I had a conversation last night with the owner of Hookah Bliss in Chapel Hill. Although the smoking ban has exemptions for private clubs and cigar bars, hookah is not exempt. Last night was the second anniversary of his shop opening, but he says unless something changes soon he has January 2 marked on his calendar as his official closing date.

This is from the N&O, published yesterday:

Quote :

"A farewell to hookahs The ban will likely require about 20 hookah bars across the state to close, said Adam Bliss, owner of Hookah Bliss in Chapel Hill. Customers can buy beer or a soda and then smoke flavored tobacco through a hookah, or water pipe. Bliss said he unsuccessfully lobbied for an exclusion for his business. "It's just like a cigar bar. You come in expecting to smoke," Bliss said. "I'm probably going to end up having to close my business and figure out how to repay my loans and investors now." Bliss said his business generates $100,000 a year in revenue and $10,000 in taxes. He has six employees."

5/15/2009 8:00:37 AM

Can someone tell me why he can't become a private club or a cigar bar?

5/15/2009 8:28:18 AM

B/c he'd rather piss and moan about it and get the name of his hookah bar in the N&O. Then probably he will just get it licensed as a private club or cigar bar.

5/15/2009 9:17:57 AM

To become a private club you have to restrict your patrons to 21 and over...he is on a college campus so the overwhelming majority of his business is under 21.

5/15/2009 9:27:46 AM

if he's only generating $100k in revenue, with 6 employees, plus cost-of-goods sold, rent, insurance, etc..... he's got to be hurting pretty bad anyway

5/15/2009 9:30:20 AM

All the Raleigh hookah places are facing the same situation.

In order to stay open they would have to

1) become beverage only and compete with the bar scene (most hookah places are too small to make that transition, max capacity in most of them is under 30)

2) get rid of the food and beverages and try to survive on the smoking alone...which will cut down revenue significantly enough that they would have to close anyway.

5/15/2009 9:36:01 AM

I wonder what will happen to Marrakesh.

They're probably included. They serve lunch, but I don't think that makes a difference for this.

5/15/2009 10:27:28 AM

Private clubs must be nonprofits under this law, so he can't become a private club. He could easily, it seems to me, be a cigar bar, which needs to get 25% revenue from cigars and 60% from alcohol.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H2v8.html

5/15/2009 10:59:04 AM

so wait wait wait.

Its no good if your a bar that allows smoking

but its ok if your a bar that allows smoking AND sells cigars?

5/15/2009 11:08:11 AM

Basically, it seems like they don't want to restrict all smoking, so they're allowing cigar bars to stay in business... they sell cigars and therefore make money for the tobacco industry, I guess?

But my understanding is that you can't now just become a cigar bar, either. There's some kind of approval process and probably a limit to how many can exist.

5/15/2009 11:38:24 AM

this is absolutely retarded

a really nice hookah bar just opened up here in boone 2 weeks ago

i'd love to talk to the owners about this

5/15/2009 12:07:14 PM

A small victory for the war on terror.

5/15/2009 12:16:09 PM

the war on terror is even more retarded than a smoking ban

5/15/2009 1:23:25 PM

I supported a smoking ban, but I didn't think about hookah bars. Chalk one up to unintended consequences, I guess. It seems like they should make an exception for establishments that are specifically designed for smoking.

5/15/2009 1:43:38 PM

yeah i agree. and i have a feeling that is how it will be resolved in the coming months.

5/15/2009 1:45:08 PM

The whole law is fucking stupid.

If the goal of the law is for public health then just BAN FUCKING TOBACCO.

If the goal of the law is to make sure people know what places are smoking and what are not, then just require a sign on the god damned door.

5/15/2009 1:48:15 PM

i think the public health aspect is more about employees of the establishments than the visitors. as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, there are towns around where you can't be a waitress or a bartender unless you resign yourself to inhaling smoke your whole shift.

5/15/2009 1:49:43 PM

then dont be a waiter or bartender in those places.

5/15/2009 1:52:05 PM

The goal is to make it so non-smokers don't have to breathe in cigarette smoke when they're out in public. It really is that simple. Second hand smoke is something that many people just don't want in their lungs.

5/15/2009 1:54:38 PM

^^then don't be a coal miner.

then don't worker in a sweatshop with dangerous conditions

etc.

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2009 1:55:15 PM

^
What's your point?
If you don't want to work a dangerous or unhealthy job, no one is forcing you to. Simply work elsewhere.

5/15/2009 1:57:49 PM

yout dont have a right to work there. You also dont have a right to patronize any business. Everyone calls them public places, but they are not public. They're privately owned businesses that should be able to run their businesses the way they want.

5/15/2009 2:01:09 PM

i know know, government doesn't have any place in trying to improve worker safety. whatever was i thinking?

5/15/2009 2:05:06 PM

Quote :

"The goal is to make it so non-smokers don't have to breathe in cigarette smoke when they're out in public. It really is that simple. Second hand smoke is something that many people just don't want in their lungs."

