Restaurant smoking ban and now more

After all, who'd be crazy enough to change a business practice back to a worse one for the bottom line, eh?

Assumes facts not in evidence, i.e., that small business operators invariably are competent, exercise common sense and act in their own long-term best interests. HAHAHAHHAAAAA!!!

Omni-competence = straw man. Some are competent, some are not. "Think of it as evolution in action."

[Robin Garr]

Omni-competence = straw man. Some are competent, some are not. "Think of it as evolution in action."

True, but when you look at it that way, you'll find abundant evidence of individual restaurant businesses going smoke-free even in the absence of (or prior to the implementation of) smoking bans. Happened very widely here in this urban portion of Tobacco Country, to the extent that legislation actually followed the trend, becoming politically feasible when it became clear that smoke-free restaurants were thriving.

I don't see the fascism or excess of authoritarianism here, though. I'm not aware of any legislation that bars the sale or use of tobacco products by adults, merely its use in public places, where it's tantamount to a mild form of assault - an unwanted invasion of other people's personal space - and thus appropriate for regulation.

Omni-competence = straw man. Some are competent, some are not. "Think of it as evolution in action."

True, but when you look at it that way, you'll find abundant evidence of individual restaurant businesses going smoke-free even in the absence of (or prior to the implementation of) smoking bans. Happened very widely here in this urban portion of Tobacco Country, to the extent that legislation actually followed the trend, becoming politically feasible when it became clear that smoke-free restaurants were thriving.

I don't see the fascism or excess of authoritarianism here, though. I'm not aware of any legislation that bars the sale or use of tobacco products by adults, merely its use in public places, where it's tantamount to a mild form of assault - an unwanted invasion of other people's personal space - and thus appropriate for regulation.

I find very few things appropriate for governmental regulation myself. This among them. At Mudd's we may well have been the first restaurant in California to ban smoking from the dining room (1980) - if not, we were certainly among the first. But, that was our choice. We did allow smoking in the bar.

merely its use in public places

There's the nub- you and I would define a "public place" differently. I've got a strong aversion to having other people have a say over what I do on my property, and I don't see a private business as any different than that (unless it's on the public teat, in which case, have at 'em with my blessing). In your view, if I understand it, the fact that I am allowed by the government to have productive and taxable economic activity on my property makes that property "public" in a regulatory sense.

"If people really, truly believe that privately owned businesses have benefited from the smoking bans, then they should have no problem with repealing them."

As a practical matter, smoking bans only work if there are laws.

If there is a law, the restaurant owners and staff do not have to enforce the ban, non-smoking patrons will enforce it for them.

If there is no law, the entire burden of private enforcement falls on the owner and the staff. Non-smoking patrons have no basis to prevent smokers from smoking -- apart from an appeal to common courtesy.

Great theory on your part, but not practical.

[Robin Garr]

There's the nub- you and I would define a "public place" differently. I've got a strong aversion to having other people have a say over what I do on my property, and I don't see a private business as any different than that (unless it's on the public teat, in which case, have at 'em with my blessing). In your view, if I understand it, the fact that I am allowed by the government to have productive and taxable economic activity on my property makes that property "public" in a regulatory sense.

Actually, it's a place of public accommodation, and this is a concept so clearly enshrined in law that it's hardly subject to individual definition.

Privately <i>owned</i> service businesses have clear and sensible obligations that aren't subject to the owner's whim, and they range from providing sanitary food to fire and safety protection, not to mention well established civil-rights protections for minorities, disabled people and others who may not be excluded merely because the proprietor doesn't like them. Even without the mounting evidence about the hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke to regular employees and even to patrons, it doesn't require any real twisting of logic to incorporate smoking rules under this broad umbrella.

Again, this has nothing to do with prohibition; it's no more irrational than requiring food-service businesses to meet sanitation requirements or building codes; and it differs from your home in that you're not inviting strangers to come into your home to pay money for the privilege of being fed.

Redwinger wrote:

Now I really think banning smokes on the golf course is a bit much. What is the point? Is the second hand smoke really an issue on the 16th green?

Actually, you'd be surprised. We often play with one couple and he lights up a cigar on about the third hole everytime we play. If I get downwind of him, it's an instant headache for me. Of course, strong perfume will do the same thing to me. That could be another whole discussion....

Robin,
There is a significant portion of the public who do want to prohibit tobacco. Just as there is a portion of the population who want to restore the 18th amendment. Second hand smoke is unpleasant and unhealthy, but where is the harm to others in lighting up on the 14th fairway at the local golf course? Here in Indy, the Airport Authority has banned smoking anywhere on the airport grounds effective in 2008. Against the law to smoke in you own car in the parking garage. Sure, I don't like running the gauntlet of smokers any more than other non-smokers, but I doubt my momentary exposure to their smoke is doing any long term injury to my health. I see it as a reasonable accommodation to others and not a cause for another law.
Bill

Redwinger wrote:

Now I really think banning smokes on the golf course is a bit much. What is the point? Is the second hand smoke really an issue on the 16th green?

