Restaurant smoking ban and now more

Bill, if I understand the chef's position (which appears to be the same as mine), it has nothing whatever to do with pro-smoking, it's a matter of upholding the rights of the property owner to make that choice as long as patrons are not held by force. There is a strong belief among certain classes that the Besserwissers should be able to determine the esthetics, preferences, and lifestyles of their inferiors, with the inferiors bearing the costs, risks, and restrictions decided on by others, but not everyone agrees with that notion.

"Perhaps you should read the play."

Chef, just for the record, I disagree with Finkelstein's reading of the play. Not simply because I'm a lawyer, but because I spent two years studying Shakespeare many years ago, and continue to do so with great pleasure even now.

Regards, Bob

Bill, this is the first post in this thread that really makes a lot of sense to me. Back when Lexington went smoke free (couple years now) I thought (and still think) that it would be a simple thing to put a sign in the window pro and con, we allow, or we do not allow. Those who want to smoke could know where to go and those who don't want to smoke also would know where to go, or not go. Seems a no brainer to me. Now that we have had a couple years and few establishments are out of business I would bet that the no smoking places would out number those who do. I really think that we have WAY too much of Big Brother ruling our everyday lives as it is. Now if they outlaw smoking in open public places I will work to oust every governmental official who did it. After saying all this, I must say that I quit smoking on Dec 31 1972, so It "ain't" sour grapes coming from me.

Ok, so I am replying to myself here. I just thought that in my reply to Redwinger could be confusing as to which of his replies I am replying to. (that makes a lot os sense doesn't it?) it is in actuality a reply to his post on page one. The one and only thing we had on the NS board that I wish we had here is the post numbering system. Otherwise that board can fall off the edge of the world and not be missed by me. I would not be surprised if this sentiment makes me a curmudgeon.

Bill, this is the first post in this thread that really makes a lot of sense to me. Back when Lexington went smoke free (couple years now) I thought (and still think) that it would be a simple thing to put a sign in the window pro and con, we allow, or we do not allow. Those who want to smoke could know where to go and those who don't want to smoke also would know where to go, or not go. Seems a no brainer to me. Now that we have had a couple years and few establishments are out of business I would bet that the no smoking places would out number those who do. I really think that we have WAY too much of Big Brother ruling our everyday lives as it is. Now if they outlaw smoking in open public places I will work to oust every governmental official who did it. After saying all this, I must say that I quit smoking on Dec 31 1972, so It "ain't" sour grapes coming from me.

Bob, I couldn't agree with you more on this. I am also an ex-smoker (been completely cigarette-free for over 6 yrs now), so it's not sour grapes on my part either...but I think your method of allowing the establishment to determine, and just letting the consumer know about it is so much better. Yes, I like a smoke-free restaurant (still think they should have a choice about it though), but I really think banning smoking in bars is a little ridiculous. We had a lovely cigar bar a few blocks away from me that is now full of cigarette smoke since it's the only place a smoker can go to enjoy a drink and a smoke. Heck...they are BARS...where people are drinking and flirting and whatever else! the next thing you know, they will be banning alcohol everywhere but wine bars...and then I will have to tolerate jello shots and keg stands while trying to enjoy my glass of vino! But seriously, I think they should let the establishment decide on whether or not to allow smoking...JMHO.

But seriously, I think they should let the establishment decide on whether or not to allow smoking...JMHO.

Maria, you are a goddess.

[Robin Garr]

I just thought that in my reply to Redwinger could be confusing as to which of his replies I am replying to. (that makes a lot os sense doesn't it?) it is in actuality a reply to his post on page one.

Bob, if you'll simply use the "quote" button to capture a brief backquote to establish context rather than the "reply" button, that problem goes away. The Softmetal "skin" and a few others also offer the threaded view option as well.

[Robin Garr]

allowing the establishment to determine, and just letting the consumer know about it is so much better.

That approach didn't work very well in eliminating segregation from the old South, though.

[James Roscoe]

allowing the establishment to determine, and just letting the consumer know about it is so much better.

That approach didn't work very well in eliminating segregation from the old South, though.

Or Slavery for that matter!

There's a difference between publicly mandated and enforced segregation and freedom of association in the private sphere. I'm sure you knew that, but it does make your argument to restrict the property rights of others to satisfy your (and my, btw) esthetic preferences seem much more noble.

Gosh Maria, if I were younger, and single, and you were single too, you are so smart I would be knocking on your door! The question really is simple from a certain angle. Yes people are hurting if they continue to smoke. but as long as the product is legal, it is their choice, and I do not want to take away a person's choice so long as it is not in my face. Thanks for chiming in in such a thoughtful intelligent way.

I just thought that in my reply to Redwinger could be confusing as to which of his replies I am replying to. (that makes a lot os sense doesn't it?) it is in actuality a reply to his post on page one.

Bob, if you'll simply use the "quote" button to capture a brief backquote to establish context rather than the "reply" button, that problem goes away. The Softmetal "skin" and a few others also offer the threaded view option as well.

Robin, I have done this dozens of times, but I was lazy and didn't want to edit Bill's message so I didn't, and then I wished I had. So, I did what I did. Thanks for the heads up though.

Bill, if I understand the chef's position (which appears to be the same as mine), it has nothing whatever to do with pro-smoking, it's a matter of upholding the rights of the property owner to make that choice as long as patrons are not held by force. There is a strong belief among certain classes that the Besserwissers should be able to determine the esthetics, preferences, and lifestyles of their inferiors, with the inferiors bearing the costs, risks, and restrictions decided on by others, but not everyone agrees with that notion.

Precisely. When we banned smoking in the dinning room at Mudd's it was *our* choice to do so. Most of *us* were, in fact, smokers. The first week two people approached me and said they'd never return. I said fine, that's your choice. What you do is your prerogative. What we do is ours.

Nobody on the planet who knows me would consider me in the least right wing. (In fact, there was a time when I was left of left.) I do believe the government should take care of the roads and the sick.

Woody Guthrie had a sticker on his guitar:

"This machine kills fascists."

"Perhaps you should read the play."

Chef, just for the record, I disagree with Finkelstein's reading of the play. Not simply because I'm a lawyer, but because I spent two years studying Shakespeare many years ago, and continue to do so with great pleasure even now.

Regards, Bob

Bob, I have to admit, I have actually had a certain fondness for a couple of lawyers in my life. (But, I won't say it out loud.) You seem a reasonable man.

Having spent *way* too many years as an English major I am quite intimate with old Will, as well. And have never had a fistfight with someone who read the plays and had a different interpretation from mine.

But seriously, I think they should let the establishment decide on whether or not to allow smoking...JMHO.

Well, in all the years of free choice in the matter, very few establishments elected to bar smoking from their restaurants. Obviously they considered losing the smokers' business to be preferable to clean air for non-smoking patrons. Otherwise there would have been many more smoke-free joints to dine in, thus not making our elected officials feel it was necessary to step in and mandate what nobody was volunteering to do.

I think it would be interesting to lift the ban that we've had here in California. It's been in place for several years now and everyone's used to it. If the ban were repealed, I wonder how many places would go back to allowing smoking or to having separate sections for smokers. Certainly a lot of bars would, but restaurants?


Mike

"Bill, if I understand the chef's position (which appears to be the same as mine), it has nothing whatever to do with pro-smoking, it's a matter of upholding the rights of the property owner to make that choice as long as patrons are not held by force."

Stuart, I've misunderstood parts of your position. But if it's only the restaurant owner's right, the free market offers an elegant solution.

Prohibit smoking in all restaurants, but issue a limited number of licenses permitting smoking in a particular establishment. Run an auction yearly among all the restaurants in a particular licensing jurisdiction.

In Ridgewood, New Jersey, for example, there are 28 licensed restaurants. The Village might offer four or five smoking licenses [based on the Village's estimate of the percentage of smokers in the Village]. That way restaurant owners would have an opportunity to run their restaurants in the manner they chose.

It would be interesting to see what the market value of a smoking license really is.

Bob: This is analogous to taxi medallions in NY, eh? For which material objects should government have a right to create an artificial shortage for the benefit of a few private individuals? For anything that Rob Reiner deems harmful? Or Phyllis Schlafly, depending on what party is in power in a jurisdiction? Should there be a limited number of licenses issued for the right to produce porn? She'd argue that it's demonstrably more dangerous than secondhand smoke, with evidence of remarkably the same quality as the anti-smoking-in-private-establishments legislators.

I would hate to have my porn choices limited by Phyllis Schlafly.




edit: With a yearly auction, only businesses with significant cash flow could buy a license. I'll place bets that all the smoking permits will be to high priced steak houses.

There's only one high priced steak joint in Ridgewood, Stuart.

My own guess is that the licenses would have very little value -- after all many restaurant owners bitched mightily about the prohibitions, but have found in practice that they haven't lost business -- at least in the restaurants in the northern New Jersey towns I frequent.

But would a smoking license pay off for a restaurant? The market would soon tell us.

I don't understand your objection, frankly -- restaurants are already licensed and heavily regulated for a variety of reasons.

I have a problem with government functionaries favoring one set of private businesses over another by creating an artificial shortage. The already corrupt, burdensome, over-reaching, and inefficient regulatory system that already exists does not present an appealing argument to me for more of the same.

Keep Phyllis Schlafly's withered fingers off my porn!

Strange -- it seems it's better to have no restaurants that permit smoking rather than have a number that do and a number that don't.

We already create just that sort artificial shortage by limiting the number of liquor licenses in a jurisdiction. In this area, at least, the market determines the value of the licenses.

>But would a smoking license pay off for a restaurant? The market would soon tell us.

No, all the "market" would tell you is which restaurants could afford the license fees. All the mom and pop joints would be put out of business by the prohibitive fees that the multinational corporations could afford.

Bob, appealing to the case of limited numbers of liquor licenses as an analogy doesn't strengthen your case; that's a poster boy for the sort of corruption and undue burden I mentioned in my last post.

Chef Carey is right, I think. If there's no rush to get smoking licenses, then they serve no purpose beyond just one more petty shakedown. If there is excess demand and the market prices soar (like taxi medallions), then only well-capitalized companies with sufficient cash will be able to buy them. Mom and Pop don't stand a chance against Black Angus and Ruth's Chris, and you know they'll lobby pretty hard to make sure their licenses remain of value (i.e., to never get rid of the restrictions). And it will all be "for the children."

You can argue that government already does all sorts of things to help favored businesses over ones that aren't as politically connected. I'd agree with that, and that's one major reason that our political system has become what it has become, an ATM machine that dispenses favors using money taken from the middle class and poor to benefit the rich and powerful.

Chef, and Stuart, I must be living in a different world here in northern New Jersey. The no smoking ban has proven to very popular in restaurants of all types. [I had a similar experience years ago when New Jersey transit got rid of the smoking cars; after a few weeks of bitching, all riders, smokers and non-smokers, were enthusiastic over the ban. Local papers have been doing informal surveys, and finding the same reactions -- it's more pleasant and satisfying to eat and drink in a restaurant without smoking.]

Given a choice, I'm sure that patrons will favor no smoking restaurants, restaurant owners will follow the wishes of their patrons, and the smoking licenses would have very little value.

The fundamental problem with requiring owners to prevent smoking on their premises is that it just doesn't work. Very few mom and pop restaurants -- the poster folks for your argument -- are as tough as Chef was in telling smoking patrons to leave and not come back.

Most mom and pop restaurants are put in an impossible conflict situation -- they want to please all patrons, and they find it hard to say no to folks who insist on their legal right to smoke in a crowded restaurant. Other patrons have no legal right to prevent them from doing so. Staff members are in an even more conflicted position.

If it comes to an all or nothing approach, I'm in favor of the legal ban on smoking. It's easy for owners to enforce -- other diners do the enforcing -- and smokers have learned to cope very well with the restrictions which are pervasive in many places, not just restaurants. Dining in a smoke free environment is much more pleasurable.

The licensing approach gives restaurant owners an alternative -- Stuart's argument has been that it's only the restaurant owners who have a stake in this issue. So, try the license approach in a different way.

Every year, in my Ridgewood example, offer four smoking licenses to a pool of applicants. Decide by lottery who gets them. The mom and pops can use them or sell them to those soulless corporations. Next year, give all comers another equal shot at the licenses.

One of the big advantages of providing smoking facilities is that there is no big capital expense -- no part of the restaurant would be smoke free under my proposal. So there would be little cost in switching from smoking to non-smoking or vice versa. The big expenses in this area have been the relatively ineffective efforts to provide both smoking and non-smoking areas in the same facility.

Regards, Bob