Wherever it is, it's outside the area of the ban. Houston bowling alleys have already banned smoking but you can still do it at Palace.
I agree with that. But I also feel there should be pretty strict conditions on receiving those licenses. I've said this before here more than once, but as a smoker and a barfly I'd be fine with only allowing indoor smoking at bars that served no food and hosted no entertainment. That way no non-smoker would ever miss out by not going to those bars. I know non-smokers (and even people who have bad, allergic reactions) that have endured smoke to see their favorite band or eat their favorite meal. They shouldn't have to make that choice. And after years and years in which smoking was allowed everywhere (I remember smoking at The Galleria, on planes, in the Summit, Astrodome, even in elevators), I'm not surprised there's such a backlash. I freaking hate going outside to smoke, but I've come around to believing it's the only fair thing to do in most instances. I do think a total ban's a mistake but I know from experiences in other cities that exceptions will be made.
Ummm ok, just because you don't smoke it makes you a better person than them? Sorry but I bet you are more of a "second class citizen" than some of the smokers out there.
Not talking about a certain person but I am talking about making folks feel bad about smoking, ie. make them go to a certain place to smoke. This will help the number of smokers decrease in the area which is a good thing.
i see what you mean. But not allowing food or a band to play? seems excesive. If a band plays at an establishment that allows smoking and people are truly so concerned about second hand smoke and dont show up ,well then the band will not have much of an incentive to go back to that place because people didnt show up. Likewise, what if a band plays at a non-smoking place but gets hurt because most of their fans may indeed smoke>? it goes both ways.. Let the band, restaurant and people decide where they do and do not want to play. If you truly value the band that you would sacrifice being uncomfortable to see them. If you dont, you wont go. Then the band will adjust where its played based on the turnout. that seems to be the only "fair" thing to do. let people and businesses decide for themselves.
i've said it before, i was against but now don't mind the ban here in ny. i'm just laughing at all the tough guy talk. i love redneck bars, just saying that there are far more fights there than in bars here. believe me it's no contest, the bars up here are oases of calm compared to their texas counterparts. not making a judgement about which ones are better, just passing on an observation. my guess is if patrons are expected to regulate there will be lots of fights about it.
Y'all still haven't named a bar in Bellaire. Even Little Woodrows is over the RR trax. I don't think there is a bar in Bellaire, come to think of it. There are restaurants where you can get a drink, but no bars I can think of.
I think that lil Woodrows dubs itself the "only bar in bellaire" and yes Palace is in Southside Place
It will stop me from smoking around them. Not all smokers are assholes. I agree with your previous post and wish this whole thing would be left to market forces -- bars around the country have reported an increase in business since bans went into effect, so it seems like that would have the desired effect -- but that's not going to happen. Meanwhile, nonsmokers are so pumped about the bans after so many years of suffering they're all angling for zero tolerance. Further, these things always get decided by a vote or by the state or local governments. In any of those situations, well more than 50% are nonsmokers and in any of those situations the ban wins. It's time to give up the fight over whether or not bans will go into effect. They will. I'm just trying to find a workable compromise.
typical judgemental assh*le that dont have a damn clue if it was that damn easy, I wouldnt still be doing it. the only substance even close in addictive power is heroin. Ill tell you this right now, and this is the damn truth.. at least 80% of all smokers would quit if it wasnt so damn addicting. but no worries from me...I dont go to bars anymore, and I was never one to smoke while eating anyway. but hey....judge on...ya know, since Im a second class citizen...my opinion dont mean jack**** anyway. f*ckin dick
I'm not a smoker, think its harmful and certainly don't like to be around second hand smoke. All that given though I don't like blanket smoking bans. Drinking alchohal, greasy food and loud music isn't healthy yet those are still allowed. In the end smoking is still legal and I don't see why businesses can't be allowed to cater to patrons who want to smoke. If bars feel that they are doing fine without smokers then fine but I think there should be the option for them to cater to smokers if they feel that is what they need to do to stay in business. IMO a ban with smoking licenses would be the correct solution rather than just a blanket ban. Also for those who are concerned about being exposed to second hand smoke keep in mind that you still will be when you are exiting or entering or if you want to sit on the patio to enjoy the weather. By allowing some bars to be smoking and some not to there is less likely to be smokers hanging around the entry or patio as they will be at the smoking bars.
