Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Anguille]

Not at all.

Because those acts are perpetrated by a person and the intention of that person is unknowable to the victim

You know my pub allows smoking and you are free to enter or not.

A persons addiction should not impede the choices available to the general public regarding business establishments they may frequent, there are laws requiring handicap access to businesses, allowing smoking in an establishment impedes the rights of those with afflictions like asthma and other respiratory conditions from frequenting such establishments.

It does not impede their rights as they have the right to go to another establishment.

They shouldn't ever have to. The laws are there to insure that they don't.

 

[dilloduck]

Unless a heroin junkie robs me or is a relative his addiction doesnt affect me but as a breather the smokers addiction does affect me.

So naturally you are against driving cars in public places too ?

Cars serve a useful purpose. Cigarettes do not.

Car emissions are regulated. Cigarettes emissions are too.

That false analogy has been shot down so many times. Why keep beating the dead horse?

Is that all you anti-smoking bans people have got?

"useful purpose" poisoning can be overlooked-----got it

 

[Zoom-boing]

Skull Pilots argument in this thread is spot on. That so many of you can't grasp the concept of 'choice' is beyond me.

 

[Anguille]

so not going to one particular pub inconveniences you when you have many others to choose from?

You are selfish aren't you?

No the addicts are the selfish ones, they can still go to non smoking establishments.

and so can you. So let them have someplace where they can smoke.

But no you can't allow that can you?

No one is stopping them from smoking in their own home or places thier smoke doesn't affect others.
Why should non smokers have any bit of compassion for the smoker's craving for their drug? After all these years of being treated like shit by smokers, is it any surprise there is little compassion? Especially when the smokers have smokeless alternatives for keeping themselves drugged.

The crybaby act doesn't get anywhere with me.

 

[Anguille]

got it---if it's necessary to fuck peoples lungs up it's OK.

They are working on that problem currently also, there are emission laws.

and autos STILL pump more poison in the air than smokers could ever do in 100 years-
but it's OK as long as they are "working on it" ?

It's not legal to run a car motor in a bar or restaurant either.

 

[dilloduck]

No the addicts are the selfish ones, they can still go to non smoking establishments.

and so can you. So let them have someplace where they can smoke.

But no you can't allow that can you?

No one is stopping them from smoking in their own home or places thier smoke doesn't affect others.
Why should non smokers have any bit of compassion for the smoker's craving for their drug? After all these years of being treated like shit by smokers, is it any surprise there is little compassion? Especially when the smokers have smokeless alternatives for keeping themselves drugged.

The crybaby act doesn't get anywhere with me.

ZB has spoken---you lose eel lady

 

[dilloduck]

They are working on that problem currently also, there are emission laws.

and autos STILL pump more poison in the air than smokers could ever do in 100 years-
but it's OK as long as they are "working on it" ?

It's not legal to run a car motor in a bar or restaurant either.

AIR GETS EVERYWHERE------think about it !

 

[Anguille]

A persons addiction should not impede the choices available to the general public regarding business establishments they may frequent, there are laws requiring handicap access to businesses, allowing smoking in an establishment impedes the rights of those with afflictions like asthma and other respiratory conditions from frequenting such establishments.

They also guarantee the rights of bar and restaurant employees to have the same workplace protections afforded to all other kinds of employees.

They can choose to work in a smoking bar or non smoking bar

And now they don't have to, just like any other type of employee.

LONG LIVE THE SMOKING BANS!

 

[Luissa]

I would like to see it repealed in bars and bingo halls. We had two bingo halls close that raised money for two different charities, and many of the bars saw a decrease in their profit due to the ban. I am fine with it not being in restratraunts but I don't see any way around only allowing it in certain places. Why don't they give businesses incentives to not allow smoking, instead of just banning it? For one it is the small businesses that are most effective by these restrictions.

Are the bingo halls run by volunteers or paid employees?
Are you sure smaill busineses in your areas are suffering from the bans? In mine, profits went up 15%. In any case, is profit more important than people's health?

Both bingo halls had paid employees, my brother actually worked at both when younger.ONe raised money for Big Brother's and Sisters, and the other for Developmentally diabled school which my son now goes to. They closed within two months of the ban because people went out to the Indian Casino's instead to play bingo because they could smoke while they played. I will try to find an article, it has been a few years since we banned smoking.

 

[Anguille]

Skull Pilots argument in this thread is spot on. That so many of you can't grasp the concept of 'choice' is beyond me.

It used to be non smokers and smokers who did not want smoke around them while they ate were forced to choose. Even back in their heyday when the tobacco industry had free rein to get the public hooked on their drug, non smokers still out numbered smokers.
Smokers were asked politely to stop doing it in these places. Some insisted their needs were more important than anyone else's and kept on puffing away, anywhere and everywhere. Because of them the public put it's foot down and enacted the bans. The bans are only going to get stricter because the law makers know this is what the public wants and feels it is entitled to as citizens of the home of the smokefree and the brave.

