How to save the movie theater industry: allow pot smoking and texting!

[Randy Stankey]

I get what you are saying but I think that is a complicated solution for a simple problem.

I don't care why people like or dislike smoking. It's none of my business and it's none of the government's business either. (That's all I'm going to say about that.)
People can dislike smoking for whatever reason. If they don't like the smell of smoke. If they get sick from smelling smoke. If they think it's bad for people's health. If they just think smoking is immoral. I don't care. Either one like's it or they don't... or, maybe they just don't care, one way or another. None of that matters.

Then, people start making rules... A stand-alone establishment. Indoors or outdoors. How many people can be inside the building. It's over-complicated and it's useless.

I think it's better to say that bars, themselves, must decide whether to allow smoking or not. If they do, they must post a sign, in a conspicuous place, that says "Smoking Allowed." If they don't want smoking, they must post a sign, "Smoking Prohibited."

I know that a lot of people don't like smoking. It's their right. If an establishment decides to allow smoking when their customers don't like it, people will stop coming through the door and business will suffer. The opposite is also true.

I agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed in some places. Theaters are one place. Hospitals. Offices. Retail stores, etc.

One addition or exception to this would be to require ventilation. The number one reason why bars get funky when people smoke is because there isn't enough ventilation. By ventilation, I mean exhaust to the outdoors.

I grew up in a bar where smoking wasn't only accepted, it was the norm. It would not be uncommon to see a dozen guys sitting at the bar, all with cigs going. The bartender smoked, too. Yes, I know that, when you get a bar full of people smoking, the air turns blue. Even if you smoke, it gets hard to tolerate. My father's solution was an exhaust fan. It was built into the wall and it was about twelve inches in diameter, exhausting directly outside. When you turned that fan on, it could clear the room in about five minutes.

There were a few bars in town that had air filters called "Smoke Eaters." Basically, they were electrostatic air cleaners with extra filters. They don't work. All they do is electrically charge the smoke so that it sticks to things. Smoke Eaters are bullshit, AFAIAC. The one and the only way to clear the air of smoke is exhaust.

I wouldn't have a problem with making a rule that, if an establishment wants to allow smoking, they have to prove that they have ventilation of so many CFM/min or turnovers per hour.

I smoke and even I don't like smoke filled rooms! I say that, if some place wants to allow smoking, they have to have the right exhaust fans and they have to post signs. It's plain, it's simple and it's not over complicated.

[Ryan Gallagher]

My “favorite” smoking ordinance thing is the X distance from a public entrance. That rule reveals it’s double standard nonsense when you have street side seating where cars frequently park and idle their engines while people pop in and out at even closer distances.

if you are gonna use an X distance rule make it apply to all noxious pollution generating things!

Maybe EVs will solve that, but we are not there yet.

Bicycle and Ped commuters in the urban US deal with far worse health hazards daily than encountering a few smokers. ;-)

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Not going to happen in a publicly accessed building of any type. Once the smoke detectors sense that stuff a couple times, the fire depart will likely fine the theater as a warning. And if it happens over and over, they will pull the occupancy permit to shut the place down until the problem is fixed. If you want to allow people to smoke what ever they want, then build a smoking room. Since the majority of the public doesn't smoke, then you'd also end up chasing away customers to other non-smoking cinemas.
Back in 1972, my first apartment was named Covered Bridges. But the smoke alarms in the units were so sensitive that you could barely make bacon and eggs with out setting the fire alarm off. Hence, the Apartment complex came to be known as "Burning Bridges". It still exists, but that name is also still well known, and people avoid renting there to this day.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

My “favorite” smoking ordinance thing is the X distance from a public entrance. That rule reveals it’s double standard nonsense when you have street side seating where cars frequently park and idle their engines while people pop in and out at even closer distances.

if you are gonna use an X distance rule make it apply to all noxious pollution generating things!

Maybe EVs will solve that, but we are not there yet.

Bicycle and Ped commuters in the urban US deal with far worse health hazards daily than encountering a few smokers. ;-)

Most places that are built like that were put up way before anyone thought fumes or smoke from anything was dangerous..

[Randy Stankey]

Standing away from a doorway while you smoke is just common sense. It's not, simply, the smoke. It's just not very nice when you're trying to get into or out of a building while people are hovering around the doorway. It would be even worse if you had to navigate through a crowd, smoking cigarettes without bumping into somebody's ashes and stuff.

The polite person, smoker or not, shouldn't congregate around doorways without reason.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Standing away from a doorway while you smoke is just common sense. It's not, simply, the smoke. It's just not very nice when you're trying to get into or out of a building while people are hovering around the doorway. It would be even worse if you had to navigate through a crowd, smoking cigarettes without bumping into somebody's ashes and stuff.

