New Orleans Passes Extensive Smoking Ban

Been that way in California for years now....bars and Denny's (?) were the last to go. I did smoke for almost 20 years and I have to admit, smoking in public in a room hotboxing other people is pretty gross.

Just another nail in the Big Tobacco Coffin. Anyone under 40 who likes nicotine anymore just Vapes. It's cheaper (even with the $200 mod I have, I spend maybe $20 a week on juice...smokes were costing me $50 a week), smells better and doesn't ash up your car. It's better for you, because of the lack of Tar, but smoking Vegetable Glycerin can't be a good thing.

But yeah, smoking cigs is a dying habit...things like this are speeding it up.

Now there will be people standing outside of bars selling lose cigarettes. An offense now punishable by death. Not a good move N.O.

a reply to: RammerJammer

About the same as it was in Michigan now the bars have better food because families will come in for a burger and such. My friends place was down a bit then better than ever.

I wish smoking bans banned smoking outdoors and let private establishments bathe in acrid smoke if they want. Plenty of, if not most, businesses in this day and age would be smoke free anyway and plenty would be smoke friendly, especially bars. Smokers wouldn't blow up a hundred yard bubble around them outside anymore,, and they'd still have places to smoke away from those who don't want to breathe their smoke.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Of all the places to install a smoking ban, New Orleans, a party town, THE party town, would have been on a top ten of places that no one would have believed would do it! I have to say, my flabber is well and truly ghasted.

Sounds alot like England, well here you can't even smoke outside alot of places.

Welcome to the genderless politically correct nanny state.

and, yet, they allow drive thru bars.

go figure

Great, just great.

My nephew is getting married next year and the first choice is New Orleans for the wedding. And he's hoping I'll bankroll it. And I'm a polite smoker. I'm used to going outside to smoke but it sounds as if even that won't be allowed in most areas. I hope they choose a different location, they had several in mind.

STM

a reply to: seentoomuch

it's new orleans. they'll find a way around the law

Crakeur

Well, just daiquiris, does that even really count as a drink?

originally posted by: Crakeur
a reply to: seentoomuch

it's new orleans. they'll find a way around the law

I hope so, I love weddings and the atmosphere in New Orleans really fits this couple's wish for their wedding.

Thanks for the hope,

STM

a reply to: kosmicjack

the 357 magnum has grain alcohol in it, among other things so, yes, it does

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: mikell
Sounds like Michigan and it works well. Some whine but the rest of us can have a couple of beers after work without having to leave our clothes outside when we go home.

You can't really compare the tourist impact using Michigan vs New Orleans.

Not even the same World.

Peace

My husband used to live in the French Quarter for a few years before moving to a suburb. Even he can't fathom why people would want to set foot in what he calls a "dilapidated s**thole of a city" outside of getting plastered & flashing your junk for Mardi Gras beads. So, going by his experience living there,I'd say you probably can compare drunk tourism impacts to a point, especially since there is much craft beer to be brewed & had up here.

But smoking bans, as far as I've noticed since I don't smoke anymore, do have an impact on the atmosphere of an establishment. A smoke and a drink go hand in hand for a lot of people, two vices being partaken in in a guilty pleasure setting. I really think it should be up to the establishments and not the government here, there's ample opportunity for people to convert to or open up smoke-free bars & such. The lack of willingness should be a dead giveaway as to why, though. It's like having good Italian food without wine, it's just not quite the same.

originally posted by: framedragged
I wish smoking bans banned smoking outdoors and let private establishments bathe in acrid smoke if they want. Plenty of, if not most, businesses in this day and age would be smoke free anyway and plenty would be smoke friendly, especially bars. Smokers wouldn't blow up a hundred yard bubble around them outside anymore,, and they'd still have places to smoke away from those who don't want to breathe their smoke.

I wish they would ban breathing. And put people in plastic bubbles so we wouldn't have to share the same air and breathe anyone elses exhales. Or be forced to smell their perfume or noxious poisonous body odors. Some nonsmokers really stink.

originally posted by: mikell
Sounds like Michigan and it works well. Some whine but the rest of us can have a couple of beers after work without having to leave our clothes outside when we go home.

