Smoking ban in effe...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Smoking ban in effect; enforcement is delayed  

Page 5 / 6
 

speee1dy
(@speee1dy)
Expert
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 8786
November 22, 2010 12:39 pm  

lol@aussie


ReplyQuote
stiphy
(@stiphy)
Trusted Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 956
November 22, 2010 2:50 pm  

thank you.

that deserves a re-post.

This re-post misses the bigger issue. This is not an discussion about the rights of smokers versus non smokers. It is a discussion about who should determine what kind of legal activity is conducted at a place of business, the business owner or the government.

Because many here hate dining around smoke they are choosing "the government" and support the smoking ban.

I am just urging caution as once they've said "the government" they cannot go back. Even for a good cause choosing "the government" has some pretty serious consequences down the road.

Sean


ReplyQuote
Lizard
(@Lizard)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1842
November 22, 2010 3:14 pm  

How about that TSA! You can get X-Rayed or Felt Up.:-o


ReplyQuote
speee1dy
(@speee1dy)
Expert
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 8786
November 22, 2010 5:16 pm  

sean, you are right
lizard, i guess it would depend on my mood that day.


ReplyQuote
terry
(@terry)
Expert
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2552
November 22, 2010 10:04 pm  

Lizzard, I guess that would be cheaper than a call girl.:D


ReplyQuote
IslandPilots
(@IslandPilots)
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 80
November 23, 2010 1:49 am  

I went out to eat at Shipwreck on STT last night, and they are already enforcing it, but the wait staff said business is way down. The night before that I was at Caribbean Saloon at the Nirvana tribute band concert, and they were not enforcing it. It was so smokey in Caribbean Saloon that I had to step out a few times.

I also was at Duffy's last week the night after in a newspaper article they said they would be enforcing the new rule as of that day, and low and behold there were ashtrays inside and outside. I don't appreciate the lies in the paper.

I for one enjoyed the smoke free environment at Shipwreck. I think the business will pick up when people are forced to enforce the new rule. Although I did hear a story at shipwreck where a guy went outside to smoke, beyond the stairs to the exit, and some bafoon got up from his dinner, and went outside and screamed at the guy "You not twenty feet away from the entrance." I wonder if this actually happened?

I think a responsible business owner would respect the rule for what it is, and that it is in effect, and not disregard it because there is no enforcement action right now. However, it seems that on STT more are letting it slide then enforcing it.

Want my honest opinion, if your establishment is "open air" then allow smoking, if it is fully enclosed, then no smoking.


ReplyQuote
Neil
 Neil
(@Neil)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 988
November 23, 2010 10:29 am  

thank you.

that deserves a re-post.

This re-post misses the bigger issue. This is not an discussion about the rights of smokers versus non smokers. It is a discussion about who should determine what kind of legal activity is conducted at a place of business, the business owner or the government.

Because many here hate dining around smoke they are choosing "the government" and support the smoking ban.

I am just urging caution as once they've said "the government" they cannot go back. Even for a good cause choosing "the government" has some pretty serious consequences down the road.

Sean

Sean, there are lots of examples of things that are legal in one place, but not another. You can get arrested for being naked in public, for example. And it's illegal to look under a stranger's clothing, unless you are the TSA. You are allowed to drive fast on a highway, but not in a school zone. Point: making laws is a messy, contextual business.


ReplyQuote
A Davis
(@A_Davis)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 687
November 23, 2010 11:02 am  

... i am a non-smoker and i am glad the government has decided to protect my lungs while i am enjoying a meal. smoking is not only bad for the smoker, but it is bad for those who are nearby who do not smoke. well, it just is.

@sean:
just trying to help the folks who did not see what i re-posted.

Overall, smoking bans tend to have a positive affect on businesses, and are self enforced by the public and business owners. They just take getting used to. Time and again as more jurisdictions enact such bans most smokers have altered their behavior to conform rather than face confrontation. Like the "pooper scooper" laws, we will one day look back in amazement that they didn't exist sooner.

I should probably have stopped at the last period, but... (Soap box please.)

What smokers need to recognize is that smoking of tobacco is a filthy habit. It turns your teeth and fingers yellow, robs the addict and those regularly exposed to their practices of health, and pollutes the environment.

Offended? Well, legal or not, how do you think the majority of non-smokers feel when smokers elect (need?) to light up in their presence? Why do you think many property owners would rather not rent to smokers? Why does smoking in it negatively affect the value of an automobile? Why do so many smokers feel it is okay to flick their butts to the ground?

If you were at a restaurant enjoying a dinner with your family and the people at the next table got loud, cursing or discussing their sexual conquests in great detail what would you think? What would you do? Certainly their behavior is rude, and you'd likely feel uncomfortable and want them to stop or go elsewhere. Would you hesitate to say something to them and/or the management? Probably not. But what law(s) are they breaking that don't violate their rights? Don't they have a right to free speech? Are they "harming" you beyond offending you? Will you leave the restaurant with even an ever so slight increased risk of real physical illness?

Smoking may be a right, but non-smokers have rights too. Smoking is so bad for you and those around you that each package of tobacco products carries a mandated warning that it can kill you. People who do not smoke, the majority, need to be protected from people who do smoke. I'll give you your pound of flesh Shylock, but "no jot of blood." If you want to harm yourself, well I suppose that is your right, but as Edward pointed out, it stops before my nose.

On a personal note, I'll tell you my mother smoked, and it killed her. I tried to get her to stop long before it got bad, but she was hooked. By the time she quit it was too late. I got to see a once strong woman struggle for breath, loose the ability to walk up stairs, and finally end up on a medical respirator. Then, after she was gone I got to paint the ceiling above the recliner she'd sit in and smoke as she watched t.v. or read-scrubbed it, then applied four coats of stain sealing primer before the smoke residue stopped bleeding through. So smokers, think about what you are doing to yourselves and those around you. Oh, and one more thing about my mom, worst of all, she didn't get to hold her grandchildren.

