Woohoo! Smoking banned in restaurants and workplaces in FL! :)

[Lucky]

As a non-smoker, I also think that the decision should be left up to the owner.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Why should the restaurtant owner be required to enforce such law on his private property if he doesnt want to. Restaurants always have smokers and non smokers areas - there is no need to breathe the smoke...

Hello, a restaurant is a WORK SPACE FOR SOME!!! So why inforce ot for one business and not all. A restaurant is a Business, period.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Well sh!t! All this time we spend pissing and moaning about CDs being too expensive, when we could just hold a referendum and get everybody to make it illegal to sell CDs for over $5?

Why didn't anybody think of this sooner? Since these are private business catering to the PUBLIC, the decision to set the price should be left up to the majority of the people!

Local/state/federal governments have prohibited other activities from being allowed in private businesses

- the selling of alcohol without license
- the restriction of full nude dancing
- the amount of contact allowed in lap dances
- the selling of pornographic material

Existing bad laws should not be the basis for the creation of new bad laws.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dolph

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Why should the restaurtant owner be required to enforce such law on his private property if he doesnt want to. Restaurants always have smokers and non smokers areas - there is no need to breathe the smoke...

"no need to breathe the smoke?" i forgot, i could simply choose not to breathe the smoke. how silly of me.

No, you have the choice to NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM. I ask again, what in the Constitution gives you the right to force others to do business with you on your terms only? If you don't like the smoke, DON'T GO IN THERE.

i'm sorry, but where in the constitution does it give you the right to SEND CARBON MONOXIDE AND 100 OTHER POISONS INTO THE AIR WHEREVER YOU WANT?

and i'm still waiting for you to refute my claim about medicare and tobacco related expenses. 'cause i have about a thousand independent studies just itching to be linked to.

First, you'd have to prove that a smoker in a building you choose not to go into is harming you. You cannot. As I said before, if you don't like smoke, don't do business with businesses that allow smoking. How fscking hard is that? How are they harming you if you're not around them?

As for your link, BFD? That cost is more than offset by the savings in SS benefits, long term medicare benefits for the elderly, managed care costs, etc. People die, Dolph. And when they die, be it from old age, or smoking, it costs money. The difference is, old age costs more money over decades of care. Smoking related deaths cost money over a year of so of medical care.

A biased report saying that smoking costs medicare xx billion dollars a year is meaningless. How much would medicare have spent on those same people in the two decades of elderly care they would have needed had they lived? How much SS did they not collect because they died early? That link tells you nothing of that. Do you have any idea how much it costs to support someone for two decades of elderly care? Do you have any idea how much managed care costs? How much the average person collects in SS benefits if they live to be 80 or 90?

Keep trying.

your principle vs practicality argument fails miserabley here. as i said before, the right to smoke is superceded by the right to not be exposed to smoke. if i don't go into that building, it is because i would be putting my health at risk unnecessarily. as long as they're around, the government is going to protect people from themselves. bitch about it all you want, they're doing what's in everyone's best interest so you can either take it, campaign to change it, or move.

how many more links do you want?

oh, ok. the study from philip morris that says that smokers save the government money by dying early.

personally, i don't like what government is doing to the tobacco industry. they're keeping it barely legal, just to get money out of it. they don't want to kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs. but as long as medicare exists, they will be paying for the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, and part of that will come from my wallet. so, overall, it does affect me, regardless of whether i go into that building or not.

furthermore, yes, people die. does that mean we should sit idle? cease all medical research? close hospitals? what the hell, it's not like we're going to win in the end.

LOL.. I agree with Dolph. If you don't smoke, how come you have this strong viewpoint? I mean, I understand what you're saying.. of course you can just not do business with them, but that's not the point..

I would think it would be kinda common sense that if you go into an enclosed area with something burning, the air quality in the enclosed area would be less than that of the air outside. No?

My viewpoint is strong on just about anything that robs people, (business owners and property owners to be specific in this case) of their freedoms.

And that IS the point. You do not have a right to dictate the terms in which a business does business with you, against the owner's will. We've been eroding the rights of business and property owners far too long. This is just another stumble on the long slippery slope into complete nanny-statism.

No, I don't smoke and I don't even allow smoking in my restaurants. However, If I had a bar, or a restaurant with a bar that catered to smokers, You can bet I'd be pissed about this.

BTW, how silly is it to force a smoking ban on a cigar shop?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Well sh!t! All this time we spend pissing and moaning about CDs being too expensive, when we could just hold a referendum and get everybody to make it illegal to sell CDs for over $5?

