Oh, the places you'll go

[tommy]

i don't see it as "rewarding" a restaurant, but rather simply visiting a restaurant that i've liked, frequented, and would enjoy more without smoke. no reward really. just added enjoyment.

kinchley's and the Belmont have *always* been committed to the dining experience.

[dbrociner]

I'm not rushing out to reward any restaurants for complying with the new law, when it is the case that it has always been possible for any restaurant to declare itself "no smoking", and so many restaurants in NJ did this years ago.  I'm thinking in particular of numerous of restaurants in Hoboken and Montclair (to name two towns) that have been non-smoking for many years now.  These owners have shown a commitment to the dining experience, and they should be rewarded first. 

As far as restaurants who could have elimated smoking but needed a law passed before they did  , I see no reason to reward them.

←

This is an interesting way of looking at the issue but I think you're missing the point. I wasn't looking to reward the restaurant, though that certainly will be a result of going there, but rather to go back to places where the food was good but the smoke made things unpleasant.

[birder53]

One reason we didn't dine at restaurants with bar was the smoke. The other was we were used to all the wonderful BYOs around and chose to go that route instead.

We decided to try out 3 West in Basking Ridge on Saturday night. My sister and her husband were stopping by and they enjoy sitting at a nice bar. We enjoyed our meal and the bar was pleasantly smoke free. We were able to call Saturday afternoon and get our choice of reservation times, which was probably due to the holidays and not the smoking ban. The place was full when we left @9:30. We told the bartender that we had never been there before because we were waiting for the smoking ban to go into effect and he laughed saying he was glad the ban was in place.

Now if only the bars could produce better drinks, life would almost be perfect.

[Anonymouze]

Jeff and I have liked Kirkers even with the dated decor... we felt we got a great meal there at least 75% or more of the time... once in a while the regular chef must not be there.

Now that it will be "smoke free" it will make it much MUCH better to go to.

[menton1]

I'm not rushing out to reward any restaurants for complying with the new law, when it is the case that it has always been possible for any restaurant to declare itself "no smoking", and so many restaurants in NJ did this years ago

Well, it's not really a "reward", and if the place is a good restaurant with food and ambience that you enjoy in a restaurant, why "punish" yourself by depriving yourself of a meal at the place?

[markk]

This is an interesting way of looking at the issue but I think you're missing the point. I wasn't looking to reward the restaurant, though that certainly will be a result of going there, but rather to go back to places where the food was good but the smoke made things unpleasant.

←

Well, it's not really a "reward", and if the place is a good restaurant with food and ambience that you enjoy in a restaurant, why "punish" yourself by depriving yourself of a meal at the place?

←

Of course, I realize that. I've simply never gone to any restaurant in a very long time that has had any smokers in it, and in years of calling ahead I've been pleased to learn that lots of places became smoke free on their own. And now if I hear about an interesting place that I'd like to try, I can go without having to check on the smoking situation, and I'm sure that will open up new places for me.

But when I read the question,

... I'd like to know where people will be going once the smoking ban goes into effect.

my first thought was the irony of rushing out and giving my business to places, as I've said, who didn't care enough about it in the first place to go no-smoking voluntarily as so many good placed did.

[tommy]

with respect to those restaurants who "needed a law" to go smoke-free, i respect their decision to allow smoking just as i respect anyone's choice to smoke, not smoke, prohibit smoking, or anything else for that matter.

i also respect when consumers put some thought into where they are putting their dollars, just as markk does. however, i'm not sure i agree with the condescension associated with his logic. no, i don't agree at all.

when i went to bottle king in Glen Rock last night, to pick up my nightly supply of booze, i noticed 3 or 4 people standing outside of the extremely mediocre Jalapenos restaurant, puffing away. that was a very smokey bar at times. although, it rarely intruded on the restaurant section. it was the first indication, for me, that it was after the ban.

Varka in Ramsey has been on my mind, since the ban. can't wait to get back there for some octopus and fresh air.

[Jim Charles]

In a restaurant it made no difference if they had smoking or not. We always sat in the no smoking. As far as going out side a bar to smoke I think that’s ridiculous and anyone that would do so is also a slave to the bar. Standing around outside smoking is demeaning and makes you look like an idiot. Even though I’ve smoked for 50 years I’ve never smoked around non-smokers and only smoke in my vehicle (when the wife isn’t with me) or here in my office in the house. As far as these bans in some NJ towns where it’s even illegal to smoke outside in a park or where you aren’t within 100’s of feet of someone I think is ludicrous. Once, not long ago my wife and I were on a road trip here in Jersey and I stopped at one of the scenic lookouts to have a smoke. I was about 35 yards from a young family and the mother went to the trouble of walking all the way over to me and saying that I was setting a bad example by letting her children see me smoke. I wanted to throw her over the cliff and wish I had.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Jim Charles (log)

[Anonymouze]

In a restaurant it made no difference if they had smoking or not. We always sat in the no smoking. As far as going out side a bar to smoke I think that’s ridiculous and anyone that would do so is also a slave to the bar. Standing around outside smoking is demeaning and makes you look like an idiot. - Jim Charles

To briefly address your above comments...

It makes a HUGE difference to non-smokers and those with severe or acute asthma like myself. Obviously it did to you/your family because you went out of your way not to expose them to smoke since you said you "always sat in the no smoking" and "smoked in the car or your office" etc...

It's not ridiculous to the hard-core addicts to want to smoke for them to step outside if they need their nicotine fix for that short hour or two, nor is it demeaning. As for looking like an idiot IMHO if you smoke KNOWING the risks of cancer to yourself and second hand illness/disease to others you ARE an idiot! As an ex-smoker with severe/acute asthma the heavy cloying smoke of some establishments used to make it so we'd either leave or never return again.

Back to the subject at hand I agree Kinchley's I am sure will be much better without the smoking. Has anyone been to Kinchley's since the ban? Is it better? How do they accomodate the addicts, I'm just curious?

[Jim Charles]

It's not ridiculous to the hard-core addicts to want to smoke for them to step outside if they need their nicotine fix for that short hour or two, nor is it demeaning.  As for looking like an idiot IMHO if you smoke KNOWING the risks of cancer to yourself and second hand illness/disease to others you ARE an idiot!  As an ex-smoker with severe/acute asthma the heavy cloying smoke of some establishments used to make it so we'd either leave or never return again.

To briefly address your above comments...

Since you are obviously NOT a member of that group how can you say what is, or is not, demeaning to them?

I’m not particularly fond of being called an idiot, but I would think you would also fall in that category being an asthmatic and frequenting bars where smoking took place. If you suffer from acute asthma conduct your life accordingly, but don't force your problems on people that have nothing to do with it. Anyway, you won so be happy.

In the infinite wisdom of our wonderful politicians the law passed in the dead of night, except for the casinos. That is so blatantly corrupt I don’t even want to comment.

[richl2214]

I am going to miss the smoke at the Belmont. It adds ambiance and perhaps a slight coating of tar to the Chicken Savoy that doesn't seem to taste as good since April 15th. Well, at least the politicians know what's good for me. Being a doctor and all I need lots of help with that part of my life.

[rozrapp]

Pete & Elda's is one of only two places we frequent that permitted smoking, and we did so because they had a totally separate non-smoking room. However, in order to get to it, one had to pass by the large bar area where people smoked, and the smell was definitely noticeable. When we went there last week after the smoking ban went into effect, nobody was smoking in the bar, and the air definitely had a fresh smell about it, which made me wonder if they had aired the place out.