 

[Anguille]

and autos STILL pump more poison in the air than smokers could ever do in 100 years-
but it's OK as long as they are "working on it" ?

It's not legal to run a car motor in a bar or restaurant either.

AIR GETS EVERYWHERE------think about it !

Sound like an argument for banning smoking in even more places.

 

[Anguille]

I would like to see it repealed in bars and bingo halls. We had two bingo halls close that raised money for two different charities, and many of the bars saw a decrease in their profit due to the ban. I am fine with it not being in restratraunts but I don't see any way around only allowing it in certain places. Why don't they give businesses incentives to not allow smoking, instead of just banning it? For one it is the small businesses that are most effective by these restrictions.

Are the bingo halls run by volunteers or paid employees?
Are you sure smaill busineses in your areas are suffering from the bans? In mine, profits went up 15%. In any case, is profit more important than people's health?

Both bingo halls were had paid employees, my brother actually worked at both when younger.ONe raised money for Big Brother's and Sisters, and the other for Developmentally diabled school which my son now goes to. They closed within two months of the ban because people went out to the Indian Casino's instead to play bingo because they could smoke while they played. I will try to find an article, it has been a few years since we banned smoking.

That's really too bad that the charities lost out because some patrons decided smoking was more important to them than seeing that their money went to charity rather than the casinos. I hope they can find another way of raising money.

As much as I support charities like that, I don't think they should make money allowing something that harms their employees and the people who attend their events.

 

[Luissa]

Here is a link to a guys blog pretty much but it lists businesses closing due to smoking bans. At the link there is another list of bars or restratraunts that have closed or seen a decrease in profits. It isn't the chain or high profit establishments that are closing, it is the small businesses. I am a liberal and I bitch about Walmart doing this same thing along with other liberals, but I guess it is alright to hurt small businesses because we don't want to smell smoke when entering a bar. Personally now that there is no smoking in bars, I think they smell worse.



NUTSHELL TAVERN, Rte 1, Biddeford, Maine closes its doors due to smoking bans.

Press Herald News, January 6, 2000 * MINGLES COFFEE SHOP, Kitchener, closes after non-smoking bylaw passed--45% drop in business Kitchener-Waterloo Record, July 31, 2000

* TWELVE RESTAURANTS CLOSE in Brookline, MA , after smoking ban decimates business Lowell Sun, March 28, 2001

* In British Columbia, 200 WORKERS in 46 establishments have lost their jobs because of the smoking ban National Post, March 3, 2000

* Hotelier Don Ritaller, Victoria, fired his entire staff of 12

* J. P. MALONE'S PUB in Richmond, laid off eight of its 20 employees

* CLYDE'S RESTAURANT GROUP, one of the most popular and successful restaurants chains in the Washington DC area since 1963, suffered a staggering loss of sales after smoking was banned

* A survey of 300 alcoholic beverage serving operations in California, selected at random from a list of 7,216 shows that 60% experienced a decrease in business averaging more than 30%; 7% showed increased business averaging 8%. Guest Choice Network + 50.4% of the respondents indicated an increase in customer complaints/fights; + 65.0% indicated a loss of regular customers; + 59.0% indicated a loss of tips/gratuities for the bar and/or serving staff.

* THE DULUTH GRILL has closed after 16 years due to the smoking ban Duluth News

* 130 TOBACCONISTS in California have been forced to close since the 1998 smoking bans and punitive tax increases SF Gate, July 1, 2001

* Thousands of employees have had their hours cut, and hundreds have lost their jobs because of the loss of the smoking customers who form a majority of their customer base.

" Dread, pink slips greet smoking ban ," Globe and Mail, December 29, 2000

* A recent study from British Columbia pointed out major economic and job losses after a provincial smoking ban took effect in January: After 80 days of the bylaw, 730 EMPLOYEES were let go , 9 BUSINESSES CLOSED and more than $16 MILLION was lost . The Ottawa Citizen Online, August 27, 2001

* Letter from a waitress in BC: " My livelihood is being jeopardized for my own protection, and I never asked to be saved ."

