 pm

Do you know what the most dangerous thing a person does in a day is? It's not smoking. It's driving. So why not allow anyone to drive because they have greater potential for doing damage than smoking can.

What I'm trying to say is I don't think the average non-smoker is around enough smoke to cause any ill affects.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:36 pm

Oh OK, DR. PH.D. M.D. M.D. DTO

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:59 pm

DTO Luv wrote:Do you know what the most dangerous thing a person does in a day is? It's not smoking. It's driving. So why not allow anyone to drive because they have greater potential for doing damage than smoking can.

What I'm trying to say is I don't think the average non-smoker is around enough smoke to cause any ill affects.

That’s actually kind of a dumb argument.. driving

smoking uhhh

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:03 pm

DTO (and others)-

With all due respect, how much smoke is "enough"? Are you willing to accept a little bit of e coli in your cheeseburger? How about a smidge of salmonella in your chicken? Perhaps a nice coating of lead in your water pipes? Maybe there's an acceptable amount of feces that can float down the sidewalk or the gutter...

My point is, these are all public health issues that have been addressed in the past, and COMBINED they don't begin to scratch the surface of the number of people who are horribly sick and/or have died from smoking and second hand smoke. Unfortunately, the pooping in the streets lobby isn't quite as powerful as the tobacco lobby.

There's no bigger proponent of keeping the govt out of your business/life than me. I frankly don't care if someone else wants to screw themselves up, but I draw the line when their stupidity affects me.

-Big E

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:30 pm

I can get all the opposition about smoking when citing it stinks, makes eyes burn etc, but I seriously get a kick out of how blown out of proportion the health risk angle is. You guys make it sound like if you go into a bar full of smoke you have a 50/50 shot of living 2 weeks or something. Sure its not good for you, but if you don't smoke and get second hand smoke once in awhile, you prollably get more lung damage from the exhaust on your lawnmower. People damage themselves more from fast food and holding a cell phone to your head all day, they pass a smoking ban they better go after McDonalds next.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:52 pm

the1wags wrote:I can get all the opposition about smoking when citing it stinks, makes eyes burn etc, but I seriously get a kick out of how blown out of proportion the health risk angle is. You guys make it sound like if you go into a bar full of smoke you have a 50/50 shot of living 2 weeks or something. Sure its not good for you, but if you don't smoke and get second hand smoke once in awhile, you prollably get more lung damage from the exhaust on your lawnmower. People damage themselves more from fast food and holding a cell phone to your head all day, they pass a smoking ban they better go after McDonalds next.

You must be an addict to

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:59 pm

^You and Big E are starting to cross the line between stating you're oppinion and offending some of us forumers. I'm getting tired of this. This argument will never end, let the politicians deal with it. And in the mean time, you guys can deal with it too.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:08 pm

I may be offensive but honestly I doubt Big E is. Yet I make no apologies and on this topic BRING IT ON!

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:30 pm

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:31 pm

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:15 am

When I lived in casper, wy they put this up to vote --- it was a very heated campaign between the restaurants/smokers and the healthcare/non smokers. The intiative lost by a very small margin but 2 interesting thing came out of the campaign.

1. Campaign cost were put in the paper --- the healthcare group had spent something like $10000 most put in by individuals, the restaurants/smokers had spent over $100,000 95% put in by the tobacco industry --- so it was the smoking industry fighting it not the smokers.

2. Soon after the vote, the 2 big name restaurants fighting to let it be there choice -- became non-smoking restaurants. They saw the handwriting on the wall.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:33 am

I looked back at my posts and I can't for the life of me figure out what might be misconstrued as offensive, with the possible exception of a couple of poop jokes. That being said, I'm certainly not TRYING to offend smokers.

I am an ex-smoker. Smoked for ten years. Started when I was 16 (early 90s). Had there been more enforcement of existing laws then, I probably never would have been a smoker. Had it been less socially acceptable, I probably never would have been a smoker. It is, IMO, the dirtiest, most incosiderate, deadly and stupid legal thing you can do to yourself and others. It is only still legal because the tobacco lobby is so powerful, and that is obviously changing.

Beyond not having to breathe the garbage every where I go, making smoking less acceptable (or illegal eventually) will saves lives and hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars in health care and related costs.

Oh, and I don't own a lawnmower or a snowblower, and we drive two hybrid cars, so I put my money where my mouth is. When you say that people damage themselves more with cell phones and fast food than they do with second hand smoke... well, you're probably right. But the key is they are damaging THEMSELVES. I don't get fat when you eat a Whopper.

-Big E

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:19 am

Pki, way to avoid posting anything worthwhile to the discussion. BTW, you shouldn't be so quick to label people you don't know. You are prolly one of those people who point at a smoker and say "addict", but can't function without 4 Mt. Dews/or coffees a day.

Big E, good point about the fast food, I just find it funny that some who want smoking banned because its a risk to their health but then poison themselves by other means. Its like, if do these 10 things to myself that cause cancer, its cool, but someone else causes one to me, I'm upset.

