smoke free in Bucktown

HI

just FYI - The Charleston is now smoke free, and rumor has it that the Map room will be going smoke free at the end of the month (or thereabouts).

Thanks for the info. I live rather close to both establishments, and quite dislike having to go home and throw all my clothes in the washing machine after a night out.
I'm convinced going smoke free at EVERY bar would actually INCREASE the traffic in bars for that very reason--I'm convinced at this point there are more of me than there are of smokers who aren't willing to smoke outside....but that's another topic for another day!

Charleston is smoke-free? What is this world coming to?

wow .. the map room I could see. maybe. but the Charleston ? I know someone who bartends there so next time I see her, I'll be sure to ask.

Went to Charleston Sunday night for my favorite vodka gimlet/ Reader perusing/ Sox-watching Sunday evening pastime, and they are indeed smoke-free--and remarkably quiet as a result--though it'll pick back up soon, I would imagine.
If you have Charleston in your repetoire of Btown bars, make sure to give it a visit sometime soon--they could really use it right now.

More in this article by Mary Schmich back in August.

Communism USA style in my book. I like Chicago, but on the other hand i absolutely hate it. Talk about turning the tables! My Wife is from Shanghai and has told me...you smoke, drink, work, "many jobs" available and basically have alot of freedom. Just not much parking! Seems like something's wrong as that is the opposite of what's going on in the USA. "It's My Party and I'll Smoke When I Want To...Smoke When I Want to, Smoke When I Want To...You Would Smoke Too If It Happened To You! LOL! Just kinda kidding, but the truth. Seatbelts, Cell phones, scooters, smoking, crazy taxes, scoflaws, Denver boot, urinating in public in Wheaton, no window tint, and so many others that i can't think of. But when I see an 18 y/o fly by me on a Kawasaki Ninja at 100 mph on the Kennedy with no helmet i think there are several issues that the State of Il and Cook Co haven't addressed. Sorry for the rant, I have another home in SC that i'm very seriously considering moving to full time= forever.

First:

Second-hand smoke causes illness and/or death to people. (If this premise is false, this and all the following conclusions are false. But I believe it is true.)

All bartenders, waitstaff, busboys and other bar and restaurant staff are people.
_________________

Second-hand smoke makes bartenders, waitstaff, busboys and other bar and restaurant staff ill and or dead.

Second:

Employees of any business in America (i.e., who are not self-employed) deserve a safe workplace (a principle upheld by Congress when it passed the OSHAct 35 or so years ago).

A workplace that makes its employees ill or dead is an unsafe workplace.

The presence of second-hand smoke in bars and restaurants makes the employees of bars and restaurants (bartenders, waitstaff, busboys, etc.) ill or dead (See conclusion to First argument, above).

Bars and restaurants are workplaces.

The result of allowing smoking by patrons in bars and restaurants is that second-hand smoke will be present in such bars and restaurants.
_________________

A bar or restaurant that allows smoking by patrons is an unsafe workplace.

Third:

An employer, including the operator of a bar or restaurant, should not operate an unsafe workplace.

A bar or restaurant that allows smoking by patrons is an unsafe workplace.

_________________

The operator of a bar or restaurant should not allow smoking in that bar or restaurant.

Corollary:

Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Your right to smoke also ends at the tip of my nose (unless I give you permission to smoke). Smokers DO have a right to smoke. People DO have a right to harm or kill themselves. People (smokers and nonsmokers) DO NOT have a right to harm others or put them at risk (absent the others' assent).

Rebuttal argument:

Employment in bars and restaurants is NOT an example of freedom to contract. Employees of bars and restaurants as a rule have almost NO SAY in their working conditions, at least when it comes to smoking (the evidence of the ongoing operation of thousands of smoking bars and restaurants speaks for itself). I take it for granted that it is not some outragous coincidence that only smokers or people who don't give a crap about second-hand smoke have chosen to work in bars or restaurants; I'll go out on a limb and say that many of these folks only tolerate the situation because (1) they need the paycheck and (2) they are not in a position to "bargain" with their employers. Here is a perfect example where the state can and should exercise its police authority (i.e., its authority to protect the weak from the strong in the interest of the public weal).

