MD: New smoking ban proposed

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | April 21, 2006 | Larry Carson

[Ditter]

You don't tip for take out? There is a really good restaurant here ( non smoking) . I call order our food and give a description of my car, drive to the restaurant, they bring it out and I tip just like if I had eaten it there. It's for those nights when we are dog tired and don't feel like getting dressed to go out. Carrabba's, if you are ever in Houston don't miss it. BTW, you can smoke on the patio.

[SheLion]

ROTFLMAO!! I have GOT to send that pic to my Wife!!

LOL! Isn't he cute?  hehe!

[Fairview]

So let me understand--what you are saying is, if you can't smoke, you and most smokers will stop going out to eat? With smoking bans in Montgomery County, Howard County, and DC, there won't be many places for smokers to go out to eat in central Maryland.

Speaking as a nonsmoker myself, someone who LOVES a smoke-free atmosphere, I am generally opposed to smoking bans. Let the market decide; let the private restaurant owner make a decision about how he wants his space used. The point I'm trying to make is, probably only 15% of the people in upscale, health-conscious Howard County smoke, and those are the ones who don't have much disposable income for dining out anyway. So I'm wondering how losing 15% of the customer base will drive many restaurants out of business. Statistically most of their customers now must be nonsmokers.

It doesn't affect me much one way or another; I'm only trying to understand, without criticizing smokers.

[RandallFlagg]

So let me understand--what you are saying is, if you can't smoke, you and most smokers will stop going out to eat?

That's not what I said. I said that if the majority of customers in a restaurant smoke, they'll go to a different location that allows smoking, making the original restaurant lose business.

With smoking bans in Montgomery County, Howard County, and DC, there won't be many places for smokers to go out to eat in central Maryland.

Yep. But I live in Colorado. It'd be quite a drive for me to go find someplace that allows smoking if the entire state went smoke-free. Unlike that area where one can drive for three hours and go through at least two different states.

Speaking as a nonsmoker myself, someone who LOVES a smoke-free atmosphere, I am generally opposed to smoking bans. Let the market decide; let the private restaurant owner make a decision about how he wants his space used.

Makes sense.

The point I'm trying to make is, probably only 15% of the people in upscale, health-conscious Howard County smoke, and those are the ones who don't have much disposable income for dining out anyway. So I'm wondering how losing 15% of the customer base will drive many restaurants out of business. Statistically most of their customers now must be nonsmokers.

You'd have to direct smoking FReepers who live closer to that area than I do. SheLion, perhaps?

Statistically most of their customers now must be nonsmokers.

Nonsmokers have outnumbered smokers for the last 40 years.

It doesn't affect me much one way or another; I'm only trying to understand, without criticizing smokers.

Here's one way to look at it. If second-hand smoke is such a deadly thing, why do a lot of these smoking bans not apply to casinos? Don't they also employ and cater to people who use lungs?

These bans are an attempt to legislate a nuisance. Nothing more.

And if people think that they'll stop with tobacco, think again.
Like coffee much?

(BTW, there's a LOT of nonsmoking FReepers who are against these bans as well. You're in good company.)

[mysterio]

incrementalism proven once again.

[Fairview]

And if people think that they'll stop with tobacco, think again. Like coffee much?

I absolutely agree with you. It was years ago that Rush warned us about the coming campaign against SUVs, and he was proved correct. The same thing is true of smoking. You've heard that there are increasing attempts to legislate what we eat, because the government knows better than we do about what we should consume and how we should live. They're talking about regulating what's in vending machines in high schools.

No, I don't like coming home from an evening out with my clothes reeking of cigarette smoke. But that's a nuisance, as you say. I'm willing to put up with a certain level of nuisance if it keeps the government from interfering in our lives. I don't entirely buy the argument that restaurants in upscale Howard County, Maryland, are going to go out of business because people can't smoke there, but I think government should stay out of it. They should stay out of everything except, maybe, building aircraft carriers and missile systems, the stuff that private citizens can't do for themselves. Everything else is none of their business.

[RandallFlagg]

They should stay out of everything except, maybe, building aircraft carriers and missile systems, the stuff that private citizens can't do for themselves.

I dunno. If it were up to me, I'd have built the submergible aircraft carrier.

[383rr]

"who oppose a loss of personal freedom. "

Pretty much sums it up for me.

[jeremiah]

Like I said, the anti-smoking laws are not as bad as the peoples reaction to something that just a few years ago would have had people acting out physically. I know my mom would have told these people what to do with their head, if they would have told her to not smoke in the American Legion, along with the rest of the vets.

[The Foolkiller]

Why would restaurants go out of business because no smoking is permitted?

---

Because I will not pay to go to reform school.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[SheLion]

Because I will not pay to go to reform school.

That's the word I was looking for! :)

[butternut_squash_bisque]

I'm a long-term smoker (since '60), but can't connect smoking and the First Amendment, in any way. Hells bells, I'd just go to a *smoking allowed* place, and avoid the others, or dine at home.

Screw The Nicotine Nazis™.

Businesses are going to fail in large numbers if the omit their smoking patrons. This crap will be overturned within 2 years, IMO.

[RandallFlagg]

So let me understand--what you are saying is, if you can't smoke, you and most smokers will stop going out to eat?

And FReeper, "butternut_squash_bisque," just reinforced this with his last post at #33:
Hells bells, I'd just go to a *smoking allowed* place, and avoid the others, or dine at home.

Treat us like lepers, we'll act like lepers.

[revleeg]

• Require managers in stronger language to refuse to serve or seat smoking patrons in a non-smoking place.

The above statement is a comment I copied from the news story. It seems to me that this indicates that the government could require managers of resturants and bars to use a certain kind of language to deal with people who smoke. My opinion is that this would be in violation of the first amendment to our constitution. It would infringe on freedom of speech in that the government could tell you what to say and how to say it to a certain segment of our population.

My apologies if I caused confusion.