Smoking: Cigars vs. cigarettes

I've been reading the previous posting by Robin about smoking and patios, and thought I'd bounce my idea off the forum.

It is this: What would you think about an establishment in New Albany (where there currently is no smoking ordinance) that bans cigarettes, but allows cigars and pipes?

As a cigar smoker, I've always been discriminated against doubly. Places filled with cigarette smoke have signs posted against cigars and pipes. Often times, there is too much acrid ciggie smoke in the air to read these signs. I'm thinking: How about giving the nicotine addicts a taste of their own?

Obviously, this would be in conjunction with our forthcoming second location in downtown NA, which leads to my serious question: Does anyone out there differentiate between different smoke sources, or are they all the same to you?

I actually prefer the cigar and pipe to the cigarette, particularly because they tend to contain purer ingredients and give off a more pleasant odor. Plus, from my limited knowledge, they do less damage to the lungs. I've only rarely smoked cigars (and got tremendously sick the first time ) and never the pipe, but I certainly do not mind being around them. Cigarettes on the other hand are nauseating.

I'd be interested to hear what an asthmatic would say. Are they bothered by the type of smoke or just smoke in general?

As a former two pack a day then a cigar a day person I can see your point.. I hated to be told in a bar that I could not smoke my cigar but in restaurants...Food and Smoke do not mix. It totally ruins the meal..

[Robin Garr]

It is this: What would you think about an establishment in New Albany (where there currently is no smoking ordinance) that bans cigarettes, but allows cigars and pipes?

I admire the chutzpah behind this idea and agree that second-hand pipe and cigar tobacco smoke is probably less obnoxious than cigarette smoke simply because it's higher quality tobacco. But as a consumer, I would still steer clear of the place, and I expect quite a few non-smokers would do the same.

To me all the smoke is the same. I've never heard of cigars being banned but cigarettes not. However I'm not a smoker so I dont look for these things.

Again, like I say in all other posts my stance is that it's your business allow what you want.

My dilemma is simple. The new place will offer food, but not a full menu, and not what we already do (pizza, etc). It will be a taproom with a menu not unlike that experienced at Belgian cafes, i.e., soup, stew, toasted sandwiches and light items that the Belgians call "snacks." In spite of my mostly jesting post here, my default inclination is to allow no smoking at all, primarily because there won't be room for any separation, and someday there'll be an ordinance even in New Albany.

At the same time, I enjoy my cigars; heaven knows I pay enough for the privilege and don't do stinky cheroots. Ceilings are high at the new spot, and I carry a bit of a grudge from being told so many times by cigarette smokers that my cigar bothers them (now that's chutzpah). Hence my comment.

But in the end, it's good to be the King. Maybe I'll reserve the cigar right for myself alone.

Roger,
I am not a smoker. I hate cigarette smke but am okay with pipe and cigar smoke. In this case it is for a taproom and although many guys I know love a stoagie with their beer, doesn't it detract from what you are trying to accomplish? One of the key elements in tasting fine beer or wine is the aroma. if one or two guys are puffing on a cigar, it wouldn't make much difference, but if the bar is full of cigar smokers, I will assume you will lose the flavors of the beer.

It is a tough call. I would maybe suggest a cigar room that also allowed pipe smoke. Some clubs and higher end restaurants in other cities have cigar bar areas with bourbon and cigars for example. Just a thought.

It is a tough call. I would maybe suggest a cigar room that also allowed pipe smoke. Some clubs and higher end restaurants in other cities have cigar bar areas with bourbon and cigars for example. Just a thought.

We considered that, but it's a small space to work with already. You're completely right about the purpose being defeated by smoke, which is why we'll probably be smokeless in spite of my ranting.

What interests me is that to date, we've not publicly said yay or nay to smoking, and yet equal numbers of people for and against have come up and thanked me for allowing/not allowing smoke. That's funny.

A little out of left field but what about certain nights of the week...you might attract a decent crowd that night based on the cigar smokers. Say...every Thursday is Cigar night...or maybe one of your traditionally slower nights...you could have specials on craft bottles/draft and/or bourbon/whiskey that are a good pair with cigars??? Is there room for a seperated lounge?