I think it is wrong to frame this issue as "smokers versus nonsmokers" or "smokers versus the State." It is an issue of "employer versus employee" and employees' right to a safe workplace.

Just my two-cents worth. *cough*

Well, brava for Wendy Pick! It's a brave thing for a bar owner to do. I'm not much of a bar goer (and smoke is one reason), but I think I'll make it a point to seek out the Charleston soon. And the Map Room if they go that way.

That being said, I'll note these are voluntary switches. I'm all for that.

I do favor a ban on public smoking by the state, not that one's in the offing -- but not the proposals for a ban in the city. All that will do is encourage smokers (and restaurateurs) to head for the suburbs. And any ban must cover bars and restaurants both, else we'll have fewer restaurants and more bars that serve food.

The Charleston
2076 North Hoyne Avenue,
Chicago, IL 60647
(773) 489-4757

Here's my collective reply. I witnessed the change-over from smoking to non-smoking first hand in NY state a few years ago, so I have a few opinions. Also, as a former smoker who now only has about 4 cigarrettes a year, I'm not coming from this from a "smokers are evil" position.

Grant--Why the comparison to Communism? These bars (actually, only one at the moment--the Map Room rumor is unfounded) changed their policies willingly out of concern for their employees and their customers. No one is forcing this on them. Yes, there is a proposal to ban smoking in public establishments in the city, will it pass? Who knows. If not being able to smoke in a bar makes you want to move to SC, well then, have fun packing. I'm afraid I can't wrap my brain around your argument well enough to make an intelligent rebuttal, It just doesn't make any sense to me.


As for smokers heading for the burbs, LAZ...I sort of doubt it. Many smokers in the city don't have the means to get to the burbs (aka a car) or the desire to sit on the metra for an hour or more one way to go to a restaurant or bar for their smoke. They'll stay at home for a few weeks, then, once they're starting to feel a little on the Miss Havisham side, they'll go back out to all their usual places and---get this--smoke outside! What a novel concept!
Trust me the oncoming winter will not be a deterrent either. I lived in the upper adirondacks when the smoking ban went into place in NY state. minus 20 and 6 feet of snow on the ground and they (myself included on many occasions) would be outside kicking it Eskimo-style with their tobacco of choice.

Jim-- Thanks for very concisely articulating what I wished to articulate several posts ago but was, frankly, afraid to for fear it would be 1) off-topic and 2) Attacked with flame-throwers and large spears by the crankypants types of the board.
Especially since, as a relative newbie, I find a certain bizarre hierarchy exists on this board, and unless you have 8 billion posts, posting at all seems somewhat pointless as its either ignored or dismissed. a bizarre cyberspace catch-22 if you will.

Anyway, I have definitely exhausted my $.02...

but, seriously, go to The Charleston. Sunday nights bartender makes a mean, mean gimlet with real lime juice, and they have a variety of amusingly-dressed stuffed wild animals.

And, when you get home, you won't have to throw your clothes directly into the wash or scrub yourself clean like Cher in Silkwood.

Well said J. I 100% agree.


^trying to get my post count up to 8 billion.

JBanana wrote:Especially since, as a relative newbie, I find a certain bizarre hierarchy exists on this board, and unless you have 8 billion posts, posting at all seems somewhat pointless as its either ignored or dismissed. a bizarre cyberspace catch-22 if you will.

I think you're right that posts by relative newcomers often don't get the attention they deserve. I don't think it's bizarre though.

If you and, say, Erik M. both posted about the same dish at the same restaurant, Erik's would almost certainly get more attention. Why? Because most of the people here, especially those who post a lot, are familiar with his likes and dislikes and know how they fit in with their own.

