Does tobacco smoke bother you in restaurants?

[BillyZ]

OMG, I love this quote! How can you deny its simple reality?

"If there are smokers in a restaurant, then why are non-smokers subjecting themselves to a situation that will irritate them so much? Why not go to a restaurant that the owner has decided will be smoke-free?

To me, it makes as much sense as walking into a strip club and complaining about the naked women and lewd behavior. "

You go to a strip club to see naked women and lewd behaviour. Your anaolgy is baseless. I don't got to a reasturant for smoke, I go there for food. Would you be upset if you walked into MyDonalds and there were naked women dancing on the tables? (well maybe you and I wouldn't... but you can bet that any parents around would be) You didn't bring your 6 year old into McD's for a boob show, you brought them in for a cheesburger. The same goes for smoking. I'm not bringin my kids into McDs for a lung full of tar, I'm bringing them in for an artery full of grease... er I mean a cheeseburger.

 

[Clown Monarch]

OMG, I love this quote! How can you deny its simple reality?

"If there are smokers in a restaurant, then why are non-smokers subjecting themselves to a situation that will irritate them so much? Why not go to a restaurant that the owner has decided will be smoke-free?

To me, it makes as much sense as walking into a strip club and complaining about the naked women and lewd behavior. "

You go to a strip club to see naked women and lewd behaviour. Your anaolgy is baseless. I don't got to a reasturant for smoke, I go there for food.

That's true, but let's change the quote to:

"To me, it makes as much sense as walking into a strip club for a beer and complaining about the naked women and lewd behavior."

 

[BillyZ]

no, it still is a bad analogy. a "Strip Club" is a place with strippers, it's what you expect to be there. A reasturant is a place with food, thats what you expect to be there. What I'm complaining about, is like walking into a strip club and being acosted by religious fanatics screaming in my face that I'm killing babies. It's not what I went there for, nor what I expect to be there and really does ruin my enjoyment of the strip club.


((I should really try one of these strip club things one of these days. ))

 

[Clown Monarch]

Well, haven't people come to understand by now that people smoking is part of the experience of dining out - and this at the approval of the restaurant owner?


Alright, analogy #3:

It makes as much sense as going to a strip club and complaining that some of the patrons are drinking beer - and it's upsetting your experience.

 

[BillyZ]

sorry, gonna debunk your analogy again

it's more like going to a strip club and trying to have a nice iced tea (come on, we can be humorus about this right? ) when the guy at the table next to me comes over and pours a shot of goldscholger down my throat.

Smoking is someone elses decision forced down my throat, literaly.

 

[Clown Monarch]

Alright, no more analogies, but...

Isn't a smoking ban someone else's decision forced down restaurant owners' throats? I mean, the patrons can choose whether to go or not and aren't really forced to do anything.

 

[BillyZ]

well sure you could look at the smoking ban that way.

so everyone who doesn't smoke is then reduced to staying at home. That hardly seems fair.

You have to look at all the factors though. If you make legislation that forces a resturant to declare that their entire facility is either smoking or non then your'e forcing buisnesses to choose between one group of people or the other. (which gets a little too close to segrigation IMO) I think thats an unfair onerous on small buisness as they just don't either have the research information to make a good buisness decision, nor the econimical power to survive a "poor choice" long enough to revert their decision. Leaving it as "do what ever you want" as it has been in the past then subjects those who don't want to smoke, and worse, those whose health is in immediate jepordy by being exposed to smoke (chronic asthema sufforers) to a gamble every time they go out to eat, which isn't something someone should have to do. The only middle ground is something that was tried here in NY. Reasturants etc who wanted to have smoking were required to have physicaly seperated enclosures (basically glass walls in the dining area) with physically seperated ventilation systems. And this just didn't work out. Resturants complained about the cost of the requirements, people, even smokers, complained about the conditions of some of the smoking areas, in the end, it failed as it seemed no one was happy with it (smokers, non-smokers and buisness owners alike)

 

[QTOFFER]

Once again, the smoking ban really has nothing to do with the patrons - the separated and ventilated smoking sections that predated these laws took care of that rather well, for the most part. No, the smoking ban is for the benefit of the people who work in the restaurants - the minimum-wage-earning people who don't have the luxury of deciding whether or not to work in a particular establishment based upon its smoking policy. These people have no choice but to spend their entire working day breathing second-hand smoke.

I work in a laboratory with some dangerous, carcinogenic chemicals. These chemicals are an integral part of my job, and I freely choose to work there, but OSHA regulations require my employer to provide me with personal protective equipment . The same regulations require my employer to provide me with training, so I don't expose unprotected co-workers and visitors to these carcinogens. I have to follow specific procedures regarding the storage, handling, and disposal of these chemicals, so I don't accidently cook myself, or the FedEx guy who happens to be there delivering a package. Cigarette smoke IS a known carcinogen - especially if you're exposed to it all day, every day in an enclosed area, such as a restaurant. Aren't restaurant staff subject to and deserving of the same OSHA regulations as I am?

