Marian

Thank you to so many of you who gave me genuine answers. I really do appreciate it. I didn't post my question to trigger any "forum war". I will say that our clientel is NOT sleezy. Most are professionals including lawyers, atheletes, CPA's, real estate brokers, doctors etc. We are located in a very desireable beach town and yes we had a lot of tourists as well. We broadcast all the games, pay per view fights and even stakes horse races! It was discouraging after installing a $20,000 state of the art exhaust system in 1996 and never having any smoke related complaints!! One problem we and so many like us experienced is that is illegal to drink outside on the sidewalk so if those who wanted a cigarette got up to go outside to smoke, they couldn't take their beer,etc.with them, sometimes they'd lose their seats, miss the game winning point etc. The irony is that this law was enacted to protect employees BUT in our case 70% of our employees smoked. Anyway, the bottom line is we felt that we no longer owned our own business but the state of California owned our business. We will not understand why it couldn't have been up to individual bar owners to decide which way they wanted to go "smoking allowed" or "no smoking allowed". This could have been posted so the customers could decide for themselves without big brother being envolved. Also, please don't confuse no smoking laws with restaurants or work places. There is no comparison!!! People who stop by a bar are there to socialize, relax, unwind, and hang out with friends to get away from work! Again, thank you for all your suggestions. I think I've got some good options!! Marian

helen

Marian: I live in North Carolina and, even though tobacco is our main "produce", we have a number of No Smoking public buildings and many of the cities have No Smoking sections in the restaurants. Also, it is very difficult to buy a license to serve alcohol (have to wait to buy a "going-out-of-business" liquor license). Good luck in your search!

Marian

Gosh, now you all have my curiosity up. Just why is it so difficult to obtain a liquor license in No.Carolina?

MrBill

"Why is it so difficult to obtain a liquor license?" Carryover from a more restrictive legal era when law and religion were more intimately intertwined. Alcohol has the capacity to induce amoral behavior, tobacco doesn't.

Andrea

Marian, I would think seriously about Louisville, Kentucky as a potential spot for your business. The social life is this city is great (bars stay open til 4 on the weekends, 2 on weekdays), there are no smoking restrictions (obviously being in Kentucky helps with that), there are areas that have been untapped for your kind of venture, I'm a 20-something professional so I KNOW the audience is here, we have a very reasonably priced home market and a lot of potential. Plus, I have two words for you: Kentucky DERBY. The bars stay open till 6 that week and make a FORTUNE. You can charge $10 cover and get away with it. Think about it!

medimom

How 'bout opening near the Mayo Clinic? That way your patrons wont have far to walk while they wheeze.

Donna

Not sure about North Carolina, but many states, municipalities, towns have laws which have limited the number of licenses of a type that can be issued at one time (liquor, taxi, etc.). If you want to do business in a town where all the liquor licenses have been issued, you have to "buy out" an establishment that already has one. This is easier in some places than others, depending upon how many folks are interested in going into the bar/restaurant business. Can really drive up the start-up costs. So, it's a good idea to check this out first thing before selecting a "jurisdiction" in which to try to open your business.

BigBrother

Marian, I just have to comment here that I've heard people voice complaints similar to yours about "Big Brother" involvement, but "Big Brother" (i.e. all us taxpayers) foot most of the medical bills once the smokers (and those who were forced to breathe it second hand) are older, on Medicare, and dying of smoking related diseases. California is trying to save a few bucks by gradually outlawing one of the biggest killers in this country - tobacco - and I for one applaud them.

We go out to pubs and restaurants regularly now that smoking is banned, because we can finally BREATHE! We stopped going years ago because the stench was so awful. And since we're not throwing our money away on tobacco, we plenty of money to spend in these establishments.

I'm sorry your business was hurt, and I don't mean to sound cruel here, but everyone has to adapt to changes in life. Good luck in your new venture.

Michele

Marian

Since you seem to enjoy warmer climates I am less inclined to be concerned with the possibility of you moving your business to Massachusetts.

While we don't have a statewide law, several hundred communities across our Commonwealth have enacted smoking regulations via their local Boards of Health. Many of those have included bars, taverns, etc. when banning smoking in all public places.

