Posted on 04/08/2006 5:39:01 AM PDT by SheLion
The New Hampshire Senate narrowly defeated a bill yesterday that would have banned smoking in the state's bars and restaurants.
Lou D'Allesandro, right, the deputy Democratic leader in the New Hampshire Senate, argued in vain Thursday for a smoking ban.
The measure, which easily passed the House this week, failed by a vote of 12 to 11. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, said he would have signed the bill had it passed.
Fourteen states and a number of municipalities have banned smoking in all workplaces in recent years, although a coalition in New Jersey is suing to keep that state's proposed ban from going into effect next week. Last month, Calabasas, Calif., banned smoking in all public places, both indoor and outdoor.
New Hampshire legislators said individual businesses should have the right to decide if their establishments should be smoke-free.
"I believe it should be a decision that the business owner and restaurant owners make on their own," said Senator Carl Johnson, Republican of Meredith.
Mr. Johnson said the debate over the smoking ban had been the most contentious and surprising in his 14 years as a legislator.
"I'm surprised that a lot of the 'Live Free or Diers' who usually confront us with statements like 'stay out of our life' or 'we don't need more legislation' were the ones asking us to ban smoking," he said.
A number of restaurant associations and chambers of commerce joined that chorus. The Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the state's largest business association, said 80 percent of its members supported banning smoking in bars in restaurants.
The bill's supporters said they planned to reintroduce it next year.
"Today was just a step in a multiyear change of culture," said a co-sponsor of the bill, Senator Bob Odell, Republican of Lempster.
A number of restaurant associations and chambers of commerce joined that chorus. The Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the state's largest business association, said 80 percent of its members supported banning smoking in bars in restaurants.
I sure hope they are aware of what they are voting for! Lot of people stand up against an establishment going smoke free, and the revenue won't be there any longer.
Just goes to show you how insidious liberalism can be!
I don't smoke. I used to but I quit however, banning a legal product on the dubious dangers of second-hand smoke is quite draconian.
The more virtuous the cause, the more fanatical the apostles will be!
Thomas Sowell was soooooooooooo right!
I'm in Ireland right now and a bar that I frequented in the past that was "a jumpin' joint" before the smoking ban here now opens at 12:30 for lunch and closes again at 3:30. PM that is. Not AM. In Ireland for cryin' out loud!
I was in Austin during SXSW recently. They passed their ban in September. I don't know how many bars have closed, if any, but all the ones we were in still had people smoking. When I asked around they said that the police won't enforce it.
I think all of the state's bars and restaurants should be smoke free.
However, they should leave alone the privately owned bars and restaurants.
The business owner decides. Just the way it should be.
And the public has the right to decide which establishment to support.
Not always so.
I was involved with the C Of C 's unsuccessful fight against anti-smoking ordinances and found that after it passed it actually had a positive effect on most business. I knew the owner of a restaurant that converted her business to non-smoking voluntarily before the smoking ban and doubled the revenue after a few years.
Another restaurant that vigorously fought a pending city ban in restaurants also experienced an increase in revenue. That establishment at first went to the expense of establishing a closed off smoking room allowed under the ordinance but converted that room to non-smoking because it did not generate the business expected. They do still have a few tables outside for smokers that are not used much.
One of the local bowling alleys set up a smoking room and the owner told me league revenues increased after the ban went into effect. He said some bowlers that had went to the non-smoking bowling alley across town came back when he made the change. He was also against the ban prior to it's passing.
Even the president of the are restaurant association that was very vocal against the ban told me a few years after it passed that he now thinks it was positive for the business that changed.
I'm in Ireland right now and a bar that I frequented in the past that was "a jumpin' joint" before the smoking ban here now opens at 12:30 for lunch and closes again at 3:30. PM that is. Not AM. In Ireland for cryin' out loud!
Unbelieveable! People will never learn, will they? The private owners seem to think that it will never happen to them, and when it does, they put their faith in the anti's lies that "this will HELP their business, not hurt it." Well when a business loses 25-30% if not more of their revenue, it has GOT to hurt!
Exactly! This smoking ban should be left up to the business owner and his patrons. We do NOT need more government intervention. When the government gets away with one thing, you know darn well there will be more to follow.
Hehe! I lived in Texas for a few years. What with what the guys wear on their belts and the gun racks in their pick-up trucks, I doubt if "I" would go around trying to enforce it either. 
However, they should leave alone the privately owned bars and restaurants.
STATE???? I know of no bar or restaurant in the US that is owned and operated by the STATE. Do you?
See, now that wasn't so hard was it? Private property and personal decisions are part of Liberty. NH, in this case, is telling the creeping socialists to back off.
Well, you don't state what state or town you live in, so I can't make any comments on why this is.
We do know that all across the United States, a lot of private restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and bingo halls have closed because of the forced smoking ban.
If you can give me a hint about where you live, I will look into it and see what I have on that area. Right now, I have you living in Utopia, and it's not on my map. :)
A lot of MassHoles are moving up there and taking thier MassAss liberalism with them.
It is not the "Live Free or Die" people it is the ones moving to escape the "Peoples Republic" but not leaving their Big Government" mentally behind them. Rest assured it won't end with a smoking ban. They will not be happy until they ruin NH like they have Massachusetts.
Glad to see it! You know what a hit our Madison businesses have taken with the Madison Smoking Ban for bars, taverns & restaurants (with bars in them.) The first establishment folded a few weeks ago (Mom & Pop type business; you know, the ones that the libs want to save from Wal-Mart?)...with more to follow, I'm sure. :(
However, the Socialist Elite around the Capitol Square managed to overturn the portion of the ban that included their beloved Cigar Bars. So, now while Joe Six Pack can't smoke in his neighborhood bar, the Wisconsin Senators & CongressCritters can still have their Three Martini Lunches, surrounded by aromatic smoke from their expensive cigars.
It's infuriating!
Texas bar patrols provide contrast with smoking ban
April 7, 2006
Given the controversy Appleton's smoking ban has stirred up, with some residents believing it infringes on their personal rights, a recent law enforcement program in Texas is worth noting.Lone Star State police officers and a special task force are entering bars undercover and arresting people for public drunkenness. The primary reason for the crackdown is to fight drunken driving, they say, and if they can arrest drunks before they get behind the wheel, society is better for it.
Basically, when you go to a public bar in Texas, you have to watch how much you drink. It doesn't matter if you drove to the bar or not, or if you weren't planning on driving afterwards. You'll be arrested for public drunkenness just to make sure you don't.
Ordinances and laws against public drunkenness probably exist in every municipality in the United States. That's fine. But their intent is to prevent people from wandering down the street at 3 a.m. while whooping and hollering, or urinating, or vomiting, or any combination thereof.
They weren't passed as a shortcut for police to get rid of drunk drivers. And they weren't intended to target people for legally drinking in licensed drinking establishments.
What does this have to do with Appleton? It illustrates the difference between personal rights and personal responsibility.
What Texas police officers are doing is preventing people from exercising personal responsibility. They're assuming that people who are acting like they've had a lot to drink are going to commit a serious felony.
The smoking ban isn't meant to protect those who are smoking. It's meant to protect those around them who aren't smoking.
Secondhand smoke is an involuntary threat from a legal activity, whereas drunk driving is a deliberate, conscious choice made after engaging in a legal activity.
A fine line? Perhaps. But the smoking ban limits one group's rights to protect the safety of another group. Texans' rights are being limited by suspicion and odds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.