Post by: client32 on March 08, 2005, 04:45:52 AM
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?
Post by: Chas on March 08, 2005, 04:48:37 AM
Post by: ZeroX on March 08, 2005, 04:51:44 AM
Post by: Darkmind on March 08, 2005, 05:01:58 AM
Quote
I don't need or want a nanny.
+1, big time.
Post by: Control Group on March 08, 2005, 06:09:07 AM
Quote
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)
Post by: nico on March 08, 2005, 07:08:57 AM
Post by: jefnvk on March 08, 2005, 07:51:01 AM
BTW, I am a non-smoker. You don't force me to smoke, I won't force you to not smoke.
Post by: client32 on March 08, 2005, 08:55:59 AM
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.
Post by: macavada on March 08, 2005, 10:09:35 AM
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?
Post by: client32 on March 08, 2005, 10:23:27 AM
The commissiners here split the vote 50%/50% so the public gets to vote on it in May.
Post by: macavada on March 08, 2005, 10:32:35 AM
It all smells too much of San Francisco, or Kalifornia.
Post by: spacemanspiff on March 08, 2005, 10:43:39 AM
Post by: Azrael256 on March 08, 2005, 10:57:56 AM
They enacted this BS in Dallas. It's killing restaurants.
Post by: jamz on March 08, 2005, 12:37:16 PM
I can't state the source, so take it with a grain of salt.
Love, James
Post by: Black92LX on March 08, 2005, 01:35:38 PM
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.
Post by: Monkeyleg on March 08, 2005, 01:37:36 PM
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.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 08, 2005, 02:24:20 PM
Quote
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.....
Post by: bountyhunter on March 08, 2005, 02:26:30 PM
Quote
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.
I can't state the source, so take it with a grain of salt.
Love, James
Post by: Guest on March 08, 2005, 02:41:10 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: spacemanspiff on March 08, 2005, 02:45:23 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: bountyhunter on March 08, 2005, 02:45:59 PM
Quote
Quote
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.
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.
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?
Post by: Guest on March 08, 2005, 02:55:34 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
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.
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?
Quote
This makes sense to you?
Individual liberty makes sense to me.
Quote
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?
The owner has that right?
He should; he bought the place. No one else is there against their will.
Post by: macavada on March 08, 2005, 02:55:49 PM
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.
Post by: Standing Wolf on March 08, 2005, 07:11:48 PM
Colorado has a little more sense than some places.
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on March 09, 2005, 04:11:42 AM
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
Post by: Ukraine Train on March 09, 2005, 07:35:25 AM
Post by: Mabs2 on March 09, 2005, 09:07:14 AM
Post by: Guest on March 10, 2005, 03:34:18 AM
Post by: garyk/nm on March 10, 2005, 04:20:07 AM
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:
Post by: bountyhunter on March 10, 2005, 08:39:42 AM
Quote
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.
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: