California's is tough. However it has an advantage that states in the Eastern Seaboard don't have. Namely its such a huge state that its impossible to just go to the next state for dinner. (I'm talking if you are living either on the coast or in the middle, not next to the border).
In California, the ban did not really work as well when individual cities were passing smoking bans(ie you could smoke in Beverly Hills, but not in Los Angeles, Los Angeles surrounds Beverly Hills). Once the entire state was made non-smoking, the inequalities faded. After tht it was simply a matter of holding my breath when walking into a building (have to run the guantlett of smokers next to the door). -----Original Message----- From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:26 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/docs/na-docs/uss4.htm 27 Feb 95 The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the statewide workplace smoking ban, however, Governor Parris Glendening is considering an exemption for small restaurants and taverns. 28 March 95 Maryland Governor Parris Glendening and the Maryland State Assembly reached a compromise over the state's workplace smoking ban, enacted March 27. Under the new law, smoking is banned in all workplaces except for bars, restaurants and private clubs that serve alcohol. Smoking is allowed in most bowling alleys, pool halls, racetracks and indoor sports arenas, but only if those businesses provide separate enclosed smoking rooms. The exceptions for bars and restaurant were made in an effort to head off a court appointed prohibition on all workplace smoking. Much less the fact i was living there most of my life when the ban took effect its not as tough as CA but was good enough for me. And from the looks of it only Mont. County and its extreme ban was stopped. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:44 PM Subject: Where are the non-smokers? > Maryland as a state does not have a smoking ban. Montgomery County passed a smoking ban which was overturned recently on a technicality. They have since passed another ban which (hopefully) will pass muster. > > I lived in CA and really loved being able to go out to clean restaurants and bars after the statewide ban. In terms of anectodal evidence, I asked a waitress at a coffee shop how the ban in CA had affected her. She told me she loved it, that not only was it healthier for her, but also that people didn't stay and smoke for hours and hog a table. Turning the tables over meant she made more in tips. > > > > > >hehe yea MD was i think the 1st or 2nd state to have a statewide smoking > >ban. I think it was first > >with CA being second with a FAR stricker rule but it was defiantly sweet > >living in such a great state. > > > >I miss my old maryland *sniff* > > > >:) > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:05 PM > >Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? > > > > > >> exactly. And bars and restaurants are different cases; bars probably do > >> have a higher percentage of smoker patrons. > >> > >> Seems to me that Montgomery County MD was non-smoking ten years ago and it > >> certainly has a healthy population of restaurants. I will grant that the > >> overall affluent demographic there may be a factor in this but > >demographics > >> in general play into this a lot. Smoking it less common among the > >educated, > >> I seem to remember reading; assuming that is true a blue-collar bar > >> conceivably could lose business if all its mechanic/tow truck driver > >> customers decide to get a six pack and hang out at each other's houses > >> instead of going out.... I know that's a stereotype but I am just giving > >an > >> example. > >> > >> Dana > >> > >> Ian Skinner writes: > >> > >> > The other way that "up too" could be misleading is of only one > >establishment > >> > lost that much business for this or any other fact, they are then held > >up as > >> > both the example and the reason you can say up too... even if all the > >other > >> > places are not suffering like this..... > >> > > >> > -------------- > >> > Ian Skinner > >> > Web Programmer > >> > BloodSource > >> > Sacramento, CA > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:51 AM > >> > To: CF-Community > >> > Subject: Re: Where are the non-smokers? > >> > > >> > > >> > I question whethet this is in fact the case. Somebody somewhere has > >> > probably studied it but I don't have any statistics to hand. Still, that > >> > link wasnproof of anything either. > >> > > >> > Dana > >> > > >> > Matthew Small writes: > >> > > >> > > Actually, I don't ever think there was a message that non-smokers did > >not > >> > > frequent bars & restaurants because of smoking. the ban was to > >> > non-smokers > >> > > that work in those places, and to protect non-smoking customers from > >being > >> > > exposed to smoker's air. > >> > > > >> > > That being said, and the fact that I have fully supported the smoking > >ban > >> > in > >> > > a restaurant, if the facts are true that banning smoking is causing > >> > > restaurants to lose that much (30% - 50%) of their business, then I > >> > support > >> > > repealing the ban in favor of very stringent rules for separating the > >> > > smoking section from a non-smoking section - e.g. completely enclosed > >> > > smoking areas, different ventilation systems, etc. Of course, that > >does > >> > not > >> > > protect the non-smoking workers. I don't know what to do about them. > >> > > > >> > > - Matt Small > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > From: "Angel Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 10:54 AM > >> > > Subject: RE: Where are the non-smokers? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Well... > >> > > > > >> > > > It does say something about Non Smokers. > >> > > > > >> > > > If you ban smoking...and you lose 20% to 50% of your sales... > >> > > > > >> > > > Then that means you have lost smoking customers. > >> > > > > >> > > > It also means that those smoking customers whom you have lost, have > >> > > > *not* been replaced with non-smoking customers. > >> > > > > >> > > > Part of the reasoning for the ban was that there were thousands of > >> > > > non-smokers that do not frequent bars and restaurants because of the > >> > > > smoke,ergo if there was no smoking these people would patronise > >these > >> > > > institutions. > >> > > > > >> > > > -Gel > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > >> > > > That doesn't say anything about non smokers it simply says the > >smokers > >> > > > are going where they can still pollute the air thats all. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