Maine and Vermont have adopted statewide regulations banning smoking in public places so it might be wise just to steer clear out of New England.

Josh

A couple of people commented here based on common sense that breathing cigarette smoke must be a small hazard compared to other forms of outdoor air pollution. It sure makes sense - but it happens not to be true. Most people don't realize the size of the numbers: Smoking kills about 500,000 American smokers every year. That's a huge number - 1 death in every 9 across the country is attributable to smoking. All the air pollution and smog put together
kills about 40,000. Then there's another 40,000 or so who die of second-hand smoke; that is to say,
they never were smokers in their lives, but were killed by the smoke they breathed in while living and
working with smokers.
I don't want to minimize the 40,000 who are killed by smog. I'm fighting for cleaner air, better public
transit, enforcement of existing laws and standards which would do much to clean up the situation. But tobacco is an even greater blight, by far.

james

Marian,

Sorry to hear about your business troubles. Just wanted to chime in about a couple of places. Maryland: One county has just enacted a restaurant smoking ban that has the business owners up in arms. I have a feeling the whole state is going in that direction. Washington, DC: A great town. Smoking in bars and many restaurants. Virginia: Same as DC, but not as liberal on the drinking as California (where I grew up). The grocery stores only sell wine and beer and only until midnight. For other spirits, you have to go to a "Package Store", which usually closes at 9pm Mon-Sat and is closed on Sunday. Not a big deal, but just thought you should know. That's how it is in many states in the south and east.

I now live in Rhode Island. Healthy tourist industry which is still growing. Smoking in bars, and every restaurant I've been in has a smoking section. The only actual advice I have is to open up at the beginning of autumn. Business will be booming throughout the first three seasons, but summer can be slow unless you have an established clientele, mostly because everyone goes to the beaches on the weekends. I have a friend who opened up a nice bar in March and has struggled through the summer because hardly anyone knew of his new place. He's dying for school to start.

By the way, in all these states, many bars actually sell cigarrettes!

Good luck to you!

james

Rich

Marian:

Sorry to hear about your plight. Guess it's just yet another example of our politically-correct society run amok.

I would concur with Las Vegas, but you also might consider Cleveland. It has a great downtown, and when I worked there a few years ago, you could still even smoke in your office. Most bars/restaurants have seperate sections to accommodate everyone (but, then again, why do that when you can force your lifestyle down everybody's throats....?). Anyway, the housing is also pretty reasonable, and the people are very friendly. Of course, the winters can be formidable....

As to some of the anti-smoking gestapo postings on this thread, I want to tell all of you that I am just as sick and tired of my tax dollars paying for medical costs incurred by people who eat too many potato chips, tacos, hamburgers, and other fatty foods. I could be wrong, but isn't heart disease the #1 killer in the U.S.? Are you trying to tell me that all of these deaths are related to smoking?

I'm also tired of having my tax dollars pay for idiots (often of the zealous anti-smoking variety) who go hiking, mountainclimbing, etc., who purposely get themselves in dangerous situations, and then expect to be rescued by the authorities, sometimes to the cost of 5 figures a time, or more...

But then again, you may be on to something....how about state-mandated aerobics classes? How about abolishing McDonalds, Frito-Lay Co., KFC & Taco Bell in your quest to be our ever-watchful health nanny? After all, if wasting tax dollars is your true concern, why not take these steps to save even more dollars?

Jill

It would make the best sense for ALL bars to chose and post a sign either "smoking allowed" (i.e. enter at your own risk) or "no smoking allowed". This could be posted at the door and the customers could decide which bars they wanted to frequent.This would keep both the smokers happy as well as the non-smokers. Actually, as a non smoker myself, I'd probably still opt for the "smoking allowed" bar because it would probably be the liveliest. This sure seems like a simple solution...to keep everyone happy and give bar owners their business' back!

Cal

Jill:

Though I agree with you 100%, this concept will never fly. Why, because it makes too much sense. Common sense is something that is sadly lacking in the zealots that want to control our lives.

stella

BARTENDERS' HEALTH BETTER AFTER CALIFORNIA SMOKING BAN

December 20, 1998
Web posted at: 8:31 a.m. EST (1331 GMT)

From San Francisco Bureau Chief
Greg Lefevre

SAN FRANCISCO (CNN) -- A new law in California seems to be improving the health of bartenders.