The polite person, smoker or not, shouldn't congregate around doorways without reason.

Haha for sure. I wasn't implying the rule or practice of stepping away is bad, just that it is an incomplete treatment of the subject where nearby vehicle exhaust is just as annoying if not worse. Of course I live in a state where you can still smell vehicle exhaust. The other states it's just an invisible odorless hazard. The takeaway is drivers are often far more entitled in attitude than smokers. They'd pitch a fit if a handful of spaces near an entrance were no longer accessible. Hell just make all the ones near entrances or seating handicap spaces, that is a reasonable trade IMHO.

[Martin Brooks]

I think it has to be a joke because it is currently illegal to smoke marijuana in any public place in NYC (or your car, or public transport), although if you get caught, it's only a $25 fine. And I believe that "a public place" includes places of public accommodation, which a movie theater is.

But if it's not a joke, it's absolutely insane. And I don't know which idiot politician in NYS said this would be possible, but I highly doubt the NYC Fire Department would permit it. What would prevent a minor who is also attending the film from getting a contact high? Who the hell wants the odor on their clothing? Etc. I find it a little hard to believe that this wasn't an April Fool's joke.

It took a long time to get tobacco smoking banned everywhere. I really don't think they're going to start allowing smoking weed. However, consumables might be a different story. (Although consumables would have gone better while watching movies like "The Trip" and "2001: A Space Odyssey".

I have no problem with theaters serving alcohol, although you know there's people who are going to over-consume. IMO, alcohol should only be served with a food order in theaters that serve actual meals. You don't want some jerk drinking eight cans of beer and then acting out. That's going to lead to physical fights in theaters.

[Bobby Henderson]

I get what you are saying but I think that is a complicated solution for a simple problem.

I don't agree. If the choice to allow smoking or not was up to the bar owner then every bar would have to allow smoking. That's because certain smokers totally lose their shit when someone tells them they cannot smoke inside a certain place. If the bar owner is able to tell the jackass that his hands are tied because the bar is inside a hotel or some place like that the jackass can either accept it or go somewhere else. If the bar owner operates a non-smoking bar out of his own choice the jackass is more likely to cause trouble.

And, yeah, I don't like smoking. At all. I don't want to smell it. I don't want the smoke getting into my clothes and my hair. If some guy is going to light up next to me and I feel the urge coming on I won't hold back a letting a nasty fart next to him. Two can play that game.

[Frank Cox]

If the choice to allow smoking or not was up to the bar owner then every bar would have to allow smoking.

I agree.

I was overjoyed when the provincial government outlawed smoking in movie theatres (among other places). Before then I had a rule that smoking was allowed only in the lobby but not in the auditorium. I never liked it but people seemed to expect to be able to smoke here.

Afterward I could just say no smoking allowed here at all and nobody could argue about it or be mad at me.

I used to keep an ashtray under my ticket counter so people could butt out their cigarettes when they walked in the door but I haven't had to deal with smoking here in any form for decades, and I like it that way.

[Randy Stankey]

I guess I don't believe in the Social Contract the way you do. I don't believe that a business owner needs to stand behind a law in order to say that whether he wants people to smoke in his establishment or not. I don't want to hear people say, "The law prohibits smoking." I would rather hear, "I said, no smoking and so says the law." We shouldn't hide behind the law. We should stand on it.

The difference is subtle. They mean the same thing. It's not just in what is said but the way it is said.

[Ryan Gallagher]

For a bit of context, Austin’s attempt at the bar ordinance involved enforcement that only fined the customer. The historically smoke friendly bards just took away the ash trays and everyone used water cups instead. Ignoring the rule was the best business decision for them.

it wasn’t until they modified enforcement that each infraction could result in a fine for the bartenders or business and not the customer that self enforcement started working.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Here is a list of States and the laws they have set in place regarding smoking. I find it interesting that of all the States I've been in (38) that I have never encountered smoking in any restaurant ,ever. So there may be local laws in place that curb that. And any business owner can also put up his own "No Smoking" signs as well.

[Bobby Henderson]

I guess I don't believe in the Social Contract the way you do. I don't believe that a business owner needs to stand behind a law in order to say that whether he wants people to smoke in his establishment or not. I don't want to hear people say, "The law prohibits smoking." I would rather hear, "I said, no smoking and so says the law." We shouldn't hide behind the law. We should stand on it.

The law gives the business owner a valuable out to avoid conflict.

I don't know how things are in Pennsylvania, but here in Oklahoma people who still smoke tend to be pretty militant about it. If a bar owner tried operating his business smoke-free by his own choice he would catch all kinds of shit about it constantly. We're talking arguments in person and pissed off smokers bitching about it online via social media, bad reviews on Google, etc.

