-
A near by city is has proposed a smoking ban, as I'm sure several places have. Some poeple are going to be for this, and some against. Personally, I think a business owner can decide for themselves. I don't want a debate of whether or not you agree with a smoking ban, but rather what you think some alternatives may be.
I thought that maybe a city can give some type of tax credit or some other type of insentive for places that are "no-smoking." Anybody else have any ideas?
-
I don't need or want a nanny.
-
We recently got a smoking ban here in Bloomington. I don't mind the no restaurants thing because what restaurant really had a big smoking section anyway. But people not being able to smoke in a bar or the many lodges and clubs around here? For shame. *is a non-smoker, BTW*
-
I don't need or want a nanny.
+1, big time.
-
I thought that maybe a city can give some type of tax credit or some other type of insentive for places that are "no-smoking." Anybody else have any ideas?
You've hit the nail on the head. All the municipalities which ban smoking in restaurants, bars, etc., always talk about the health of the employees and patrons.
This is crap.
If that's what they really cared about, they'd do exactly as you've said: provide a tax break to bars that go non-smoking, or (more likely) charge extra licensing fees for a bar to allow smoking. The fact that they don't is the giveaway that what they're really after is those bad, bad people who choose to pollute their own lungs with cigarette smoke.
It's the "we know what's best for you" mentality at its finest, and it sets me to almost frothing at the mouth. And I say all this as someone who quite smoking about a year ago - I'd rather hang out in a bar that was non-smoking; it would make it easier for me to not wish I was smoking while drinking a beer. But passing laws like this just absolutely torques me.
(And now I'll give myself a hearty pat on the back for getting through this whole post without even a sideways glance from Art's Grammaw)
-
I think tax breaks for non-smoking establishments (or places with separately ventillated smoking and non-smoking sections) or charging an extra licensing fee for smoking restaurants would be reasonable compromises in the interrest of public health. I don't think all out bans are productive though.
-
Nope. A privately owned restaurant should be able to govern how people act inside their walls without penalty or reward from the government. If non-smokers don't like a smoky atmosphere, they can choose to not go to that restaurant. I don't really like this 'I can go where I want and everyone should have to conform to my wishes' mentaliaty.
BTW, I am a non-smoker. You don't force me to smoke, I won't force you to not smoke.
-
I realize most people would be against a ban, and I am there as well.
I had a couple of other thoughts about this though. This situation is a certain group that is pushing for this. I think they would be more productive in doing something like the Ohio CCW (and other states) did with the business cards. Simply and politely let the stores know that allowing smoking, or not having a non smoking section = no money. Then a business owner can assess what is gained and lost by denying or allowing smoking.
-
I live in the city that is considering the ban. I was thinking about posting on APS to get some advice on what I should say in an email to my city commissioners and mayor to support an argument against approving the ban. Low and behold, another APS member has already started a thread on this subject. It looks like only one commissioner is against it for libertarian type reasons.
I don't fancy myself a civil libertarian, per se, but I am against this ban. I don't like the encroachment of citizen rights by government, federal or state, whether they be constitutional rights, or other simple liberties that aren't protected by the constitution. Anybody have any advice on what I could put in the email?
Client32, do you know when the next meeting on this issue is taking place, and what is scheduled to take place in that meeting on this topic?
-
I'm far north of you if you live in South Texas.
The commissiners here split the vote 50%/50% so the public gets to vote on it in May.
-
My mistake. I guess I'm in another city. I had no idea two cities in Texas were considering this type of ordinance at the same time.
It all smells too much of San Francisco, or Kalifornia.
-
being able to smoke in a drinking establishment is a LUXURY, not a right.
-
Being able to do as I please with my own property is a right, and if that includes letting my patrons light up, then smoking in my drinking establishment is a right.
They enacted this BS in Dallas. It's killing restaurants.
-
I recall reading somewhere that there is a really large initial hit in businesses that enact smoking bans. However, after a period of time, I believe in maybe a year or so, busines picks up to actually above the prior level as non smokers go in increasing frequencies.