 

[Clown Monarch]

well sure you could look at the smoking ban that way.

so everyone who doesn't smoke is then reduced to staying at home. That hardly seems fair.

You have to look at all the factors though. If you make legislation that forces a resturant to declare that their entire facility is either smoking or non then your'e forcing buisnesses to choose between one group of people or the other. (which gets a little too close to segrigation IMO) I think thats an unfair onerous on small buisness as they just don't either have the research information to make a good buisness decision, nor the econimical power to survive a "poor choice" long enough to revert their decision. Leaving it as "do what ever you want" as it has been in the past then subjects those who don't want to smoke, and worse, those whose health is in immediate jepordy by being exposed to smoke (chronic asthema sufforers) to a gamble every time they go out to eat, which isn't something someone should have to do. The only middle ground is something that was tried here in NY. Reasturants etc who wanted to have smoking were required to have physicaly seperated enclosures (basically glass walls in the dining area) with physically seperated ventilation systems. And this just didn't work out. Resturants complained about the cost of the requirements, people, even smokers, complained about the conditions of some of the smoking areas, in the end, it failed as it seemed no one was happy with it (smokers, non-smokers and buisness owners alike)

Not at all, non-smokers won't be reduced to staying home. If there's a market for non-smoking establishments, the beauty of our economic system is that someone will build one. By the results of this poll, it appears that so many people don't want smoke in restaurants, I can only assume that many business owners (and potential business owners) would be quick to establish non-smoking restaurants without government interevention. In America, money is NEVER left on the table. If there's a market for non-smoking restaurants, someone's going to supply that demand. Nothing's more sure but death and taxes.

Uh, oh, another analogy:

I notice no one is selling 8-track tapes anymore. Is it injustice that no player in the private sector has stepped up to supply the 8-track tape demand? Should the government step in and demand that all current artists and record labels record to 8-track tape because the private sector isn't answering the call?


I'm not saying that any restaurant should have any restrictions placed on it like "All Smoking" or "No smoking". A restaurant owner should be able to dictate any rules he pleases. If he decides smokers should smoke only in the bathroom, or outside, or in a two-foot square velvet-roped area, or nowhere on his property, or anywhere they want to - it's up to him. It's up to consumers to decide whether they'll patronize him or not. His success with customers will determine his fate.

 

[Clown Monarch]

No, the smoking ban is for the benefit of the people who work in the restaurants - the minimum-wage-earning people who don't have the luxury of deciding whether or not to work in a particular establishment based upon its smoking policy. These people have no choice but to spend their entire working day breathing second-hand smoke.

Why wouldn't a minimum-wage earner have a choice among minimum-wage jobs? There's lots out there. I don't know a single fast-food restaurant that allows smoking, for example. Many restaurants don't allow smoking by their own free will.

 

[JG]

Is there a reason that a person cannot make it through an hour long meal without needing to smoke?

I promised myself that I would not get sucked back into this, but everyone is being so well behaved and I can't resist a good debate.

As a society we decide on what appropriate behaviors in public are. We cannot go streaking butt naked through the vegetable aisle at the grocery store just because we like to run around naked at home and are perfectly within our rights to do so at home. As a society we have said that this behavior in public is not acceptable . There will be members of society who disagree. We expect that, but most citizens abide by the rules.

So let me attempt an a " what if" scenario.

What if your child ( neice, nephew, etc) came home and told you that he asked the teacher for help today. The teacher starts to walk over to the child's desk, rummages in a pocket, pulls out a cigarette and lights up. The teacher then bends down to answer the question while exhaling smoke into the child's face. Not vindictive , they are just sharing the same space in a public building at the moment.

Smokers or not, the parents of the child would have that teacher's job. Why? The teacher has broken the rules of behavior adopted by society protecting the health and well being of their children. The public has accepted the fact that second hand smoke is unhealthy and parents do not want their children exposed during school hours.

What would your response be if the adminstration told you that rather than reprimanding the teacher, this was a public school, the teacher had a right to smoke in a public place and that you could choose to find another non-smoking school for your child?

To me the "a restaurant is a public space and you have a choice" argument does not hold. Schools are public , churches are public, hospitals are public, buses are public, theaters are public, airplanes are public, subways are public, and restaurants are public. The argument fails on the assumption that some places are more public than others. Public means public. The standard for behavior regarding smoking in public places has been established and restaurants are one of the last places to be in complience.

So, yes it is a choice to go into the restaurant. And yes, smokers say they have a right to their choice to smoke - and I agree. Choice goes both ways. If a smoker truly chooses to smoke ( tongue in cheek since nicotine is one of the most powerfully addictive chemicals used) then he should be able to choose when and where he smokes. Then it should also be possible for him to choose to delay his smoke until he is out of the restaurant. If he can't, then maybe he could choose to use a nicotine patch while in the restaurant. He could have his nicotine and I could have lungs that will not be filled with particulates that don't belong there.

The response of the lungs to inhaling smoke is to immediately expell it. Cough . Smokers learn to smoke. I don't want to learn that trick - it hurts.