So people who know they have liked Erik's recommendations in the past are going to be far more likely to go, and post a reply raving about it, than if the recommendation came from a new poster.

It's a matter of trust, and number of posts isn't necessarily related to level of trust. One member had many hundreds of posts, but I don't think anyone paid much attention to their suggestions, because they didn't trust that member's taste. Another member has less than 50 posts, but if they posted about a restaurant today I'd probably be very eager to go.

The people with the big post counts don't dislike you, or ignore your suggestions, they're just wary. My suggestion? Keep posting. Remember that even if no one replies to the thread, there are far more lurkers than members, and some of them might have followed your recommendation.

Especially since, as a relative newbie, I find a certain bizarre hierarchy exists on this board, and unless you have 8 billion posts, posting at all seems somewhat pointless as its either ignored or dismissed.

Unfortunately I think this tends to happen on the Internet whenever you join an already active community. I think we're all committed to the idea of welcoming newbies, but in practice, it's just too easy to respond to the folks you know more than the folks you don't, with whom you also share a base of certain places to talk about. And so the conversation seems to happen between certain people. There's also the issue of simply not having anything to say when someone new posts about a new place you don't know. A lot of times, the first post on a place gets read a lot but no response; it's only a month or two later that enough people have been there that a second thread takes off, but it's not that the first thread wasn't read-- quite the contrary.

All I can suggest to overcome that is to do what I did when I was in the same position, three years ago, as a newbie on Chowhound. Although I certainly threw in my two cents on familiar places, I made some effort to be the first person to write about some spots (like this) and in particular put some effort into having a spectacular experience and making a spectacular post about it. I'm not saying you have to do exactly that, but if you comment consistently (and on restaurants more than on hot button issues, generally) and bring up a few spots or dishes or whatever that haven't been talked about before, any feeling of being on the outside should go away. It's unintentional, but real, we recognize.

Mike G wrote:

Especially since, as a relative newbie, I find a certain bizarre hierarchy exists on this board, and unless you have 8 billion posts, posting at all seems somewhat pointless as its either ignored or dismissed.

Unfortunately I think this tends to happen on the Internet whenever you join an already active community.

I think this happens in any community, on-line or off. Walk into a room where a ton of people already know each other, and it can be challenging to make your voice heard. It takes time to get into the rythym and pulse of an existing community.

But, I have to disagree with the principal point made by JBanana. Value here is not placed on number of posts, but by quality therein. There are plenty of newbies who have turned the board onto interesting restaurants, started cool threads, and even planned events. On the flip side, I've had long posts and recommendations that have gone completely ignored by plenty of people who know me.

I personally never look at the number of posts, but rather I start to recognize names based on who's posts I am used to reading. I think this board, more so than many others, welcomes good content---newbie or not.

Keep posting, people are reading.

Best,
Michael

I am a smoker (tho i hate to admit it). i don't smoke at home (and it took many years of full-time smoking to get to this point for me), for the reason jbanana states - i don't like the smell of smoke on my things, and i don't smoke while working (not even smoke breaks). i thoroughly enjoy going out to any one of my local watering holes and smoking it up with friends over cocktails. then the next day when i wake up - i know by now that the pain in my head is directly attributed to smoking. and then the reek of the clothes i wore the night before hits me...yuck.

the times i've visited New York and gone out drinking at the non-smoking bars, well, I actually enjoyed it. I was able to stay out later and enjoy a few more cocktails, I guess cuz the room wasn't smokey and i probably didn't get tired/sluggish from not only my smoke, but from the second-hand smoke as well, and when we did want to smoke, we would just pop outside (and even on one particular rainy night it still wasn't a problem for me), i didn't have a cigarette hangover the next day and my clothes didn't smell like an ashtray.

and the bars were all crowded. I know that as long as cigarettes are legal, smokers should have the right to smoke in public places, and even though i work in bars and restaurants, i'm not necessarily against the pending smoking ban in chicago. I want to quit this horrible habit that does nothing but kill you sooner. but it's hard when I go out, and am surrounded by smokers. In NY I definately smoked less when I was out on the town. and i kind of appreciate that.