I can't state the source, so take it with a grain of salt.
Love, James
-
**Being One That Dabbled in Smoking but Has Since Quit**
Cincinnati is thinking of the ban. I personally don't have a problem with it. I was recently in New York and it was nice. And it did not seem to have an effect on business that I could see.
But I can definatly see both sides of the argument i don't really push for it one way or another. it's like whatever for me.
-
There've been so many topics on THR and TFL about smoking bans that I almost stopped posting on them.
That said, the idea of tax breaks or tax increases for businesses based on smoking or no-smoking goes against my beliefs. Somebody has to pay for the tax credits, or somebody has to pay for the tax increases. And it's not the politicians, believe me.
It may well be that restaurants see an initial decrease in customers, then a turnaround, after the municipality imposes a smoking ban. I just can't fathom the logic behind the bans, though. Private property is private.
My wife and I both smoke so, if we go to a restaurant that's no smoking, we eat and leave. No after-dinner drinks, no dessert and, thus, a much smaller tip for the server. We then head off to someplace that doesn't treat us like second-class citizens.
I don't smoke in other people's homes/businesses unless I'm told it's ok. OTOH, I warn non-smokers that our house is a smoking zone, and to expect to smell smoke.
Oh, and I also warn them that they just might see a gun if they come in the house.
-
being able to smoke in a drinking establishment is a LUXURY, not a right.
Au contrare... in the mind of a smoker, being able to breathe in public without choking is a luxury not a right.....
-
I recall reading somewhere that there is a really large initial hit in businesses that enact smoking bans. However, after a period of time, I believe in maybe a year or so, busines picks up to actually above the prior level as non smokers go in increasing frequencies.
I can't state the source, so take it with a grain of salt.
Love, James
That is what happened out here in kali. More people actually stay home from the stench than leave from being unable to smoke. It is often forgotten that non-smokers are the majority, not minority.
-
Nope. A privately owned restaurant should be able to govern how people act inside their walls without penalty or reward from the government. If non-smokers don't like a smoky atmosphere, they can choose to not go to that restaurant. I don't really like this 'I can go where I want and everyone should have to conform to my wishes' mentaliaty.
BTW, I am a non-smoker. You don't force me to smoke, I won't force you to not smoke.
This is correct. Utopia not being an option, absolute private property rights is the best way to protect the rights of the most people.
-
in the mind of a smoker, being able to breathe in public without choking is a luxury not a right.
and therein lies the heart of the issue. there is private property, where one has no rights, but rather must abide by the laws/policies set by the owner of said private property.
what do we do when we see a business that posts 'no firearms allowed'. we either boycott the business and inform them of why we are not patronizing their place of business, in hopes they will change their policy, and we go our happy way to find a place that recognizes our right to have a gun with us.
now consider why it is that cities/jurisdictions create laws that restrict smoking. business owners typically don't want to restrict it because they feel their business will be hurt by it, right? so whiny people complain enough and the lawmakers decide to take action.
in the end, are businesses really hurt by it? not really.
anchorage had something similar. restaurants had to become 'smoke free', to ensure that those who had to work in those restaurants were 'safe' from 2nd hand smoke. restaurant owners threw fits, saying no one would eat out anymore. turns out they were wrong.
and there were builtin loopholes. a restaurant could classify themselves as a bar (forget how they proved they were a bar that serves food instead of a restaurant that serves alcohol).
or they could completely seperate the smoking and nonsmoking sections so their air supply was not mixed, but both independant. that way, an employer could have his nonsmoking workers in one area, and smoking workers in the smoking section.
-
Nope. A privately owned restaurant should be able to govern how people act inside their walls without penalty or reward from the government. If non-smokers don't like a smoky atmosphere, they can choose to not go to that restaurant. I don't really like this 'I can go where I want and everyone should have to conform to my wishes' mentaliaty.
BTW, I am a non-smoker. You don't force me to smoke, I won't force you to not smoke.
This is correct. Utopia not being an option, absolute private property rights is the best way to protect the rights of the most people.