Actually, you'd be surprised. We often play with one couple and he lights up a cigar on about the third hole everytime we play. If I get downwind of him, it's an instant headache for me. Of course, strong perfume will do the same thing to me. That could be another whole discussion....

Carrie,
I'd probably talk with him about the impact his cigars have on you. If he persisted, I'd opt for new golfing partners. But that's just me.
Best,
Bill

Bill,

A more direct and staunchly Libertarian approach would be for her to carry around a vial of Mace, and every time his cigar stench wafts over her she could squirt just a bit of Mace in his face to let him know she's being affected.

That would probably solve the problem quickly, don't you think?

Not just golf courses. When I was wheeled out of the hospital after having a stroke, an old couple came through the double set of doors complaining about cigarette smoke. When I passed through the doors, I could smell what they were complaining about. And then when we passed through the exterior door, we were enveloped in a cloud of smoke. It was a hospital employee leaning up against the door under a NO SMOKING sign having a few puffs. A real winner.

Bill,

A more direct and staunchly Libertarian approach would be for her to carry around a vial of Mace, and every time his cigar stench wafts over her she could squirt just a bit of Mace in his face to let him know she's being affected.

That would probably solve the problem quickly, don't you think?

Hoke,
I'm all for the direct approach...ask anyone who has been around me for more than 3 minutes.
'Winger

Not just golf courses. When I was wheeled out of the hospital after having a stroke, an old couple came through the double set of doors complaining about cigarette smoke. When I passed through the doors, I could smell what they were complaining about. And then when we passed through the exterior door, we were enveloped in a cloud of smoke. It was a hospital employee leaning up against the door under a NO SMOKING sign having a few puffs. A real winner.

Larry,
Old people complain too damn much!!
Seriously, inexcusable behavior by the employee.
Bill

it's a place of public accommodation, and this is a concept so clearly enshrined in law that it's hardly subject to individual definition.

That notion carried to this extent is of rather recent coinage, is it not? In any case, you confirmed my understanding of your position. And when someone passes a law in a few years requiring you to verify via credit card and record checks, the identity and age of anyone who wants to read any of your content because you're open to the public and making money from it, I'll be just as sympathetic and defensive of your property rights as I am of restaurant, bar, and club owners'.

Dadburn it! When I was your age....

A more direct and staunchly Libertarian approach would be for her to carry around a vial of Mace

Eh, just fart. It will get the message across.

When will our fearless leaders ban obnoxious perfumes and after shaves from the public arena? After all, there's just as junky evidence for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as there is for second-hand smoke cancer.

[Robin Garr]

That notion carried to this extent is of rather recent coinage, is it not?

Actually I think it goes back to innkeepers' responsibilities under English common law, but who's counting.

In any case, you confirmed my understanding of your position. And when someone passes a law in a few years requiring you to verify via credit card and record checks, the identity and age of anyone who wants to read any of your content because you're open to the public and making money from it, I'll be just as sympathetic and defensive of your property rights as I am of restaurant, bar, and club owners'.

So you're equating smoking to free speech? Pretty weak rhetoric, I'd say.

I'm equating property rights in general with free speech, yes.

[Robin Garr]

I'm equating property rights in general with free speech, yes.

That battle's over.

Kelo was indeed the last nail in THAT coffin.

Once I was auditing a small town city government in my home State of Georgia, and City Hall so reeked of smoke that my associates and I would wear the same suit for the entire audit to save on drycleaning bills. One day I looked up to see the police chief entering a door, cigarette in his mouth, directly underneath the "No Smoking In Government Offices" sign. So much for enforcement...

I am glad to see smoking bans in restaurants -- but then I'd like to see perfume bans, too... and, while we're at it, fresh roses, carnations, etc -- those often bother me when I'm trying to get the full flavor and aroma of the meal and wine in front of me....

Seen outside our local hospital which has the regional neonatal ICU : two very pregnant women in bathrobes, one leaning on an IV pole, puffing away on cigarettes. The hospital has been off limits to smoking for many years. Is there something wrong here ?

Seen outside our local hospital which has the regional neonatal ICU : two very pregnant women in bathrobes, one leaning on an IV pole, puffing away on cigarettes. The hospital has been off limits to smoking for many years. Is there something wrong here ?

Just one more clear indication that these people are addicted to a very dangerous drug, to the point that they do not care about their health, the health of those around them, or the child gestating inside of them.

And a pretty clear indication of why smokers feel so strongly about their addiction that they argue it is their 'right' to inconvenience, irritate, and endanger other people in the public arena.

I know. I'm a reformed smoker for many years now, and I remember how fervently I protected my 'right' to continue smoking whenever I wished---and to hell with everybody else. Simple: my immediate needs were significantly more important than any other factor.

One of the most difficult things I ever did in my life was break that addiction.

You can feel disappointed, angry, intolerant, or a wide range of emotions, about smokers. But most of all, in the end, I feel sad. They are caught in an addiction, and they are too weak-willed to escape.