(Cool on the hybrids, I'm thinking about getting one for my next car)

Mainly I feel there needs to be some middle ground on this. I would be more than happy to see some non smoking venues in Omaha to provide options for those that dont smoke. Id like to see options for both side though, as I hate any form of total bans/control by laws/government. What do you guys think about my "smoking tax" on the liquor lisence? Make it double for a place to allow smoking or something like. Could be a good revenue generator for city promotions, etc.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:40 am

I know I don't treat my body like a temple. I'm overweight. I likes me the hootch. But I do keep the bad at a minimum, and my choices don't directly affect others (other than my car pollution, but I think I've made about the most eco-friendly decision I can there). Most importantly: it's MY choice and it only affects me.

I've thought about the middle ground on the issue, and I'm really not sure there is one for the anti-smoking crowd. It's not fair to us that we have to walk through the stinkfest patio area of bars and restaurants in Lincoln to get inside. DC just passed a ban that prevents smoking within 25 or 50 feet (don't remember the #) of ANY door, which pretty much means you can't go right outside and have a smoke either.

The closest I've come to it is allowing "private" entities - like a country or social club - and let them make the decision on whether or not they allow smoking. But then you end up with a stupid situation like what Utah has with drinking... everyone that walks in the door can become a member for $1 for life or something idiotic like that. If there's any room for interpretation, someone will exploit it.

Again, I'm all about compromise, I just don't think there is one on this issue. Suffice it to say that I'll be happy when cigarettes are treated the same as joints... do it at home on your time away from me.

-Big E

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:33 am

Pki, way to avoid posting anything worthwhile to the discussion. BTW, you shouldn't be so quick to label people you don't know. You are prolly one of those people who point at a smoker and say "addict", but can't function without 4 Mt. Dews/or coffees a day.

Hey thnx buddy,
I really don’t I usually just think about how offended I am by them. I hate! Mountaindue and yes I love java but its absolutely no prob if I dont drink it.
Smoke on! right? For now because I have a feeling I will get the last laugh (or breath of fresh air)… some day.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:44 pm

That’s right little guy show the big dawg how its done!

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/2088672.html

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:54 pm

DTO Luv wrote:Well let the owner of whatever place you patron know that you do or don't want smoking. They'll go where the money is. I don't see why someone wouldn't want to open up smoke free places since so many people are against it. I might as well do it myself.

Also how much time are you spending around bars with smoking? The average non-smoker is probably around so little second hand smoke that it won't affect them.

Not true if you want to patronize just about any lounge or club in Omaha. I can spend 30 minutes or less in a bar and have to launder otherwise clean clothes because of the sh***y smell I end up taking home with me. If you spend more than an hour in some bars you are better off taking your clothes off in the garage and showering before you go to bed so you don't have to wash your sheets in the morning. Some people (smokers) have little or no sense of smell left and they don't notice how bad a place stinks. I can smell cigarettes being smoked from within the car ahead of me in traffic if they have their window cracked open at all.

Smoking bans lead to MORE not fewer people frequenting restaurants and most bars. This has happened in towns and cities from California to Ireland. Sometimes being behind the times in terms of trends is okay. Nebraska really has missed the boat on this one, however. It's only a matter of time before all public places go non-smoking. The sooner the better for everyone.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:07 pm

^^^ MWAHAHAHAHAAAHAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

paintfumes · Post by **paintfumes** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:43 am

Big E wrote:Feel free to move this to the Lincoln section if you'd like, but I think it fits here just as well:

Smoking bans not hurting hospitality, cities report/Lincoln businesspeople still have complaints

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/200 ... 888294.txt

Seems to me it's basically the "Busch Light in a can" type of places that are having troubles. Big shocker there. I also still love how people think smoking is a right.

-Big E

I live in Kansas City and they wont ban cigarette smoking until I thnk its 85% of the towns or citys around Kansas City does it first. Lawrence Kansas has the ban in forced. It seems like Kansas City is always last to do anything.

Ice Cream · Post by **Ice Cream** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:42 pm

The whole state of New York went smoke free about 2.5 years ago for bars, restaurants, etc. It is wonderful; I think I'm more likely to go out to these places because of this. Especially bowling alleys! In the past I'd likely pick already dirty clothes out of the hamper before going bowling . . . if I'd go at all.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:20 pm

We planned a trip to Lincoln yesterday specifically so we could go out all night and not smell like a turd and spend all of today coughing up black snot. We even booked a hotel room in advance. It was wonderful... I could do without the hangover, though.

So, Lincoln's smoking ban had an appoximately $350 positive impact on the local economy yesterday alone from two people, and will have more when we go back to purchase some items we found at some galleries. We can't wait to do it again.

I just refuse to spend that much time and money in bars and restaurants in Omaha when I walk out smelling and feeling that bad.

BTW, downtown Lincoln on a Saturday night in January was HOPPING. There were people everywhere.

-Big E

FatGuy · Post by **FatGuy** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:55 pm

Pauly's recently added an addition to their bar. It is nick named "the blue room." It is barred off completely from the other smoking room of the bar. "The Blue Room" is smoke free. I must say, it has a great atmosphere.

I believe will resort to having smokeless bars because it will bring more patrons. I hope the legislature does something about the smoking, but I think society is smart enough to figure it out for themselves. Smoking bars will be darwinized in the future. I know I am more willing to go to a smokeless bar than one that allows smoking.

Does anyone know of other smoke free bars?