Why didn't anybody think of this sooner? Since these are private business catering to the PUBLIC, the decision to set the price should be left up to the majority of the people!

Local/state/federal governments have prohibited other activities from being allowed in private businesses

- the selling of alcohol without license
- the restriction of full nude dancing
- the amount of contact allowed in lap dances
- the selling of pornographic material

Existing bad laws should not be the basis for the creation of new bad laws.

Exactly. But no one cares until it's their sacred bull being gored. The evidence of this lies with people automatically assuming I'm a smoker because I oppose these laws.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Well sh!t! All this time we spend pissing and moaning about CDs being too expensive, when we could just hold a referendum and get everybody to make it illegal to sell CDs for over $5?

Why didn't anybody think of this sooner? Since these are private business catering to the PUBLIC, the decision to set the price should be left up to the majority of the people!

Local/state/federal governments have prohibited other activities from being allowed in private businesses


- the selling of alcohol without license
- the restriction of full nude dancing
- the amount of contact allowed in lap dances
- the selling of pornographic material

Existing bad laws should not be the basis for the creation of new bad laws.

This is just regulating sales... the same thing as a drivers liscense(sp?).
- the selling of alcohol without license

Effective lobbying
- the restriction of full nude dancing
- the amount of contact allowed in lap dances

This isn't illegal
- the selling of pornographic material

 

[Lucky]

Hello, a restaurant is a WORK SPACE FOR SOME!!! So why inforce ot for one business and not all. A restaurant is a Business, period.

So dont take a job at a smoking restraunt. pretty simple.

 

[damiano]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

Amen

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Hello, a restaurant is a WORK SPACE FOR SOME!!! So why inforce ot for one business and not all. A restaurant is a Business, period.

So dont take a job at a smoking restraunt. pretty simple.

Agreed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Hello, a restaurant is a WORK SPACE FOR SOME!!! So why inforce ot for one business and not all. A restaurant is a Business, period.

So dont take a job at a smoking restraunt. pretty simple.

BINGO! A worker is not a slave. They can leave or not take a job if the conditions do not agree with them.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

ain't my smoke. but i don't mind being in a smokey tavern, doesn't bother me all that much.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Why should the restaurtant owner be required to enforce such law on his private property if he doesnt want to. Restaurants always have smokers and non smokers areas - there is no need to breathe the smoke...

Hello, a restaurant is a WORK SPACE FOR SOME!!! So why inforce ot for one business and not all. A restaurant is a Business, period.

yeah, i thought of that, so maybe it should be that all businesses decide if that want to have smoking allowed in their building and where.

 

[Jzero]

yeah, i thought of that, so maybe it should be that all businesses decide if that want to have smoking allowed in their building and where.

My company is a non-smoking company. It's not hard to do.
The company I worked for prior to that only allowed smoking in designated outdoor areas.

Simply amazing how you can do that without a law! The choice SHOULD lie with the business (and the building owner since not all businesses own their office space) whether or not smoking is allowed on the premises. It doesn't matter if that business is an office, a retail outlet, a food service place, or a construction site.

 

[CurtCold]

I could see this really hurting bars. Other than that people who don't smoke shouldn't have to put up with smoke. I really think business owners should have been allowed to choose smoking or non.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Amused
BTW, how silly is it to force a smoking ban on a cigar shop?

That pisses me off. I know of several cigar bars that are also restaurants which I visit frequently. I'd assume there are a good number of these type of establishments in Florida as well. What happens to these business owners? Will they be forced to shut down their food service for fear of fines or being shut down? These laws are totally unfair to entirely legitimate businesses.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Jzero

yeah, i thought of that, so maybe it should be that all businesses decide if that want to have smoking allowed in their building and where.

My company is a non-smoking company. It's not hard to do.
The company I worked for prior to that only allowed smoking in designated outdoor areas.

Simply amazing how you can do that without a law! The choice SHOULD lie with the business (and the building owner since not all businesses own their office space) whether or not smoking is allowed on the premises. It doesn't matter if that business is an office, a retail outlet, a food service place, or a construction site.

Well... I think the probelm lies within the people who are for the amendment. If people refused to go to restaraunts that allow smoking, the problem would go away real quick. Its a shame the government had to step in.

 

[vi edit]

I like how they did it in my area. They banned smoking only in restaurants, not in bars. To be considered a restaurant, you had to make more than 50% of your profits from food (instead of alcohol).

It's nice, because if you want to drink and smoke, go to a bar. If you want to eat, but still be able to get a drink without having to put up with the smoke then you can go to one of the smoke free restaurants.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I like how they did it in my area. They banned smoking only in restaurants, not in bars. To be considered a restaurant, you had to make more than 50% of your profits from food (instead of alcohol).