* A hotel-industry study released this week shows that San Francisco's hotel-occupancy rates have shrunk to 1994 levels. City hotels are operating at 74% capacity. Rooms priced at more than $160 are about 69% full. While those numbers aren't disastrous, they are a far cry from the stuffed hostelries we've been used to the last few years. San Francisco Examiner, April 19, 2001

* TWO MORE RESTAURANTS have closed in Weymouth, MA : J.C. Grear's in South Weymouth and the Aloha in Hingham. A fourth restaurant said business is way off. Weymouth News

* Corvallis, OR: Employment at the Peacock has dropped from 50 to 14. Owner John Carter says the business has lost 38 percent of its lottery income and more than half of its basic bar revenue since the law took effect State records support Carter's lament about lost business. The Register-Guard, September 24, 2000

* Clergymen complain that 40 BINGO HALLS have closed because of the smoking ban. These halls supported local charities. Sun-News, February 7, 2001

* BUD'S PLACE in Cambridge and said his sales have fallen 23 per cent since the smoking ban was implemented. His staff has shrunk to 12 from 17 and a full-time employee he's had on staff for 10 years has been cut back to three shifts a week " Restaurateurs rebel against smoking bans " The New-Standard, December 10, 2000

* Wareham rescinds smoking ban when restaurant owners prove business decreased 25-40%. "We knew it would hurt," Board of Health Chairman Ralph R. Thompson said of the board's decision to implement the ban, adding that he and his fellow board members weren't aware of just how devastating the ban's impact would prove to be on area businesses. Representatives from Wareham's Elks club said the ban had cut the attendance at their weekly bingo nights in half, crippling their ability to raise funds for scholarships and other civic endeavors . Standard-Times, 12/20/2000

Last Spring (just in time for tourist season), the same three anti-smoker members of Wareham's Board of Health put the smoking ban back in place. Wareham is now smoker UNfriendly and
restaurants, bars, and clubs and organizations are suffering. :-(

* In Washington State a smoking ban at the Spokane Interstate Fair went down in flames Monday after attendance dropped by roughly 22% (despite perfect weather) and county commissioners were deluged with calls and letters of protest. "Fair policy up in smoke," Dan Hansen, Spokesman-Review, 9/14/99

* Susan Barnes of the WATERWORKS RESTAURANT in Rockland ( Maine ) said she has lost more than $8,000 a month in liquor sales to other establishments since the restaurant smoking ban went into effect. Bangor Daily News, February 5, 2000

* Peter Martin, owner of John Martin's MANOR RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE in Waterville, said he proclaimed all Sundays in January to be no-smoking. Food and beverage sales dropped 25 percent and off-track betting revenue dropped 30 percent , he said Bangor Daily News , February 5, 2000

* ''On Saturday night, we had a band, two bartenders, two waitresses, a doorman, a floor man, and we grossed $33,'' said Dorsey Carey, manager of HANDLEBAR HARRY'S bar/restaurant in Cordage Park, after smoking was banned.. Boston Globe Online, September 9, 2001

* Owner of the CHATEAU LAFAYETTE, Jill Scott, said: "People can't say this isn't hurting us. I've closed down my kitchen and cut five shifts . I don't know where people are going, but they aren't here." Ottawa Sun, Tuesday, October 2, 2001

* After smoking bans were implemented, the number of Buffalo BINGO ESTABLISHMENTS dropped by about 20 percent, while city bingo fee revenues declined by 36 percent, according to officials. The Buffalo News, By BRIAN MEYER, News Staff Reporter, 7/24/01

* Mesa, AZ, banned most restaurant smoking in 1996. THE MARQUEE, the ZUR-KATE and ARIZONA JACK'S are the exceptions. They demonstrated that they lost so much business as a result of the ban that they were allowed to permit smoking. The Washington Post, Monday, February 19, 2001; Page A03

* The most recent Gallup poll on smoking, November 13-15, shows that even in the current climate more than half of Americans, 53%, still want to allow smoking sections in restaurants; a solid majority still favors the preservation of smoking areas in the workplace, 63%, as well as in hotels and motels, 72%. "...it really comes down to whether or not we have a right to tell private business owners what they can do in their own business." Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, The Cabin, September 6, 2001

The Facts About The Smoking Ban. If you're a business owner or not, this is a must read!

 

[Luissa]

Are the bingo halls run by volunteers or paid employees?
Are you sure smaill busineses in your areas are suffering from the bans? In mine, profits went up 15%. In any case, is profit more important than people's health?

Both bingo halls were had paid employees, my brother actually worked at both when younger.ONe raised money for Big Brother's and Sisters, and the other for Developmentally diabled school which my son now goes to. They closed within two months of the ban because people went out to the Indian Casino's instead to play bingo because they could smoke while they played. I will try to find an article, it has been a few years since we banned smoking.

That's really too bad that the charities lost out because some patrons decided smoking was more important to them than seeing that their money went to charity rather than the casinos. I hope they can find another way of raising money.

As much as I support charities like that, I don't think they should make money allowing something that harms their employees and the people who attend their events.

