Having experienced this first hand, I know what kind of effect this can have. For example, our hospitals here do not allow smoking for obvious reasons. It used to be that the smoking doctors and nurses went to nearby restaurants and ate/smoked. After the ban, they just stopped going and 3 of these places closed down. This is just a small snapshot and there are other scenarios in which a smoking ban would hurt business. So how are you telling me that they won't lose businness?
Having experienced this first hand, I know what kind of effect this can have. For example, our hospitals here do not allow smoking for obvious reasons. It used to be that the smoking doctors and nurses went to nearby restaurants and ate/smoked. After the ban, they just stopped going and 3 of these places closed down. This is just a small snapshot and there are other scenarios in which a smoking ban would hurt business. So how are you telling me that they won't lose businness?
You haven't experienced this. What people do is give up GOING OUT to eat... instead, they are staying home more. Several businesses here have proven declines in business after the ban and were granted "temporary releifs" or something to that effect, so obviously they proved to some officials that no smoking = bad.
Tony
Tony
That's my point. It doesen't hurt the businesses; it hurts the people.
Life will go on. People will adapt to going outside for their smoke. Shrug.
wow there's something i've never heard before :Q
i really hate the other counties in my state... as my stat professor says "we'll call this side of the state TG, and this other side NTG... 'truly gifted'... and 'not truly gifted'"
Well, I favor it, but not because of the enhanced eating experience. It's an issue of occupational safety. Who is employed at restaurants that deal with the smoke? Largely single parent Moms that hold two jobs, or college students (or even liberal arts graduates) working an honest living. Why should they be excluded from basic occupational safety laws?
Take a look at the neighborhood bars in California.... If YOu can find one.
I for one accually stopped eating out after the smoking ban went into place in california my wife and I would go out 3-4 times a month before the ban perhaps once after. I now live in MN where they are talking about similar laws and many resturuants have gone non-smoking only to revert a few months later after they see the bussiness loss they take.
I have no problem with a bussiness owner making the choice BUT I don't want the governement making that call. I for one will more than likely NOT vaction in FL because of this, not that I had planned on doing it anyway. I have not eaten at many resturuants because of a smoking ban. I like to drink my coffee and have a smoke prior to and after the meal. If it offends you go to a resturuant that is non-smoking. If this would really be benificial for the bussiness they would have done this long ago without the law.
OH right. Kinda like banning guns, seat belt laws, the war on drugs, prohibition, helmet laws, minimum drinking age, minimum smoking age?
Why is it that after 225 years of trying, our government still has not caught on to one simple fact:
You can't legislate stupidity out of existence!
But does the Government have the right to tell a private establishment that people can't smoke in there? I voted against that amendment because it is up to the restaraunt/work place to decide.
Pepsei
Lifer
- Dec 14, 2001
- 12,895
- 1
- 0
This is the way I see it.. IT is a private bussines that caters to the PUBLIC.... so the decison should be left up to the majority of the people.. and they voted that way.
If it is a private club with memberships... then it is up to the owner .... like Agusta can decide themselves about having a broad as a member or if they allow smoking in their lounge.
On a lighter side, I can still fart anywhere I want after a good chinese meal with cabbages....
the government should decide because it is not a personal choice issue it is a public health issue
I'm not much for government intrusion but I think that banning smoking in restaurants and workplaces is an employee health related issue and therefore probably valid. The arguement about costs to medicare is ridiculous. How much do fat people cost medicare? Should we ban junk food for the reason that it will potentially have an impact on medicare? And then how far do you go? Do you have a government regulated diet and exercise routine? In fact, given the reasoning behind the excessive taxes placed on cigarettes, junk food should be highly taxed for the very same reasoning. Your McDonalds POS hamburger should cost about $10.00 of which $8.00 is a junk food tax.
This is the way I see it.. IT is a private bussines that caters to the PUBLIC.... so the decison should be left up to the majority of the people.. and they voted that way.
If it is a private club with memberships... then it is up to the owner .... like Agusta can decide themselves about having a broad as a member or if they allow smoking in their lounge.
On a lighter side, I can still fart anywhere I want after a good chinese meal with cabbages....
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!
Whether or not a club has memberships is irrelevant. In a capitalistic society, private establishments DO cater to the public. If that establishment makes a choice, i.e. smoking, that the public doesn't approve of... then the public won't do business there. I agree that 2nd hand smoke is harmful. I don't think anyone will say it's not. And I will also concur that the division between smoking and non-smoking in a restaraunt doesn't do anything. But the fact remains that this is going to hurt the restaraunt business. Let this be a capitalistic society... and to be honest, this wouldn't be a problem if non-smokers would have just stopped going to restaraunts that offered smoking. This was the wrong was to go about things.
Sure it's a personal choice. They don't have to eat at that restaraunt. This is a classic example of the government interfering with private businesses.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
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
Drekce
Golden Member
- Sep 29, 2000
- 1,398
- 0
- 76
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...
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a pissing section in a pool!
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a pissing section in a pool!
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
come to think of it, why is prostitution illegal then
It's legal in Nevada
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter