The slippery slope

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The anti-smoking laws have nothing to so with safe environments,

So you disagree with the scientific justification, not the legal one.

[Griff]

I find it a little odd that tw can't find a smoke free eatery in the Philly area. I went to a smoke free place, The Summerhouse Grill in tiny little Montrose, PA last weekend. (yummy btw)

The little bars around here are booming because New York has chased a percentage of their their smokers South. As far as voting away smoking, the motivated voters are the mobilized anti-smokers then you add in the warm fuzzy crowd who want to improve their neighbors... My recent trip to the ER, which is in New York, involved walking around a knot of tobacco fiend health care workers who've been pushed out on the sidewalk. As addicts they should probably invoke ADA and get a ventilated room

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

I find it a little odd that tw can't find a smoke free eatery in the Philly area.

When I go into any eatery, I expect it to be urine and smoke free. I expect only addicts to have to do the searching - or keep their lighters in their pockets.

Well is documented is what happens when smoking is banned. Business increases - typically 5% or more. These numbers have been well doumented in both CA and NYC.

[Kitsune]

The contradiction I've seen in business and law is what confuses me in this matter. The "free market" solution should have worked something like this: people eat where they want at various establishments. Some of those places permit smoking, some allow it on certain portions of their property, and others do not permit it altogether. People, over time, select which places they want to go to and some select them based upon the smoking/some smoking/no smoking. Whatever people like, people pick, the end.

What is strange about this is that, here in Florida, few people selected places based upon smoking permission. Chains that allowed smoking didn't see non-smokers go elsewhere and places that prohibited it saw smokers still walk through their doors time and time again. Based on where business went and the places people went, you'd swear no one gave a big shit about smoking in private businesses.

...and then the restaurant ban came up for a vote. Not only did it pass, it passed hugely. Based on the vote, clearly people did not want smoking in restaurants. Not only did they desire a ban, they wanted it so badly they amended the state constitution. (Noo... this isn't an abuse of founding state documents, is it? Just like protecting the rights of pigs wasn't, either, but that is a different story!)

The backlash? I spoke with the owner of a local bar shortly after the law went into effect and she said business was miserable -- the place was dead quiet. (Bars are exempt under the law, but this "bar" sold enough food that it qualified as a restaurant and was forced to ban smoking.) She feared her drinking regulars would never return, the business would fail, and that the money, logically, would go to "true" bars where her thirsty customers could puff away to their hearts' content and still get their drink.

Weeks later, a return visit and everything was back to normal. Regulars returned, business resumed, etc, and the owner commented two weeks was all it took. Did the smokers take their drinking habits to where they could also smoke? Nope, they simply step outside.

My problem: if smoking was a big health hazard and people hated it so much as to vote for it, why didn't places that permitted smoking see a loss in money and cave in to business demands by banning it themselves? Why did people that hated smoking in restaurants continue to eat at the establishments that permitted it? Why didn't the magical free market solution reflect the vote and popular opinion?

My other problem: if the smoking ban is a big deal, why didn't smokers take their business to "true bars" or stay at home? Why did businesses not suffer anything beyond the temporary dip?

To make matters even stranger, plenty of exempt businesses used the ban as an excuse to prohibit smoking on their property. Tampa Lanes, a bowling alley, switched on the same date as when the ban went into effect. So did several nightclubs in the area. Guess what? Smokers still go to these establishments, sometimes selecting them over places that continue to permit smoking.

What the hell?

[Ibby]

Why do they still go there? Because, get this - Contrary to tw's ramblings, not all smokers are chain-smoking, kill-a-man-for-his-camels nutjobs. Some can put away their lighters long enough to bowl a round or watch a girl take her clothes off or get a good plate of fries.

Same reason I don't grab a pack of lucky strikes and a zippo every time i walk into an establishment that DOES allow smoking.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Contrary to tw's ramblings, not all smokers are chain-smoking, kill-a-man-for-his-camels nutjobs. Some can put away their lighters long enough to bowl a round or watch a girl take her clothes off or get a good plate of fries.

I never defined smokers as such. You have simply uses your emotional interpretation to pervert what I posted. And yes, all smokers can put away their lighters long enough to bowl. Problem is that a self serving minority insist it is their right to smoke anywhere - and deny that all laws against smoking are because smokers are so toxic to healthy people.

Laws are created when a group is so anti-social as to make those laws necessary. There would be no anti-smoking laws is these smokers conformed to the interests of all. But instead they insist their rights are more important - making those laws necessary.

The bar I go to allows me to smoke my pipe and I do. I live in FL. An unconstitutional law is not a law, ignoring it is your responsibility.

I saw a funny cartoon in The Spectator on the subject of smoking ( all the cartoons are funny in The Spectator ... )

Two tramps are sitting on a park bench . One is smoking , and the other is swigging at his bottle of methylated spirits . The meths tramp is frowning and berating the other for ruining his epicurean pleasure .

That just about sums the subject up for me .

[Ibby]

That's where we disagree, tw. If it's private it's private. If I own a restaurant, it is MY property, and I get to be the sole judge of who may come in. If I open it to the public, it's still MY property, and I'm STILL deciding who can and cant come in, but the decision is that anyone can. Thats the only difference.

[Happy Monkey]

What is your position on OSHA, health inspections, and handicap accessibility on your private property?

[Ibby]

I would agree to them all weather I had to or not, because I can completely see the point.

I personally probably WOULDN'T allow smoking in my restaurant, I just don't think that decision should rest with the government.

[Happy Monkey]

But do you agree with the ones I menioned being mandatory?

[Ibby]

Well none of those inconvenience anybody at all by being enforced, so I guess I dont have a problem with them.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Well none of those inconvenience anybody at all by being enforced, so I guess I dont have a problem with them.

They certainly do! It costs a lot of money to be in compliance with all of the various regulations of public accomodations, especially restaurants. Comparatively, a smoking ban is extremely easy for the property owner - put up a few signs, and toss the ashtrays.

[9th Engineer]

There are plenty of other laws and restrictions we put on what restaurant owners can do in their establishments. Remember when they wouldn't allow blacks in? What if an owner decides that his business will increase if he doesn't serve mexicans? We decide for him who he serves.