So, the majority should be excluded from patronage because of the minority's addiction?
This makes sense to you?
And it is not just a preference like wanting to hear country music... choosing to allow smoke in an establishment kills people. Not just the customers, but the people who work there.
The owner has that right?
-
Nope. A privately owned restaurant should be able to govern how people act inside their walls without penalty or reward from the government. If non-smokers don't like a smoky atmosphere, they can choose to not go to that restaurant. I don't really like this 'I can go where I want and everyone should have to conform to my wishes' mentaliaty.
BTW, I am a non-smoker. You don't force me to smoke, I won't force you to not smoke.
This is correct. Utopia not being an option, absolute private property rights is the best way to protect the rights of the most people.
So, the majority should be excluded from patronage because of the minority's addiction?
That would be up to the owner. No one else has a right to be on his property without his permission. You sound like you want a vote to decide how the property owner's building is used. Would you agree to a vote in your town to decide how your living room is used?
This makes sense to you?
Individual liberty makes sense to me.
And it is not just a preference like wanting to hear country music... choosing to allow smoke in an establishment kills people. Not just the customers, but the people who work there.
The owner has that right?
He should; he bought the place. No one else is there against their will.
-
My town is part of a larger metropolitan area. It is about half as big as the two largest cities in the area. As it is, sales tax revenue is not growing at the rate of other nearby cities, and the other cities also enjoy more tourism, shopping, new businesses and new construction. I think it would have an impact on our own financial situation. However, that isn't the point.
I don't believe in the government passing laws to protect you from yourself. I don't care for seatbelt laws, mandatory helmet laws, no smoking laws, etc., etc.
Generally, when I go to a restaurant and sit in a non-smoking section, I don't even notice a hint of smoke from the smoking section. If I decide to go to a bar, I understand that it goes with the territory. I guess they want to make bars wholesome or something.
-
I met some folks for dinner last Sunday. We sat in the smoking section, which is to say: the bar. Three of the four of us were carrying concealed firearms.
Colorado has a little more sense than some places.
-
I have an idea:
1. Let the owners of the restaurant decide what to permit in their restaurant.
2. Let the patrons decide whether to eat there.
3. Let the employees decide whether to work there.
4. Let the state government get back to the issues it's supposed to be handling, like balancing its budget and eliminating corruption.
Oh... thought it'd be that way with number 4...
- NF
-
I'm not sure if it's like this everywhere in Toledo but the one bar I went to there had an entirely separate room for smokers. I believe this is mandated by law. It was great to come home and not smell cancer in my jacket for two days.
-
Being allergic to smoke and a non smoker, I'll have to say that first hand smoke isn't the only kind that can hurt you.
-
I would think that if there was such a demand for non-smoking bars that someone would have the sense to open one up and make a killing. In a free market consumer demand is always met be supply. If the government has to step in to provide that supply, then there is something wrong.
-
Our little town is also playing with the idea of a ban. In addition to all of the listed places where I can't smoke, they added this: "or within 50 yards of any prohibited area".
Now, being a smoker, I really don't care if I can't smoke at work, and I sure won't mind not having to eat in a cloud of smoke at a restaurant, but this is going too far!!! There is a private school across the street from my house, and if this passes, I won't even be able to smoke in my own house (50-yard rule)! Same thing at work, if I go out to the parking lot, I can't get 50 yards away without being in another prohibited zone. :evil:
-
Our little town is also playing with the idea of a ban. In addition to all of the listed places where I can't smoke, they added this: "or within 50 yards of any prohibited area".
Now, being a smoker, I really don't care if I can't smoke at work, and I sure won't mind not having to eat in a cloud of smoke at a restaurant, but this is going too far!!! There is a private school across the street from my house, and if this passes, I won't even be able to smoke in my own house (50-yard rule)!:evil:
Yes you will, because the smoke will be in your own house. The "zone ranges" near restricted facilities apply to outdoor areas so that people can walk into and out of places without choking through the blue cloud of filth where the addicts have congregated right outside the door to shoot up a nicotine fix.