You obviously never been to a bingo hall in Spokane, most of the people who played there smoked and had a disability of some kind or were older. It was 17 degrees out the day the ban went into effect. Most of the employees who worked there also smoked. When this ban went into effect they did many stories on the bingo halls discussing this.(i wish i could find them) At the time it was banned I was going to bars quite a bit and had many bartender friends, none of them wanted the ban because of loss in tips and the simple fact they smoke also.
Here in Washington, we already had plenty of smoke free bars and restratraunts for people who didn't like the smell. In Spokane most of the restratraunts except for places like Denny's had already banned smoking in their restratraunts. It is a stupid law, and it hurts the small business owner.

 

[Anguille]

Both bingo halls were had paid employees, my brother actually worked at both when younger.ONe raised money for Big Brother's and Sisters, and the other for Developmentally diabled school which my son now goes to. They closed within two months of the ban because people went out to the Indian Casino's instead to play bingo because they could smoke while they played. I will try to find an article, it has been a few years since we banned smoking.

That's really too bad that the charities lost out because some patrons decided smoking was more important to them than seeing that their money went to charity rather than the casinos. I hope they can find another way of raising money.

As much as I support charities like that, I don't think they should make money allowing something that harms their employees and the people who attend their events.

You obviously never been to a bingo hall in Spokane, most of the people who played there smoked and had a disability of some kind or were older. It was 17 degrees out the day the ban went into effect. Most of the employees who worked there also smoked. When this ban went into effect they did many stories on the bingo halls discussing this.(i wish i could find them) At the time it was banned I was going to bars quite a bit and had many bartender friends, none of them wanted the ban because of loss in tips and the simple fact they smoke also.
Here in Washington, we already had plenty of smoke free bars and restratraunts for people who didn't like the smell. In Spokane most of the restratraunts except for places like Denny's had already banned smoking in their restratraunts. It is a stupid law, and it hurts the small business owner.

Cigarette smoke hurts the small business owner, employee and customer more than any ban ever could.

I support small business too, but not to the extent that they should be excused from health codes.

Small business owners have a choice. They can choose to run a business that does not rely on smokers to sustain it.

 

[keee keee]

This is America and a owner of a business should have the right to target who they want as customers. It is not your god given right to be a customer. If a bar owner wants to have smokers in his bar he should be able to put a sign on the front door telling all who is entering, that the establishment is a smoking establishment and if they don't agree with this policy go on moving down the street to another bar!!! Once the government helps an owner run and operate the business then they should have a right to tell the owner how to run the business. if not butt out!!!!

You are such a credit to the repealers. They must be proud to have you on their side.

I am a ex smoker of many years and it does not bother me if people smoke. I am more pissed off of the government taking away peoples rights that is owners rights of what they want to do in their own private businesses, who they target for customers!!!! If a certain type of people are hard to deal with it is my right not to do business with them period!!! They have no right for me to service them or do business with them. It is my loss of business, no their right. When the government owns it they can dictate what can happen but not in private businesses!!!!

 

[keee keee]

I believe that if a person invests in a bar or eating establishment, and pays all of the fees and taxes that are imposed on that establishment, pays the salaries for the people that work there, and pays all the other money that is required of him to own that establishment, then he should be considered the true owner of that said establishment. If he owns it, he should be able to set the rules concerning smoking or not smoking in the business. He can have a smoking section or a non-smoking section as he sees fit. If the general public does not care for his establishment and the way he runs it (be it a smoking or non-smoking establishment) they will either frequent the establishment or not frequent the establishment. The choice should be his to make though. If smoking in his establishment offends you then you should keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself and go someplace that you approve of.

well said!!! would it be a nicer place with less government!!!!

 

[keee keee]

If the government, city, county are so against smoking put their money where their mouth is Outlaw smoking period. do not sell it and also don't profit from the taxes you collect. But it is all bullshit like global warming they just want control and tax revenue. They could give a shit if you die except that their revenue source dries up when you die. they only want you alive so they can suck more money out of you like leeches that they are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Jesus, how thick is your skull that you can't grasp the question of whether or not smoking bans should be changed?

Some of us believe they should be changed and we are making arguments as to why.

And so far every one of them has been shown to be faulty. If you can't come up with a single genuine reason to repeal the bans, why can't you just grasp the fact that you are wrong?

so liberty and freedom of choice aren't good enough?

What other liberties and choices are you willing to take away from people?

 

[Skull Pilot]

A persons addiction should not impede the choices available to the general public regarding business establishments they may frequent, there are laws requiring handicap access to businesses, allowing smoking in an establishment impedes the rights of those with afflictions like asthma and other respiratory conditions from frequenting such establishments.

It does not impede their rights as they have the right to go to another establishment.

They shouldn't ever have to. The laws are there to insure that they don't.

Why shouldn't they have to?

If someone doesn't like sushi, they don't eat at sushi bars. Would you force the owner of a sushi bar to sell Italian food so because people shouldn't have to go to another establishment?