Posted on 01/06/2008 7:23:28 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Perhaps it’s little more than coincidence that the biggest opponents of smoking bans are heavy smokers.
My experience before the anti-property rights crowd gained ascendancy and banned smoking altogether was the same as yours.
There was, more often than not, a wait for seating in the smoking section.
That's an interesting comment, considering the FReeper who posted this article and expressed her opposition to the ban is a NON smoker................
Same in Nevada.. before the smoking “ban” (Its being ignored for the most part)
When we were allowed to smoke in restaurants the smoking section was ALWAYS full and the non section was quiet/empty.
We have to wait for non smoking too. Wonder if it’s the type of restaurant...we tend to frequent kid friendly chain type places.
It is curious that she is so active in smoking-related threads, is it not? My point remains the same, however: the majority of the most vocal opponents of smoking bans are heavy smokers.
Many places don’t even have smoking sections anymore (not that they do much anyway). From what I can recall, the “standard American fare” places that my family visits such as Outback, Chili’s, Applebee’s, Glory Days, Sweetwater (some of which are local), and so on are invariably “seat yourself significantly sooner” if you want to sit nearer to the smokers. I guess I also frequent the same type of places, so it’s hard to say. Most other places I go to (Italian and Japanese restaurants for the most part) are almost all non-smoking, so I can’t make a comparison there.
It's been our right for many years, Flint. When you lose one of your rights, don't come crying to us! We don't want to hear it.
I do not find it curious, there are many others that are non-smokers, but see this issue for what it is --- further government encroachment in our lives.
This is not about smokers, rather it is about too much meddling by government and nanny-state busybodies who think they know what is best.
The only sort of smoking ban I would support is one in which the people decide through voter referendum that they would prefer it. And I’m not talking a 51-49 vote. I don’t want city councils deciding this, I don’t want state legislatures deciding this, and I certainly don’t want the federal government deciding this because I don’t think it’s within their power. Restaurants can decide this on their own if market forces dictate as such (and many have).
You know, the problem with these types of issues is that they get to be way too emotional.
I’ve already acknowledged that there are liberty concerns here. It’s a very fine line, one that I don’t think government should be even thinking about walking. Suppose a relatively benign “public places” smoking ban is passed - one that would be supported by a two-thirds majority, for example. The danger comes not in that ban itself, but in government and those who want nothing more than to rule our lives (Clintonistas, for example) using that as precedent. Who defines what a “public place” is? How do public places and private property overlap?
Those are certainly legitimate concerns and as I said I would prefer the market dictate de facto smoking bans (as in restaurants say no smoking here if they find it’s better for business). Certain places can cater to smokers if there’s a market for it. I won’t go there. It’s really quite simple. It is my personal belief that many people oppose these bans because of a physical and emotional attachment to cigarettes rather than the above reasons. I also happen to believe that the very vocal minority of smokers prevent restaurants from following the wants of the majority (nonsmokers). That is what it is, and until they are more vocal about opposing smoking it’s not going to change. (I say again that only the people or the market should decide this.)
This statement of yours seems to be in conflict with the final sentence of your paragraph:
Restaurants can decide this on their own if market forces dictate as such (and many have).
A voter referendum forcing a smoking ban is really no different than a government entity enacting a ban. It is still someone else dictating to business owners.
The best referendum is the market. People "vote" with their wallets by not patronizing establishments with policies they do not like. And as you correctly point out, many restaurants have already adopted this policy on their own. Why force all to be the same?
We are pretty much in a greement with each other, except for one small point. You speak of the wants of the smokers and the non-smokers, but what about the wants of the owner of the establishment.
One of the very vocal opponents to the statewide ban in Delaware owned a very popular restaurant and bar, that was totally non-smoking. His argument was that the proponents of the ban were going to take away the market he had created for himself. He was correct.
FMCDH(BITS)
I suppose that in the presence of such a ban, he would need another way to attract customers. Again, the market should decide this; if his biggest draw is that his establishment is smoke-free he should provide better food, beverages, and prices, for example. Similarly, establishments that were previously smoking establishments now need to attract more people to compensate for the business that they lose. It goes both ways, though that is an interesting point.
I should specify that I mentioned the distinction between public places and private property is an open and very difficult question. That’s why I try to take care not to contradict myself. As far as the people deciding, I also make the distinction between a voter majority directly voting on something and elected officials voting on something. As you know it is quite possible for government to vote on something (and approve of something) that is not supported by their constituents or even a majority of the country as a whole.
Psst... I've even heard that teetotalers favor prohibition. Don't tell anyone.
But the wuaestion remains, why should either establishment, the non-smoking or smoking, be forced to change their particular business model that had been working for them by something other than the free market?
I understand your point in regard to who is doing the voting, however it still comes down to a matter of why should you have the right to vote to decide my clientele?
Chimney people, please listen
You don't know what you're missin'.
Best look for your rights as enumerated in the Constitution rather that in your imagination.
Now France, Germany, Bangladesh, OMGTIJOIA! (Oh my God, the injustice of it all!)
And I supported your bid to quit smoking and will support another experiment, perhaps this time for good...the experiment, I mean.
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.