PO'ed Veteran

[CinderSchnauzer]

Yes before you had a choice you could go to smoking or non smoking section now the whole restaurant is non smoking so what happened to my choice?

The smoking / nonsmoking idea does not work, except where there is a physical separation. Many restaurants were not prepared to go to that expense.

You have the same choice that seems to be the favorite response of the smoking advocates - - - - - - If you don't like it - don't go there.

In fact, you can still go to the restaurant - you just can't smoke.

I'm totally amazed why people cannot see the difference.

Let's say you own a restaurant. You know that 75% of adults are non smokers and 25% smoke. You know that some of the 75% will not come to a smoking restaurant. I know that some of the 25% will not come to a non-smoking restaurant. You know that a good number of the 75% will not bring their kids to the smoking restaurant. Which segment of the population are you going to go after in your business.

You smoke - that causes non smokers a problem.
We don't smoke - that causes you no problem whatsoever.

 

[rjkobbeman]

Yes before you had a choice you could go to smoking or non smoking section now the whole restaurant is non smoking so what happened to my choice?

If you think non-smoking sections work, I now see why this argument is going nowhere.

Also, the non-smoking issue is probably MORE an employee issue than it is a patron issue.

People keep saying it is a private place / private property. It is a private place yes, but it serves the public and is a place of employment.

 

[NuBota]

In your example above, the activity in these adult places imposes no physical harm upon anyone who has not agreed to participate. If I chose to go to a strip joint for example, the activity has no effect on my physical well being or ability to enjoy life. If I'm sitting in a restaurant and a smoker sits at the next table and lights up, I'm forced to breath the second hand smoke, which effects my ability to enjoy my meal and in the case of some people may cause health problems.

But you're not forced to breath it - you can go elsewhere - just like a smoker can go find a place that allows smoking. I agree smoking is harmful and a non-smoker should not have to be subjected to it in public. And I agree that separate sections don't work - it is either a smoking or non-smoking place of business. But a private establishment should be able to decide which one they want to be.

If, as you say, a business is better off being a non-smoking establishment - then the law could simply be written to allow a business to prohibit smoking if it chose to do so, without facing a lawsuit from smokers feeling their rights have been infringed upon. At that point, patrons would vote with their wallet and the businesses could decide which customer base they wanted to attract

As an example, a new thing cropping up are tobacco bars, hookah bars, etc, where the patrons go to smoke and socialize. These are private businesses that cater to smokers. They can serve food and drink (I believe) if they have the appropriate licenses. I don't know how they get around the smoking ban, but I am guessing there is some exception - maybe they can't call themselves a restaurant, have to post risk warnings - who knows. Regardless - I don't have an issue with this - it does not impose upon my "right" to be smoke-free and I am not forced to breath second-hand smoke if I don't go in. Even if they serve the best steak in town, I don't think that gives me the right to make everyone else stop smoking just because I want to go in a order one.

I am curious how employees are handled in a place like these - I assume they are presented with it at the time of hire as a condition of employment. I would expect sooner or later OSHA will impact these places. Maybe the server can wear a HAZMAT suit...

Anyway, just another angle......

 

[dcyrilc]

But you're not forced to breath it - you can go elsewhere - just like a smoker can go find a place that allows smoking. I agree smoking is harmful and a non-smoker should not have to be subjected to it in public. And I agree that separate sections don't work - it is either a smoking or non-smoking place of business. But a private establishment should be able to decide which one they want to be.

If, as you say, a business is better off being a non-smoking establishment - then the law could simply be written to allow a business to prohibit smoking if it chose to do so, without facing a lawsuit from smokers feeling their rights have been infringed upon. At that point, patrons would vote with their wallet and the businesses could decide which customer base they wanted to attract

As an example, a new thing cropping up are tobacco bars, hookah bars, etc, where the patrons go to smoke and socialize. These are private businesses that cater to smokers. They can serve food and drink (I believe) if they have the appropriate licenses. I don't know how they get around the smoking ban, but I am guessing there is some exception - maybe they can't call themselves a restaurant, have to post risk warnings - who knows. Regardless - I don't have an issue with this - it does not impose upon my "right" to be smoke-free and I am not forced to breath second-hand smoke if I don't go in. Even if they serve the best steak in town, I don't think that gives me the right to make everyone else stop smoking just because I want to go in a order one.

I am curious how employees are handled in a place like these - I assume they are presented with it at the time of hire as a condition of employment. I would expect sooner or later OSHA will impact these places. Maybe the server can wear a HAZMAT suit...

Anyway, just another angle......

Here when the no smoking laws were passed, the cigar bars (social clubs) were forced out of business as it is now illegal to smoke there.

 

[NuBota]

Here when the no smoking laws were passed, the cigar bars (social clubs) were forced out of business as it is now illegal to smoke there.

I figure it will go that way here too. I've never been in one, but there is one here next to the Red Wing shoe store - saw it when buying boots - they were packed on a Saturday, late morning. I was half tempted to check it out, but didn't. I did ask the shoe salesman if they were bothered by the smoke (I didn't notice it) on the other side of the wall - she said she never noticed anything. Was thinking maybe they have to add some special ventilation and/or air conditioning

 

[CinderSchnauzer]

But a private establishment should be able to decide which one they want to be.

I suggest to you, especially in the context being discussed - namely restaurants and bars - there is no such thing as a "private establishment"

The ownership may be private, but in order to sell food / drink, they need a business license, liquor license, employees etc. They need clients - members of the public. They are now a public business open to the public, employing members of the public and subject to public regulations - local - state - federal.

I'm starting to feel like a trout swimming upstream. Unless someone comes up with a new twist on this smoking thing - I'm done.

 

[Scooby074]

Problem is, exposing a worker (or a customer) to a hazardous environment (ie: smoking... or asbestos take your pick) opens yourself up to a lawsuit.

I suppose you could have the waiters running around in SCBA ?

 

[sodamo]

My Dad was a chain smoker from about age 12 until he died at 82 and didn't care who it offended.

So, in memory of him... My house is a smoke free facility

 

[keegs]

My father died of lung cancer also. He was 56. He smoked camels w/out the filter for decades. He fought it for two years. Terrible disease.

Does the ban on smoking at a particular bar go over the line?..I'm not sure. I certainly don't agree that the owner is the sole authority in the matter though.

One has to wonder why someone would ever start smoking in the first place. It's certainly not enjoyable to a first time smoker having that cigarette. Yeah after a time when your body gets used to it and you become addicted and you wake up in the morning coughing up a lung...it's enjoyable ...I guess..but really ...why do folks start smoking? The Marlboro man?

Characterizing smoking as a personal choice or liberty seems not to tell the whole story really. For decades the tobacco industry and politicians denied the affects of smoking. And they certainly spent billions maintaining their market here in the US with lobbyists, scientists, lawyers and advertising campaigns. Does that not factor into this discussion in any way?

My employer doesn't allow smoking on company property. Some employers make not smoking a term of employment. With all that's known about the health affects and with them picking up most of our health care insurance costs, I guess they have a point.

Sorry...but life's complicated, there's no getting around it.

 

[The Haymaker]

What about endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights? The Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Ken Sweet

You must be mistaken, that's not the way our current administration quotes the Constitution.....