Let’s Fight About: The Smoking Ban!
Well, it’s been almost four years since Fayetteville enacted it’s smoking ban, and almost two years since the statewide ban took effect, but that doesn’t mean it’s too late to fight about it.
In fact, a couple of local businesses will do just that when they are arraigned on Feb 1st for violating Fayetteville’s smoking ban.
Evelyn Longstreth, a bartender at Art’s Place and Mark Wright, the owner of On the Mark will both be arraigned for allowing their patrons to smoke.
Anyone who’s been to Art’s place on College Ave knows that those people clearly don’t give a crap about the smoking ban which to review the ordinance in Fayetteville, states that there will be no smoking in enclosed public places, except stand-alone bars that only serve alcohol, or anywhere that serves prepared food. Smoking is allowed in bars with no food or only foods that don’t require preparation such as Slim Jim’s and Oreo’s.
Art’s Place serves burgers, and delicious ones at that. They also let their patrons smoke all they want. In fact, I can’t imagine going to Art’s and not stinking like Paris Hilton on any given Tuesday morning afterwards. It’s part of the experience.
The NWA Times last Monday reported that Michelle Manning, project coordinator for the Northwest Arkansas Tobacco Free Coalition said that “Art’s Place and On the Mark are on a list of about 15 places she’s had complaints about from coalition members who spot smokers where smoking isn’t legal.”
“They are just suspected,” Manning said. “We have people go in, and they’ve seen it. We take note of it and call police.”
What? There are people going around checking to make sure people aren’t smoking in restaurants? Do they get paid for that? I’m sorry. I’m a non smoker and even further, I’m a former smoker so I definitely don’t want to be around cigarette smoke but come on, man. Do people who give a rip about second hand smoke eat bacon-cheeseburgers and drink pitchers of bud heavy art Art’s place? Do they? Would about 90% of the clientele at Art’s place show up to Art’s place if they couldn’t smoke there?
I still think (even though it’s clearly not up for debate anymore) this is something that should be left up to restaurant owners. Certain restaurants will do better if they don’t allow smoking but Art’s place on College? That place will be closed a few months from the time they stop allowing their patrons to smoke. Can we at least agree that there are definitely exceptions to the rule that no one can smoke in any restaurant ever, period?
It’s been four years since the smoking ban went into effect in Fayetteville. Art’s Place has stayed in business by ignoring the ban. Can’t we just leave them alone?
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
By JTrain on January 29th, 2008
I voted for the ban. Since then, I’ve come around on how I feel about the subject and am now opposed to it. I’d love be be able to retract my vote. I love a smoke-free bar/restaurant, but it should be up to the business owner.
By EL Dookie on January 29th, 2008
Why don’t they have “memberships” where you are technically a “private club” and if all the members want to smoke, they smoke.
It works for the “dry” county to the north of us. If those bible beaters can get around the fact they’re not suposed to drink, then there aught to be a way around smoking in F-ville.
By jones on January 29th, 2008
I’m all for smokeless everything. Sorry Art’s. I used to give a rip about you until you got rid of your sweet jukebox and replaced it with one that is constantly playing the worst music on the planet. Not to mention the hiring of bowlcut-jeanshorts-basketballshoes who enjoys hitting on my friends and turning previously mentioned terrible music up while turning down some Al Green or Otis Redding.
Art’s was the last battleground in this dissucion for me, and they have lost. Smokeless everything. Although I will on occasion enjoy a burg and a warm, flat pitcher of beer, I can live without it.
By Concealed Weapon on January 29th, 2008
I am against smoking.
But I am for personal liberty.
If a restaurant owner wants to allow smoking, should be his/her liberty to do so. If I don’t want to go because there is smoking there, I won’t. If I ever get to vote on it, I’ll vote against the ban.
Plus its soooooo entertaining to watch those self important protectors of us who are too stupid to make good decisions get frothing at the mouth angry because Fayetteville just can’t seem to measure up to those civilized cities.
Keep Fayetteville Affordable.
By R. Campana on January 29th, 2008
I moved to New York in March 2003, arriving the day before the smoking ban took effect. People howled and bitched and moaned about how it was a death sentence for certain businesses — especially dive bars — which would, without a doubt, wither up and blow away in a gust of the government-busy-body-nanny-state winds.
But they didn’t. People still went out to bars. They just stepped outside when they needed a smoke.
The same drama played itself out here over the following couple of years: death knell for bars and restaurants, whither Waffle House?, blah blah. Same results: people still go out to bars and restaurants, they just don’t come out stinking like an ashtray.
So now the debate seems to hinge on how it’s anti-business for the big bad ol’ gubmint to enforce regulations on businesses. But guess what? I know this sounds crazy, but just think about it: The government tells businesses what they can’t do ALL THE TIME.
Health inspectors come around and give business owners citations if there’s oh, say, rat feces in their food bins, or if they’re storing raw chicken at 62 degrees.
But what if a restaurateur likes to serve up a side of vermin crap with their blue plate special? Or what about the daring innovator boldly exploring the uncharted waters of chicken sushi? What business is it of the government’s to step all over his rights as a business owner?
Part of the job of the government (ostensibly, anyway) is to look out for the public welfare. If you operate a restaurant that serves the public, you are obligated to do your best to avoid harming those who patronize your business. I should be able to go to any public restaurant and eat, and not have to breathe smoke. Period.
If allowing other patrons to smoke is more important to you than my business, fine. Get a private club license and I won’t go there anymore. Otherwise, you’ve basically got two options: Get rid of the smoking or stop serving food.
By smiller on January 29th, 2008
I bartended at Art’s Place for three years. I thank a god I don’t believe in every day that I don’t have to go to earn a living there. Place is nasty.
By aquachong on January 29th, 2008
it’s 2008, we all know smoking is bad for you and those around you. yes, drinking can be bad for you also, but when i’m sitting next to you or in the same room drinking a beer, it has no affect on your situation. the smoking ban has had zero affect on businesses and would be the same for bars. nothing like that is going to stop people from going out to drink and eat. i myself and many friends would go out a lot more if smoke wasn’t an issue. it would be nice to see our city take a more progressive stance towards banning smoking in bars as well.
By BadMinton on January 29th, 2008
Say I walk toward you throwing punches and you fail to get out of the way and get smacked in the face. Well, you could have moved. Therefore, it is your fault for not moving rather than mine for being a ****.
I think a similar line of logic exists with smokers who think they have a right to smoke when and where they choose and think it is my responsibility to move if I don’t want their exhausted filth spewed all over my clothes.
As for the rights of business, you’d be hard pressed to find someone more pro-business than myself. However, I think a little social responsibility never hurt anyone. Make a buck, just don’t kill people doing it.
By zh on January 31st, 2008
I think its probably good that they banned smoking. I was pissed at first. I was one of the opponents who eventually said, “hey, its not so bad stepping outside and i do smoke less now”, but it seems that the proponents of the ban are all more concerned about smelling bad when they get home from a bar than they are about their health, which is supposedly the driving force behind the ban. Its not the gooberment’s place to protect people from having smelly clothes. That is a supply and demand issue. If enough people wanted a non smoking environment, one would be provided. I think they should revoke the ban now that most places realize that they wont go out of business. I think most places would continue to be non-smoking.