I know the establishment owners complain about the potential loss of revenue, but California and New York are proof that business will not diminish. maybe at first, but eventually it'll pick back up. People don't go out to smoke. they go out to dine, or to drink.

We'll all be a little healthier if this change occurs. and i personally think that's a good thing. I'll definately stop by the Charleston and show my support.

just my .02 cents.

sharon

HI,

There is more suburban participation here now than in the past. It used to be I could comment on places out in my direction and could hear a pin drop. They were read, but because it was outside of people's territory or experience it was not replied to. Later when they plan a trip in my area, then my posts are read, the restaurant tried and follow up comments.

Sometimes all it takes is time.

Regards,

JBanana wrote:Especially since, as a relative newbie, I find a certain bizarre hierarchy exists on this board, and unless you have 8 billion posts, posting at all seems somewhat pointless as its either ignored or dismissed. a bizarre cyberspace catch-22 if you will.

JBannana,

Another less apparent aspect is the fact that many of us Old Timers with "8 billion posts" have seen smoking vs nonsmoking in public places and any number of, as Mike G puts it, non rectifiable "Internet Kudzu" topics many times in the past.

Irrespective of eloquence, reasonability of statement or intent the two sides of this issue are not, at least in my experience, going to see eye to eye and often dissolve into passive aggressive or aggressive/aggressive discourse.

Long ago, at least in internet terms, there was a 400 post smoking in public places thread on the newsgroup chi.eats that dulled my appetite for internet discussion groups for months.

Also, as Ed F/Gleam outlined, track record/participation play a small part as well. No one is intentionally ignoring anyone, and I, for one, am as interested in food/restaurant comments/suggestions from "relative newbies" as those with "8 billion posts."

I'm an equal opportunity reader and eater.

Enjoy,
Gary

JBanana wrote:Especially since, as a relative newbie, I find a certain bizarre hierarchy exists on this board, and unless you have 8 billion posts, posting at all seems somewhat pointless as its either ignored or dismissed.

Most of the replies have been from board longtimers, so as a fellow relative newbie* here's my tip - don't give a cr#p. Post. Don't let your post count change who you are. Eat, share, eat more.

*current post count including this one: 220 (Whoa! When did that happen? Hmm, seems like I'm following my own tips)

PS: board longtimers, in case you are reading this, please ignore, don't go postal on me.

sazerac wrote:Most of the replies have been from board longtimers, so as a fellow relative newbie* here's my tip - don't give a cr#p. Post. Don't let your post count change who you are. Eat, share, eat more.

Sazerac,

Great advice, "eat, share, eat more" That's what it's all about!

Enjoy,
Gary

By the way, Sazerac, this has been your week, very nice posts. A new member of the bizarre hierarchy is inducted!

JBanana wrote:... afraid to for fear it would be 1) off-topic and 2) Attacked with flame-throwers and large spears by the crankypants types of the board.
Especially since, as a relative newbie, I find a certain bizarre hierarchy exists on this board, and unless you have 8 billion posts, posting at all seems somewhat pointless as its either ignored or dismissed. a bizarre cyberspace catch-22 if you will.

I think just about everyone agrees that the total number of posts by an individual is an indication of pretty much very little. For most of us, there are certain topics we know relatively more about and/or care more about and we tend to post on them with varying degrees of consistency and frequency. And there are others which some of us might not find interesting or, if we do find them interesting, we just might not have a lot to say about them. Then there are other 'hot' topics -- such as the ones to whcih G Wiv refers above -- which for one reason or another some of us tend to avoid.

