Posted on 01/06/2003 6:58:16 AM PST by SheLion
SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS
And we tried to tell them. But no one wants to believe us until they come up light in the cash drawer.
Especially in California, Eric. Too bad they DIDN'T leave it up to the business owner. Really sad.
Like you I don't necessarily buy the second hand smoke figures. I do think second hand smoke is detrimental none the less. And I don't see why I should have to put up with it.
Going in to public place we are equals. Those who pick up a cigarette place me at a disadvantage. I can't get away from them unless I completely give up eating out, going to a bar or dancing in public. They still can enjoy those pleasures. The only thing is, they will have to wait until they go outside to poisen themselves.
I may not be exposed to smokers day in and day out, but waitresses, bartenders and other employees are constantly. As much as I wish smokers could smoke in public without affecting everyone else, they can't.
Five years ago I and the other non-smokers were freed from the stench. I am glad.
Meaning ... California needs no legislature or governor to pass a law.
Meaning ... California needs an initiative to ban law-making within the legislative and executive branches.
Meaning ... California needs no legislature or governor to pass a law.
Meaning ... California needs an initiative to ban law-making within the legislative and executive branches.
You still don't get it. The bar/restaurant business is a hospitility business. Why was it necessary for the government to get involved in controlling business owner's? Why couldn't the business owner let his patron's dictate how they want the atmosphere of the place?
You and your family will NEVER make up for all the lost revenue all over the state, just because you do not like the smell of smoke.
Let's be fair here. The world does not and should not rotate on one person's butt. If I do not like the surroundings in one bar/restaurant, I take my purse on down the street. I think that works out a heck of a lot better then the heavy hand of government.
Your right! But trying to get that through the thick sculls of the non-smokers who have been brain washed by the anti's is near impossible today.
That went out the window with Jim Crow.
The bans started happening around the same time as the Tobacco Settlement money started flowing. The boards of health in each state, along with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, formed Coalitions. These Coalitions started wearing brown shirts and marching with jack boots across America.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation told these coalitions that the more bans, control and restrictions put upon the smokers in the state, the more "grant money" the state would receive from them and the American Medical Association.
What with all the poor budgets the states have been facing, they jumped on the bandwagon to grab that money. They didn't care if they stuck it to 25-30% of the people in the state who chose to smoke a legal commodity or not. All they saw were dollar signs.
I couldn't have said it better! Thank you!
hmmmmmm very good thinking. This is an eye-opener!
An interesting point. In a sense, California has repudiated the republic form of government in favor of pure democracy. I guess I've always "known" that. It just has never crystalized in my mind before now.
Sure, receipts are off $2,000 a weekend (%?), but it's the economy stupid, not the smoking ban. The same store sales at almost all retail stores, Pennys, Target, etc., are down as well.
I can't wait until we have a smoking ban. There are some places that I like but don't go to now because the smoke makes it intolerable. Of course, some of these places have gone out of business in recent months.
These whiners should recognize, as well, that their raising the price of drinks while "allowing" smoking has also hurt their business. Check it out; they'll say "our costs have gone up." What they've done is simply figure that a guy with one controlling addiction will certainly pay extra for a place where he can be slave to the first addiction while practising a second.
"Now that others must do what I want, and at my convenience, we are equals"... uh-huh.
Next, will you cheer for "equality" when those annoying guns (which are such a huge health hazard, and make one afraid to go outside) are banned? How about when non-politically-correct statements (which are so annoying, hateful, and supportive of violence) are banned in public as well? Yes, equality for all, as long as that annoying legal act is banned, as only one side wants.
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.