Public smoking foes target the holdouts/MASS

The Boston Globe ^ | May 30, 2002 | Paul E. Kandarian

[SheLion]

On a state map on the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program's Web site, a white splotch covers an ever-shrinking clot of communities south of Boston where smoking in public places is still allowed.

The spot - encompassing 14 towns and the city of Brockton - is circled by communities that have either full or partial bans on smoking in restaurants and bars.

[SheLion]

Now I know why Barb got the 'ell out of MASS! Too many Brown Shirts marching in Mass with Jack Boots!

[SheLion]

...that the public's health is more important than the bar or restaurant owner's wealth.

More and more Brown Shirts among us. They even have a "map" of the areas that still allow smoking that they want to tramp on.

[SheLion]

''When you consider that 53,000 people a year in the United States die from second-hand smoke illnesses

"They" have it up to 53,000 people dying now, from second hand smoke! I thought that number was for SMOKERS! Now "they" are using it for NON smokers. This is a FARCE!

[Just another Joe]

When you consider that 53,000 people a year in the United States die from second-hand smoke illnesses,

Again with unsupportable numbers.

[SheLion]

This is a farce, Joe. And the general public believes this.

Mass is a huge joke!

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

While business leaders argue that such bans hurt business,

How can it be bad for business if you can't smoke in any bar? It's not your customers will be able to go to a smoking bar.

[SoDak]

If only it were just Mass, but this is happening everywhere. It's happened here in SD. On a close vote with little or no public input a statewide ban was imposed. The ACS and other special interest groups have been shouting down any and all opposition. I don't smoke, and warn all other non-smokers that once tobacco is beaten down into submission, they'll be coming after your vice, no matter what it is. Once smoke is down, they'll be coming for your beer, your food, and your car. They won't be satisfied until they have total control of your life.

[SheLion]

How can it be bad for business if you can't smoke in any bar? It's not your customers will be able to go to a smoking bar

Well, it can be bad for business if the smoker's don't GO to the bars anymore. I'd say there is a lot of money at stake here, for the business owners.

I know "we" don't spend our money in a no smoking place restaurant. We take our money to the bar that serves food.

[SheLion]

They won't be satisfied until they have total control of your life.

Exactly. This is a Right's Issue. I can't stress it enough.

[Just another Joe]

That could be true, but how many of the smokers will get together and get smashed at someones house instead?

[Semper Paratus]

We just had a vote on this in Norwood on mandated non-smoking restaraunts and it lost,
but that won't stop these clymers.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

Well, it can be bad for business if the smoker's don't GO to the bars anymore. I'd say there is a lot of money at stake here, for the business owners.

That's assuming smokers go to bars just to smoke, not to drink or eat. Most people go to drink or eat, the smoking is kind of a secondary thing, being you can do that at home if you can't do it there.

[wheezer]

How can it be bad for business if you can't smoke in any bar?

Smokers want to smoke with their drink...it's that simple. They'll go to a place where they can do exactly that...even if that means home.

[wheezer]

That's assuming smokers go to bars just to smoke, not to drink or eat.

I have friends with small restuarants in NYC who actually removed tables in order to not have to ban smoking. They considered their afterwork smokes & cocktails regulars pretty much $acred ca$h cow$ who showed up rain or shine, and year round.

[SoDak]

And it has to be stressed as such. It isn't just the money, it's the right of opening a business and doing what you want with it. Why can't people vote with their feet? That's all anyone is asking. Let me run my business my way, if no one likes it, I'll be forced to close. But, results-orientation is not a concept embraced by the socialist control-freak left. The left is much more inclined to enact laws to force society to their will, rather than letting society find the right answer for itself. I have a friend who is a control-freak about public-smoking, I've banned him from my house. Who needs friends like that?

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I would think it would depend on the demographics. If most people don't smoke, the non-smoking bars would get most of the customers. The smoking regulars might be a very small, though dependable, percentage. I don't know if this has been tried anywhere, but it would be interesting to know if the smoking bars were able to attract enough business.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

the right of opening a business and doing what you want with it

I agree, And that also goes for discriminating against whatever race,creed, gender, height or whatever offends my fancy. My property, my rules.

[SoDak]

If you hate smoke, work in a candy store.

[wheezer]

I don't know if this has been tried anywhere, but it would be interesting to know if the smoking bars were able to attract enough business.

If the anti-smoking brown shirts would just lay off, we'd find out. ;o)

But as you said "I would think it would depend on the demographics."

I do know that when a NYC place is "in"...people tend not to give a shinola if there is smoking...and 10 times out of 10, there is.