You've been posting for a relatively short time and so far, it seems to me your posts have not been left unanswered. Clearly you feel the degree of response has been somehow very unsatisfactory but I don't see much reason for you to feel that way at this point. In this regard, I'll mention numbers but only for a limited purpose. So far you have 20 posts in total and multiple posts in several threads (I just checked); that means you've only written on a relatively very few subjects. Now, since you complain about the behaviour of posters with large numbers of posts and since I must be included in that group, I feel moved to answer for myself with regard to my response or lack thereof to your posts.

I make a point of regularly trying to welcome newcomers who write on something of some particular interest to me and about which I might have something worthwhile to say. But I think posting just for the sake of posting is clutter. Yes, I suppose I'm guilty of some clutter of the joke-and-banter ilk, but that's necessarily between people who know one another; beyond that, I do my best to offer posts with real content.

So then, as one of the big number posters, I feel addressed in your complaint. But the fact is, I have a post in a couple of the threads you've written in and the other threads are about things on which I happened at the moment to have nothing to say or on which I'm more generally disinclined to comment, such as smoking/non-smoking, chicken-pot pie and Carabbas Italian grill.

In contrast, a first-time poster recently wrote on something that I know something about and I responded, as did other regulars on the board:
http://lthforum.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5264
The point is, I just don't agree that there is any conspiracy among regulars to ignore newcomers; I think the opposite is true -- new voices with different kinds of experiences and different sets of knowledge and perspectives are very much a desideratum. As mentioned above by some (Gleam, Eatchicago, etc.) there are natural social dynamics at work that determine some parameters of the interactions, but I and I'm sure most or all of the regulars here respond or don't respond according first and foremost to the post, not the poster, much less the number of posts a poster has.

Frankly, I think your complaint is quite unjustified at this point. As others have said above, post on what interests you and posters with shared interests will respond. When you (or any others) write on something I feel I can and should comment on, I will. In fact, you'll probably end up wishing I'd shut up.

Bon profit.

Don Antonio de los Pantalones Maniaticos
Member of the Bizarre Hierarchy*

* Don Miguel el Mayordomo, confess your sins or meet me at dawn on the field of honour!

Don Miguel el Mayordomo, confess your sins or meet me at dawn on the field of honour!

"I'll be there at seven."
"I'll be there at ten." --Captain Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

JBanana wrote:As for smokers heading for the burbs, LAZ...I sort of doubt it. Many smokers in the city don't have the means to get to the burbs (aka a car) or the desire to sit on the metra for an hour or more one way to go to a restaurant or bar for their smoke.

I disagree. Many smokers in the city do indeed have a car and if they feel the need to travel to a bar where they can smoke they will do so - perhaps to the detriment of themselves and the safety of others on the roads.

For the record, I've had one half of one cigarette in my life (and I spent about 2 hours trying to decide if I was going to get sick). I don't like secondhand smoke, especially in restaurants. Yet I don't understand this jihad against smoking in bars. You go to a bar and people smoke - deal with it. Oh, smoking is bad. Yet somehow drinking is good? Deep-fat fried, over-salted bar food is good? I mean, if we let the government regulate one aspect of what is healthy behaviour in privately-owned public establishments don't we then allow them to eventually regulate all behaviour? Honestly, if there was this incredible groundswell of desire for smoke-free bars there would be a supply of same - and yet, there isn't. What does that say?

Breeeeeeeet!

That's the ref's whistle, calling a halt to this discussion. We just pulled a post which was in response to a post above which we pulled once and which was rewritten-- but not enough, clearly, to prevent this thread from going over the edge into nastiness. Most delightfully, said nastiness occurred in reference not to the hot-button subject of smoking; oh no. This fight is on the subject of how friendly we are to new posters. Yes, we've managed to show how open we are to new points of view by immediately erupting into a vicious catfight on the subject.

So: enough about smoking. Enough about how #%*^$@ friendly we are, you #%$*%#. Go post about food, sheesh.