It's nice, because if you want to drink and smoke, go to a bar. If you want to eat, but still be able to get a drink without having to put up with the smoke then you can go to one of the smoke free restaurants.

I still don't like the idea of a forced ban. Back home there are a lot of places that could, under the law you describe, be considered "restaurants" even though they are really more like a bar. This kind of law would really hurt the small local restaurants back home where older men will sit for hours and talk about farm equipment. These kinds of laws don't hurt the newer restaurants, or the more upscale restaurants, or the stereotypical bars, but they kill the old, local, family-owned restaurants where the locals will sit and kill time all day.

ZV

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

If you agree that cigarette smoking should be banned in the work place then you agree that it should be banned in a Restaurant because a Restaurant is also a work place. It might not be much of a risk to the Patrons but it is for the Waiters, Cooks, Bartender and Cashiers, especially in Restaurants that have a Bar or Cocktail Lounge. When smoking was initially banned in public places here in California some sniveled for about two months but even those who whined about it have gotten over it and life goes on just like before. I also think employers who offer health insurance pay lower rates because of the ban.

It's really no big deal and everybody benefits from it, even the smoker because he's less likely to smoke as much if he has to make an effort to go outside to smoke every time he gets the urge.

Now what's a travesty is the taxes they charge for cigarettes. It would be one thing if those taxes were actually used to offset the alleged extra cost of health care needed because of smoking but it isn't. It's used for what ever the legislature wants to use it for.

It's nice, because if you want to drink and smoke, go to a bar.

Again, a Bar is a workplace so smoking should be banned there too! A person should have the right to work in a safe enviroment more than a person should have a right to smoke!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Hooray! One less burdensome decision us lowly peons have to make because of our wonderful, caring government!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Hooray! One less burdensome decision us lowly peons have to make because of our wonderful, caring government!

It was passed by the voters, it wasn't mandated by government officials!

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

If you agree that cigeratte smoking should be banned in the work place then you agree that it should be banned in a Resteraunt because a Resteraunt is also a work place. It might not be much of a risk to the Patrons but it is tfor the Waiters, Cooks, Bartender and Cashiers, especially in Resteraunts that have a Bar oir Cocktail Lounge. When smoking was intially banned in public places here in California some sniveled for about two months but even those who whined about it have gotten over it and life goes on just like before. I also think employers who offer health insurance pay lower rates because of the ban.

It's really no big deal and everybody benefits from it, even the smoker because he's less likely to smoke as much if he has to make an effort to go outside to smoke every time he gets the urge.

Now what's a travesty is the taxes they charge for cigarettes. It would be one thing if those taxers were actually used to offset the alleged extra cost of health care needed because of smoking but it isn't. It's used for what ever the legislature wants to use it for.

It's nice, because if you want to drink and smoke, go to a bar.

Again, a Bar is a workplace so smoking should be banned there too! A person should have the right to work in a safe enviroment more than a person should have a right to smoke!

For once i actually agree with every word RD said.... Good job sir

 

[vi edit]

Again, a Bar is a workplace so smoking should be banned there too! A person should have the right to work in a safe enviroment more than a person should have a right to smoke!

The way I see it, at least three people get a choice in the situation I described.

If a worker doesn't want to work in a smokey place - then go to work in the smoke free restaurant.
If a smoker wants to smoke when they drink, then go to the bar where smoking is allowed.
If a non-smoker doesn't want to put up with smoke while eating, then they go to the smoke free restaurant.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Again, a Bar is a workplace so smoking should be banned there too! A person should have the right to work in a safe enviroment more than a person should have a right to smoke!

The way I see it, at least three people get a choice in the situation I described.

If a worker doesn't want to work in a smokey place - then go to work in the smoke free restaurant.
If a smoker wants to smoke when they drink, then go to the bar where smoking is allowed.
If a non-smoker doesn't want to put up with smoke while eating, then they go to the smoke free restaurant.

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

 

[vi edit]

So according to you the employee should be allowed to be discriminated against because he wishes to work in a health workplace (well as healthy as working in a Gin Mill can be)

What discrimination is there when you walk across the street to the smoke-free restaurant and wait tables there? The city council gave the establishments one year for existing businesses, and two years for new constructs to figure where they fall.

If I don't want to shovel horse sh!T for a living, I don't apply to work at a stable. If I don't want to smell like a greasy cheeseburger when I come home from work, then I don't take a backline position at a Burger King. Same goes for this - don't want to breath smoke and smell like an ash tray, go work at a restaurant, not a bar.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least offer some options to both workers and customers.