Let's not forget the undeniable fact that social skills among the American public have definitely gone into a state of atrophy. People will literally kill other people for the slightest provocation. Concepts like manners, etiquette or even impulse control have been stunted, thanks in part to people socializing less in person and more through their phones and other digital devices. When they get out in the real world they don't know how to behave. This is another reason why I won't visit bars or night clubs that allow smoking; the crowds at smoke-free pubs tend to be more grown-up.

We can go on and on about Libertarian style principals, but the reality of human behavior doesn't care about any principals.

[Randy Stankey]

My father ran his bar his way. People could always do and say what they want. They go to bars to let down their hair for a couple of hours and that's the way he kept it. On the other hand, when a problem needed to be addressed, he put his foot down. When the foot went down, the foot stayed down... "It's my business and I say so..."

I remember seeing my father in a bar fight. It was because some guys had an argument over the pool table. He threw them out, physically, then decided that he didn't want to have a pool table in his bar. He didn't want to have any more fights over the pool table and, beside, it took up too much room that could have been for more customers to sit. So, out it went.

He called the vending company and told them that he wanted to get rid of the table. A week went by but they never came. Finally, him and three of his buddies picked up that pool table and put it outside in the parking lot. He called the vending company and told them that their pool table was in the parking lot. A truck rolled up within the hour!

That's the way my father ran his bar.

I'm not saying that people should run their businesses the way my father did but I think that there is a certain sense that has been lost. "My circus! My monkey! If you don't like it, you know where the door is."

I'll say it again, people shouldn't stand behind the law. They should stand on the law: "Yes, I run my business in a law-abiding way but, when I say something, it's because I said so, not because I'm hiding behind some law."

If customers don't like the way I run my business then they'll stop coming. If too many people stop coming then my business will suffer. If that happens, I'll either have to change my ways or else I'll have to go out of business and sell the place. Economics is a bigger motivator than laws. That's why people break laws in the first place.

This isn't just about Libertarianism. A business owner has responsibilities to his employees, his customers and his family. He's got to keep the business running so that his workers can make a living. He's got to run his business according to his mission statement in order to serve his customers so that his workers can make that living. He's got to run the business to feed his family. Those are the driving forces. Libertarianism comes at the end. You just can run around, hiding behind laws. You've got to be out in front, running the business.

I am not campaigning to let people smoke in bar and other places. I've already said that I don't agree with smoking in theaters and I stand on that. There are plenty of other places where I don't think people should smoke, either. So, let me ask, why did the Warner Theater have a smoking lounge? Because you can't smoke in the theater but they still wanted to serve their customers. IF people wanted to smoke (or "needed" to smoke) they could. Smoking was a lot more prevalent, back then. If the theater didn't have a way to serve their clientele, they would lose a lot of business.

That's all I am saying. If you run a business, any business, you've got to think about how to serve your clientele. If you do it wrong, you lose business.

The bottom line is that people who own theaters don't want their customers to smoke in the auditoriums. If they want to have a smoking room that's all well and good. If they don't want smoking, at all, then so be it. The same goes for bars and restaurants. The same goes for that newsstand on the street corner. People don't need convoluted laws to tell them that.

If you don't want smoking in your business, you don't want smoking. End of sentence.

[Lyle Romer]

I think it has to be a joke because it is currently illegal to smoke marijuana in any public place in NYC (or your car, or public transport), although if you get caught, it's only a $25 fine. And I believe that "a public place" includes places of public accommodation, which a movie theater is.

But if it's not a joke, it's absolutely insane. And I don't know which idiot politician in NYS said this would be possible, but I highly doubt the NYC Fire Department would permit it. What would prevent a minor who is also attending the film from getting a contact high? Who the hell wants the odor on their clothing? Etc. I find it a little hard to believe that this wasn't an April Fool's joke.

It took a long time to get tobacco smoking banned everywhere. I really don't think they're going to start allowing smoking weed. However, consumables might be a different story. (Although consumables would have gone better while watching movies like "The Trip" and "2001: A Space Odyssey".

I have no problem with theaters serving alcohol, although you know there's people who are going to over-consume. IMO, alcohol should only be served with a food order in theaters that serve actual meals. You don't want some jerk drinking eight cans of beer and then acting out. That's going to lead to physical fights in theaters.

I wish that in all places where marijuana has been legalized that they would implement big fines for smoking it in a public place, including on sidewalks and in parks, etc. To me and many other non-pot smokers, the smell is awful and makes stinky cigars small good. Do whatever you want in your home or a place dedicated to smoking weed. I don't care as long as I don't have to smell it. I was just out in Vegas and nothing ruins a walk down the strip like being hit in the face with the stench of weed.