Yes, yes...

So why would it be a problem for these non-smokers to stay out of a bar specifically designed for the purpose of smoking my son?

I'm a "non-smoke" my son and I don't encounter these problems you speak of. Out in the open air, second hand smoke is negligible at best my son. NEGLIGIBLE SON. Now, indoors I can't stand the shyte and most smokers I know can't either. A lot of smokers I know refuse to smoke even in their own house and car my son.



A "NON-SMOKE"

MY SON.

5/15/2009 2:07:46 PM

And here come the libertarians....

5/15/2009 2:14:56 PM

Quote :

"i know know, government doesn't have any place in trying to improve worker safety. whatever was i thinking? "

How fucking stupid are you?

The govenment steps in to fix hazzards like unsafe equipment, food safety, fire hazzards, etc... Things that are illegal. Smoking it the pressent is NOT illegal. To create worker saftey laws around something that is legal is fucking stupid. This is what you do not understand. If its really unsafe to the point that it should be banned in some places, then it should be banned in all places.

If you wanted to work at a club would you have the government force them to turn down the music to prevent your hearing loss?

5/15/2009 2:18:21 PM

Or if you were an epileptic how bout having them turn off any flashy lights?

5/15/2009 2:19:54 PM

fire hazards and preparing food unsafely for your own consumption isn't illegal either (and it wasn't illegal in public places for quite a long time until the government stepped in). that is exactly what is happening here. our publicly elected officials made a determination for what they considered the public well-being and good. just like fire codes, food codes, etc. taking issue with a new law because it isn't already the law is a little silly.

5/15/2009 2:25:18 PM

No thats not what they did and its really fucking aggrivating trying to get that through your thick thick skull.

In the case of the new smoking ban they decided that smoking was only hazerdous in a few specific incidences. According to the ban it is not hazerdous to individuals in their own homes. it is also not hazerdous to people in private clubs. It is also not hazerdous in places where they sell cigars.

It is only hazerdous in places where people sell alcohol and nothing else. That is what this law states and that is why its so fucking stupid.

5/15/2009 2:27:57 PM

Quote :

"The govenment steps in to fix hazzards like unsafe equipment, food safety, fire hazzards, etc... Things that are illegal. Smoking it the pressent is NOT illegal."

unsafe equipment, unsafe food, fire hazards are not "illegal" in and of themselves. They only become illegal once a law is passed that says they are prohibited from restaurants or places of work. It's not illegal for you to have expired food in your home or to lock your own back door from the outside.

In the same strain, smoking is not illegal, that is, unless there is a law that prohibits smoking from particular places. By definition, smoking in those places is therefore illegal.

I'm not arguing for or against the ban, but this particular line of reasoning is faulty.

5/15/2009 2:28:10 PM

Quote :

"So why would it be a problem for these non-smokers to stay out of a bar specifically designed for the purpose of smoking my son? I'm a "non-smoke" my son and I don't encounter these problems you speak of. Out in the open air, second hand smoke is negligible at best my son. NEGLIGIBLE SON. Now, indoors I can't stand the shyte and most smokers I know can't either. A lot of smokers I know refuse to smoke even in their own house and car my son."

I'm saying that it shouldn't be banned for a bar specifically designed for the purpose of smoking. I'm saying it should be banned indoors for general use establishments. Personally, I don't care about second hand smoke, and I end up breathing it in all the time. I don't whine about it. Again, this law is made for non-smokers who don't want to breathe in the smoke, ever, as they view it (rightly so) as a poisonous, cancer-causing agent.

Now, you can make the argument that people have the right to decide if they want to enter a place that has smoking going on it, and that no ban is necessary. You can also argue that as a private business, the owner should be able to determine if he wants there to be smoking or not. Or you can argue that any establishment should either be labeled "smoking" or "non-smoking," as to avoid any confusion. I'm actually not sure why the latter wouldn't have been a viable solution.

5/15/2009 2:28:21 PM

Quote :

"our publicly elected officials made a determination for what they considered the public well-being and good."

The world would be a better place if these idiots stopped making such determinations my son.





YES SON.

STOP SON.

5/15/2009 2:29:56 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that it shouldn't be banned for a bar specifically designed for the purpose of smoking. I'm saying it should be banned indoors for general use establishments. Personally, I don't care about second hand smoke, and I end up breathing it in all the time. I don't whine about it. Again, this law is made for non-smokers who don't want to breathe in the smoke, ever, as they view it (rightly so) as a poisonous, cancer-causing agent. "

This law doesn't accomplish that though. It only bans it in a few places where some of the patrons accept the smoke.

A better law would have been to ban it EVERYWHERE except for places that clearly mark themselves as smoking establishments.