8O

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

No, restaraunts are Private Establishments, as are bars, and other businesses that have "Owners", unless of course the goverment that want's to control them is willing to subsidize the owners instead of making them pay to be told how they are allowed to run thier business.

Schools and Hospital are public areas.

 

[JG]

Good point on ownership .

I was trying to address the perception by previous posts that just because an establishment might be privately owned, codes of behavior can be ignored. For example, although a grocery store is privately owned, it is open to the general public and the owner cannot decide which city ordinances he will uphold. He cannot decide that fire codes do not apply to his privately owned store. Although I work for a private school, I cannot decide which conduct codes I will abide by. There are some behaviors that society will direct. This is why we vote. We vote for our city officials because we feel that our choice of candidate will best represent our interests. If the people of city in which you live decides to ban smoking in restaurants, then the will of the people has been heard.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

But the will of the people (that may not even be a part of this establishment) should not be forced on an individual person, esp when those people do not cut his cheque.

a Private School is the will of the patrons (since kids don't smoke)

a Private bar should be the will of the patrons, not the will of the public.

a Grocery store is the will of the patrons (and they dictate this)

Do not involve fire code, since this is a saftey concern for all humans, and done to protect them from accident not choice.

 

[JG]

But the will of the people (that may not even be a part of this establishment) should not be forced on an individual person, esp when those people do not cut his cheque.

a Private School is the will of the patrons (since kids don't smoke)

a Private bar should be the will of the patrons, not the will of the public.

a Grocery store is the will of the patrons (and they dictate this)

Do not involve fire code, since this is a saftey concern for all humans, and done to protect them from accident not choice.

Smoking on School Grounds - Federal Mandate No one is allowed to smoke - adults or student. Not even parents at a game.

If second hand smoke is determined to be hazardous - safety concern for all patrons.

Private bar - IMO different than one open to the public. A private club or lounge where people pay membership dues - smoking not a problem. Go for it.

One of the beauties of democracy - you can always disagree and try to achieve a change in legislation.

 

[midiman]

I wonder if the same people who insist that smokers have rights would also support the right of people to smoke marijuana in their homes or the right for gays to enter into civil unions or even marry?

If not, I wonder how they on the one hand argue about individual liberty and freedom of choice for smokers but not for others whose behavior is less a threat to the health of the general public than is second-hand smoke.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Yes, "If second hand smoke is determined to be hazardous - safety concern for all patrons."

Fine, I know toxic chemicals are bad to drink, so I don't ge where that's what they serve, but if others choose to have them, they should be allowed that basic right, if they know a place that serves them. (so if a sign on the door says, Toxic drinks are only served here, then I don't think I'ld go in, but that's my choice, it's obviously not concerned with my business)

All bars and restaraunts are private, the owner exclusively holds the right to throw you out because he doesn't like you, or for no good reason at all, and if you return he has the right to charge you with trespassing.

I think I've explained that the patrons of the school have deemed that it be a smoke free enviroment. so the law was put in place.

"One of the beauties of democracy - you can always disagree and try to achieve a change in legislation."

No, the beauty of democracy is you get to pick your dictator from a selected few that can afford it.

If not, I wonder how they on the one hand argue about individual liberty and freedom of choice for smokers but not for others whose behavior is less a threat to the health of the general public than is second-hand smoke.

Without getting to involved with this subject, since it involves religion, Marriage is defined as the union of man and woman, this is the definition, to re-write that definition is to undermine the entire meaning.

It's like 18 year olds playing in kid land at McDonalds or Burger thing. they are kids at heart, but that's not the meaning of kid land..

(This has nothing to do with liberty or freedon BTW.)

 

[midiman]

Our laws are not supposed to based on the religious views of any particular group. One of my favorite sayings is:

"God, protect me from your followers."

I don't see how anyone can argue for the trivial right to smoke based on "individual liberty" and deny rights under the law using personal religous belief as the reason.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

definition:

" a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage:"

part d is the ammended bit, prior to it's modification, it was strictly man and woman,

I said it involves religion because the concept is religious, not my comment (and that's why I won't go here with this debate, religion will always be an arguement, so with that we should get back on topic.)

 

[quarryshark]

People who argue this "right" are the ultimate in self-centered, inconsiderate people, in my humble opinion. Don't forget that people WORK in bars and restaurants and have to breathe smoke CONTINUOUSLY

Weak argument IMO. People that take a job in this atmosphere already understand that this. Choice made.

BTW, it seems to me that people would realize that they have an addiction and a SERIOUS problem if they need to stand huddled outside in the freezing cold in order to inhale smoke.

It's obvious you have never been addicted to Cigs, it's a difficult thing to beat.

The fact that ANYONE would smoke in the presence of children ought to be handled as child endangerment

Do you understand that that is a serious charge?
I agree its a horrible choice, but government having more intrusion into our lives, taking away kids to state run orphan or jailing parents for being bad parents in this regard. Is that what you are suggesting? Or do you want just a handslap?