Why would you choose to go to smoking place then whine about it? It's like going to some ethnic restaurant, then squealing to bureaucrats to ban their spices because their smells gross you out. Or visiting a web forum, then whining to government to ban them since their language or positions make you feel uncomfortable and abused.

Just go places you like being at, and everything sorts itself out without the big pharma bought bureaucratic bullies squashing ancient medicinal plant tobacco.

It's like that here in Sao Paulo. It works, people smoke outside. It hasn't decreased the number of smokers (AFAIK), non-smokers (like me) can go anywhere without leaving with that smell and many smokers go outside together, so they socialise too. Many people I know met good friends and even partners like that. Honestly, it's not a big deal, IMO.

a reply to: Nyiah

Congratulation Nyiah

You are the first and only one to hit the nail on the head about what the issue really is! - Property Rights of a Private Business Owner.

I wasn't even going to respond to this thread because it reads just like every news release published by anti-smokers after EVERY ban in EVERY city.

1. Bar business will increase, not decrease. According to one post on this thread, a so-called business owner reports that business decreases for about 4 weeks and then comes back BETTER then ever. This is not been the experience in Ontario and in England, which has published reports of the "loss of the English Pub".

The fact is that doesn't matter whether business increases or decreases. A bar is owned by a private person. Smoking a legal activity and every private business owner has the right to decide what kind of customer he wishes to attract. Some love to cater to families. Some like to cater to drinkers. It is their right to decide. There is nothing in the law that prevents a bar or restaurant owner from banning smoking in their establishment. With 10 years experience with smoking bans, if smoking bans really was good for business, than every bar and restaurant in every town would have already banned smoking and there would be absolutely no need for enforcement of the ban!

The bans are not popular with the common folk - that is why it still needs to be enforced after 10 years!

2. Its not about the health and safety of the employees. In every other industry when there is a legit concern about air quality, the matter is addressed under the health and safety codes by the Labour department. Why is it that a man can work in a toll-booth, relying solely on ventilation to protect his very life from carbon monoxide that would kill him in a very short amount of time, but ventilation cannot be provided to protect employees from second-hand smoke that might never affect him in his lifetime at all?

Why is smoking banned outdoors if the issue is really about anyone's health and safety? There are safe limits of exposure to Sarin gas but apparently second-hand smoke is more deadly than something that will kill you in minutes.

3. Some adults would prefer to go for a beer in a venue where kids are not allowed. However, with the loss of business, bars are forced to offer "better" food and try to cater to families. There is no place left anymore where an adult can have a beer and not have to endure the bad behavior of children.

4. If you can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke - read the sign on the door and choose a venue that offers the services of your choice. Are non-smokers so stupid that the government needs to deny smokers a social life because non-smokers can't read a sign?

5. Where is the obligatory smoker who steps up and announces that he is relieved that the government has banned smoking because he may now finally be able to quit smoking - (was there ever a more pathetic person on the planet that announces his need for big government to enact laws to protect him from his own choices?)

This whole thread reads like the anti-smoking play book and I would be surprised to find out that most of the posters are "volunteers" for some anti-smoking group or lobbyists.

Tobacco Control is Out of Control.

And it won't stop until we tell every single one of them where to go and how to get there!

Next stop - Alcohol Prohibition - Sugar Prohibition and Government Mandated Exercise Programs

We are all smokers now!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: AutOmatIc

Because noxious, carcinogenic, acrid smoke is comparable to BO.

Totes malotes yotes.

My great grandmother smoked old Turkish style cigarettes from the age of around 16 until the blessed age of 93.

My great uncle smoked a pipe and lived til 80.

I am a man that enjoys cigarillos. Once a week. How can the government demonize me for doing something that modern science says is harmless? (smoking a cigar once a week isn't going to give me anything, unless I was already genetically predisposed to getting it).

a reply to: kosmicjack
...and this in a state with drive through daiquiri joints!