Just after the state outlawed smoking in bars last January, the University of California-San Francisco studied 53 city barkeeps.

Before the law, three-quarters of them suffered from lung ailments. After the law, symptoms for 60 percent dropped away completely.

"If you worked a weekend in here before you would be hoarse," said bartender Bill Hackim. "It's not like that anymore."

Health benefits appeared quickly. "After the law went into effect we observed a substantial reduction in respiratory symptoms of eye, nose and throat irritation symptoms," said researcher Dr. Mark Eisner.

Before the ban, bartenders were exposed to an average of 28 hours per week of smokey rooms.

"I don't smell like an ashtray, and my girlfriend is happy with that,"said bartender Greg Russell.

The improvement was quick and dramatic. Specifically lung tests showed bartenders had 4 percent better lung capacity just four weeks after the smoking ban.

Health benefits applied not just to non-smoking bartenders, but smokers showed better lung capacity as well.

"Less coughing, less wheezing, less shortness of breath," Eisner said.

Bars had long been the last legal indoor spot for smokers in California. Some business worried the ban would drive customers away. So far, it has not.

"In fact, if someone tries to light up in here, someone typically comes up to us and asks us to have them put it out," Hackim said.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/20/ba...oke/index.html

I happen to be one of those smoking bartenders. You can call them 'zealots' or 'gestapo' like I used to but they really aren't bad people. Sure it's been really hard at work (not to smoke) but I am noticing that I kinda breathe better.

Sara

Josh: Do you really believe in statistics? How do you explain the folks who die of lung cancer who have never smoked or been exposed to second-hand smoke? How can you prove anyone ever died of second hand smoke? What about radon???

Thomas

Not to beat a dead dog to death (we have kind of wandered off Marian's original question) BUT the above posted idea regarding having bars that allow smoking and bars that ban smoking (at the descretion of the owners) would certainly go for employees as well as patrons. Everyone has a choice, For those who say "ya" and those that say "na" and those who couldn't care less could frequent both! I'd put my self in the catagory of couldn't care less. I'm a Non smoker but many close friends and my spouse do smoke so I've been around it for 50 years...so far no ill effects! My vote goes to offer both...the person who posted this idea had a good "common sense" solution! Thomas

CapDoc

Sara:
Please tell me you're kidding.

I trust that no one who has been educated beyond the 10th grade and who even peripherally follows the mainstream media questions whether smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, etc.
I assure you I'm not speaking out of turn. I'm an oncologist who sees more than my share of lung cancer patients, well versed in the literature which allows us to make undeniable conclusions about smoking and its effects.

To know that it's not radon or television or high fat diets causing lung cancer, one only needs to examine demographic patterns. 0.1% of nonsmokers living in high radon areas may get lung CA while 80 times that many lung cancers show up in smokers in low radon areas. In EVERY area of the world ever studied. For any single patient can one know the cause of his/her lung CA? No. How can lung CA appear in nonsmokers? Same way that colon CA, pancreas CA and any other type of cancer shows up in a nonsmoker...a simple mutation will do the job just fine. Or chronic exposure to irritants such as alcohol, sun, asbestos, fumes....
Sorry to rant, such head in the sand thinking (or lack thereof) is exactly what lands many of my patients in my office. And I might remind you how many of them pay the ultimate price for this.

April

Josh, I didn't mean that "breathing cigarette smoke must be a small hazard compared to other forms of outdoor air pollution". I was just taken aback by the hostile response to the comment about car pollution - as if to say it isn't a problem at all.

Angela

How about Missouri? We are what you'd call "smoker non-chalant" here. There are plenty of smokers. I'm not a smoker myself but as far as I can see, I don't think smokers are discriminated against. Of course there is no smoking in public buildings but if you own your own bar business, I can't imagine someone in Missouri telling you what you can or can't do inside your own business (as long as it's a legal substance!) Sounds like the politicians in California are just way too zealous. Housing is affordable as well!