Meh..maybe not...just a thought. You're right though...eventually the complete ban will trickle to most cities...

as a Camel guy, i do not like the smell of cheap/poor quality cigars, but i can tolerate better quality pipe/cigar smoke
and cig smoke is obnoxious no matter where you are (although not as pervasive and funky as other smoke)

i think there are two issues with cigars/pipes being banned in "smoking" establishments
1 - the odor is much more pungent and pervasive than cigarette smoke, which is why you smell a bad cigar in a room full of cigarette smoke
2- the quality of the cigar/pipe tobacco has a direct relationship to the pleasantness of the aroma - so do you ban cheap cigars and pipe tobacco and only allow the finest quality smoke or do you tolerate the mass appeal of the swisher sweet,black and gold, and phillies

in my experience, cigarette smoke lingers in spaces and cigar smoke infiltrates spaces
a terrible cigar can clear a room full of people, yet a cigarette only irritates them

we went non-smoking due to a serious lack of ventilation and due to the trouble caused by ashtrays, stray burns, stained walls, and yellow tinted ceiling tiles - even though there is no smoking ban in Charlestown

-you may have to face the facts, and join the ranks of the ostracized standing outside buildings across the country

because apparently second hand smoke is far more dangerous than exhaust fumes from that dump truck i was behind in traffic yesterday or that TARC bus idling at the bus stop, probably more dangerous than the air in rubber town too

my default inclination is to allow no smoking at all, primarily because there won't be room for any separation, and someday there'll be an ordinance even in New Albany.

I like your default inclination. I wish you would impose the same inclination at your other location. I definitely appreciate the non-smoking area there but it lacks the character and soul of the bar area. I am pretty sure it isn't the smoke that gives that area the soul either.

DO NOT LET THE BAR BECOME NON-SMOKING, please
first, it isn't the greatest dining area, more room for drinking and speaking (there are only 2 real tables in there anyway)
second, the non-smoking areas continue to grow and destroy the safety of the few remaining spaces where we are allowed to choose our own poisons
third, anti-smokers have become the storm troopers of behavioral control
i will support smokers and their sacred areas because of all the undue hype heaped onto smokers

there are far many more dangerous airborne pollutants affecting our daily lives than second hand smoke

i can't drive through the river cities without being assaulted by the smells from the former butchertown, the colgate factory, various water treatment plants, and hosts of oil burning vehicles spewing their noxious vapors across our great cities, not to mention rubber town, and the several industrial parks in the metro

i find it offensive that non-smokers want to control every space that they enter, i wouldn't ask a hospital to allow smoking, and i believe you shouldn't ask a bar to become non-smoking (if you have the choice to enter the establishment, then they should have the option to allow smoking)
non-smokers have a choice to not frequent establishments that allow smoking (at least in Floyd County) and smokers have the option to not frequent establishments that are completely non-smoking

in spite of this freedom of choice, non-smokers continue to want to regulate private businesses and personal behavior (as they have done in Louisville) under the guise of "public safety/health issues"

isn't the exhaust from the TARC bus potentially more harmful than second hand smoke (to the individual and the environment)
aren't the emissions from our chemical and energy producing facilities more harmful
isn't the contamination to our rivers and streams more harmful

i'm just trying to make a point that regulating the more minuscule matter of smoking doesn't help to improve the public health
if the air we breathe isn't clean or if we can't eat the fish from our rivers and streams


i understand and agree that smoking is harmful to both the smoker and those in his/her immediate surroundings
but i don't smoke in non-smoking areas, around children or the elderly, or in areas where it directly impacts a non-smoking person

yet, a non-smoker proposes that all the persons in a given designated area should stop their normal routine to cater to the wants of the outspoken few
if we use a little role reversal, and imagine that i want all airports to allow smoking throughout the facility or all restaurants to allow smoking, because i believe it is my right to smoke where ever i want to - this would be seen as one person wanting to change the world to cater to his wishes

we as a society should take responsibility for our environment on the grand scale
we can not choose the quality of the air we breathe in the ohio valley when we walk out of our front doors
why should we regulate the quality of the air we breathe in establishments that want to allow smoking, when we can not regulate the air outside of these establishments


but maybe i'm just fed up with oil companies these days,
shawn

i understand and agree that smoking is harmful to both the smoker and those in his/her immediate surroundings
but i don't smoke in non-smoking areas, around children or the elderly, or in areas where it directly impacts a non-smoking person

yet, a non-smoker proposes that all the persons in a given designated area should stop their normal routine to cater to the wants of the outspoken few
if we use a little role reversal, and imagine that i want all airports to allow smoking throughout the facility or all restaurants to allow smoking, because i believe it is my right to smoke where ever i want to - this would be seen as one person wanting to change the world to cater to his wishes

The analogy is way off since "not smoking" doesn't affect the health/atmosphere of those around while "smoking" does.

If Louisville can go non-smoking, it won't be long until others end up there as well.

Charles (who won't make any more posts on the smoking ban if he can help it)

As someone who is allergic to smoke of all kinds and also borderline asthmatic (mostly exercise induced but worsening), I will not go to any restaurant that allows any smoking. I understand the points of those who differ, but I make my choice as an individual who has a strong opinion (and I hope those who don't agree with me exercise their rights as well).