5/15/2009 2:30:32 PM

Quote :

"In the case of the new smoking ban they decided that smoking was only hazerdous in a few specific incidences. According to the ban it is not hazerdous to individuals in their own homes. it is also not hazerdous to people in private clubs. It is also not hazerdous in places where they sell cigars."

not really. they decided they wanted to take legal action on a large number of places with some exceptions. many of the exceptions are places where people specifically go to smoke. smoking is hazardous no matter what the context. but believe it or not, legislators don't work in the absolutist world that libertarians seem to think can exist.

5/15/2009 2:33:16 PM

So why cant there be a bar where people specificly go to smoke and drink alcohol?

5/15/2009 2:35:30 PM

They work in the pen15 club world my son. Where shades of gray fill the air.


























NAW SON.

5/15/2009 2:35:54 PM

Even though I don't agree with the reasoning of public health for bar workers since I think they have the choice of whether or not to work there, at least bars serve food. Who in the fuck goes to work or is 'forced to work' at a hookah bar without knowing and expecting the risks of 2nd hand smoke?

5/15/2009 2:39:18 PM

^^^let's try this logic:
there can, that bar can exist in a state that allows it. in this state, we have decided against that specific option. perhaps other states will have an influx of great smoke + drink bars and NC will see the error in its ways.

^and yeah i think if there's an exception for cigar bars, it only makes sense for there to be an exception for hookah bars.


[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2009 2:39:43 PM

what I was getting at is whats the difference between a cigar bar and a ciggarette bar?


whats more likely is that the current bars all find loopholes in the law making it worthless.

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : a]

5/15/2009 2:40:34 PM

well the law says something about making a certain percentage of their revenues off of the sale of cigars. i personally don't see why this should be limited to cigars. i don't see why hookahs and cigarettes couldn't be thrown into that mix as well.

5/15/2009 2:43:58 PM

Can individual cities or towns or counties pass their own loopholes and exceptions from the state definitions?

5/15/2009 2:49:15 PM

^^in which case existing bars would add cigarettes to the menu this mooting the law. Its worthless legislation.

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : a]

5/15/2009 2:49:34 PM

maybe they could get a shitload of really cheap cigars, and instead of me buying a glass of beer, I technically buy a cigar, and they give me a complimentary glass of beer. Technically the revenue is earned off of tobacco sales....I could see something like that happening

5/15/2009 2:51:01 PM

Quote :

"maybe they could get a shitload of really cheap cigars, and instead of me buying a glass of beer, I technically buy a cigar, and they give me a complimentary glass of beer. Technically the revenue is earned off of tobacco sales....I could see something like that happening "

i think that the state is privy to loopholes like that from current laws regarding liquor licensing and the sale of food.

5/15/2009 2:51:59 PM

They could offer it as a combo meal. cigar + drink and split the price to give them the 25% revenue or whatever it is.

5/15/2009 2:54:58 PM

For the love of God, READ THE GODDAM LAW!

Quote :

"(1a) "Cigar bar". – An establishment with a permit to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to subdivision (1), (3), (5), or (10) of G.S. 18B-1001 that satisfies all of the following: a. Generates sixty percent (60%) or more of its quarterly gross revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages and twenty-five percent (25%) or more of its quarterly gross revenue from the sale of cigars; b. Has a humidor on the premises; and c. Does not allow individuals under the age of 21 to enter the premises. Revenue generated from other tobacco sales, including cigarette vending machines, shall not be used to determine whether an establishment satisfies the definition of cigar bar."

Read very carefully.

Q: After January 2, 2010, will ordinary bars be allowed to permit smoking?

A: No.

Q: After January 2, 2010, will specialty tobacco shops be allowed to permit smoking?

A: Only if they can gain classification as a Cigar Bar

Q: What do you have to do to gain said classification?

A: Firstly, you must already have, or get an alcohol license. Then you must install a humidor if you do not already have one, fit the narrow margin of selling 65% or over alcohol and 25% or over tobacco products, and finally, you must deny entry to any patrons not over 21.

Q: WTF is a humidor?

A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidor (I didn't know either)


Stop fucking talking about loopholes. These requirements will not be met. Bars don't sell 15% tobacco and hookah bars sure as hell don't sell 65% alcohol. The state is outlawing several kinds of establishments.

1.) Those establishments people attend for the sole purpose of smoking
2.) Those establishments people attend for greater than 0% smoking, less than 25% smoking, and less than 65% drinking

I mean really, stfu about loopholes.

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 3:04 PM. Reason : 25]

5/15/2009 2:56:16 PM

i guess i'm dumb for thinking people will try to exploit the laws, obviously nobody ever does that, thanks for correcting all of us mrfrog

5/15/2009 2:59:24 PM

i guess the idea is that they have to attain a cigar bar license from the state and that a lot of the half-cocked work-arounds that you suggest to get around the law probably wouldn't pass the smell test of a state inspector.

5/15/2009 3:03:56 PM

maybe the bars who want to allow smoking but can't legally after the law goes into effect will just willfully ignore the law and pay the fines

5/15/2009 3:05:34 PM

perhaps. it happens with cary's zoning laws.

5/15/2009 3:10:04 PM