I miss her.

Peace, and thanks for your time.

My apologies to William S. for perverting his metaphor

thank you.

that deserves a re-post.


ReplyQuote
terry
(@terry)
Expert
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2552
November 23, 2010 1:32 pm  

Here in AZ before there was a state wide smoking ban indoors, a couple of the towns here in the Phoenix area came out with a smoking ban. It did hurt some of the business owners who were close to the border for a while. The smokers would just go a block or two into the other town.
Once it became state wide, it all evened out. Some even thought that their business went up with non- smoking patrons!


ReplyQuote
stiphy
(@stiphy)
Trusted Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 956
November 23, 2010 1:34 pm  

Sean, there are lots of examples of things that are legal in one place, but not another. You can get arrested for being naked in public, for example. And it's illegal to look under a stranger's clothing, unless you are the TSA. You are allowed to drive fast on a highway, but not in a school zone. Point: making laws is a messy, contextual business.

But every one of those examples is not in a place that I own (using the proverbial "I," I don't really own a restauraunt).

I am not arguing that people should be free to do anything they want in public. But in a private business who should decide, the business owner or the government?

I tend to think that as long as the business owner is open and honest to people about what kinds of things will happen in his private place of business he/she should be free to decide what kind of legal activities go on there. Proper signage warning people of commmon behavior that they may find unplesant seems to be a reasonable way to allow those who want to run and patronize a business that allows said behavior the freedom to do so while also giving those who don't like said behavior the freedom to not be exposed to it.

In my opinion, maximizing the freedom of the people is the most important role of government, not interjecting their legal monopoly on violence into the discussion based solely on the will of the majority. Clearly my fellow citizens don't agree; hence we end up with smoking bans and all kinds of other laws.

I'm eager to see how Rotor reacts when the majority finds a way to enact a law stating that businesses must require their patrons to say a proper "grace" before eating otherwise they will face a fine!

Sean


ReplyQuote
Juanita
(@Juanita)
Expert
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3111
November 23, 2010 2:13 pm  

But...on the very practical side...if a business (restaurant) posts a sign saying they allow smoking, they may as well go ahead and close their doors. As more and more people stop smoking, or never start, their customer base will become smaller and smaller. If the sign is there, I believe the majority (if not all) of non-smokers will go elsewhere unless it's totally open air, and even then people won't take their kids, even if they are willing to put up with it themselves. If they do continue to be busy, with all smokers, geez...what an unpleasant place to be. Just imagine a room full, with everybody smoking. Even smokers may stop going!

The way I see it for the restaurant owner is it's the devil or the deep blue sea. Give up your "rights" or risk going out of business totally. A lot of grey areas as to covered, enclosed, etc., and I believe there were some amendments made yesterday that will make the law less stringent. Heard them talking about it on the radio this morning.


ReplyQuote
rks
 rks
(@rks)
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 396
November 23, 2010 2:19 pm  

Stiphy, your argument hangs on the assumption that businesses are private. They are not.


ReplyQuote
rotorhead
(@rotorhead)
Trusted Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2470
November 23, 2010 3:25 pm  

I'm eager to see how Rotor reacts when the majority finds a way to enact a law stating that businesses must require their patrons to say a proper "grace" before eating otherwise they will face a fine!

Sean

Sean,
It has already happened. In the mid 1950's the majority decided to enshrine superstitious nonsense into our country's symbols. They added "under god" to our national pledge and "in god we trust" as our national motto. We already had a pledge that was acceptable to everyone and a national motto "e pluribus unum" that had historical significance. So the citizens who are superstitious have us all praising their imaginary friend.

I usually just substitute "Thor" for god. One nation, under Thor, with .......... Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? Irrational belief in an imaginary being is delusional.

I could go along with smoking establishments if they were clearly marked and children were not allowed to enter. But I do not agree with the default condition that we have now, that smoking is allowed unless marked otherwise. I want the business owner who is putting his customers at risk to clearly state it and warn them.

Otherwise maybe we could make smokers wear helmets which trap all of the smoke inside. As long as I don't have to breath someones second hand smoke I would be OK with them smoking. After all, you already have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle and smoking kills more people than motorcycle accidents.


ReplyQuote
swans
(@swans)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1313
November 23, 2010 4:59 pm  

"Below us, nothing."

Mark Twain - "The Damned Human Race." 1909
(Although Twain was noted for his humor, this writting was his most serious work.)

Swan


ReplyQuote
stiphy
(@stiphy)
Trusted Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 956
November 23, 2010 6:09 pm  

Stiphy, your argument hangs on the assumption that businesses are private. They are not.

You are probably correct. This is a scary conclusion IMO as a society where everything is "public" and nothing can be private are definitely major parts of socialism/communism. I guess we are there afterall and the battle started at this country's inception to protect individual freedom has already been lost.

I suspect that I'm fighting a battle that was lost many years ago, the socialist paradigm that allows for government violence as long as it's being used by the majority is the one in play now. I'll let you guys spend time fighting over what the government wants to do and not if they have the moral right to do things at all. I refuse to accomplish my goals through government violence (preferring debate, logic, and reason) and will just have to resign myself to living in a society where my fellow citizens who have chosen to do so get to abuse me without any real recourse.

Rotor, I agree on the need for a paradigm shift to non-smoking being the default with smoking being the "opt in" behavior. Hence my statement about clear signage etc. I think Juanita is right, with clear signage over time few people would enter establishments that allowed smoking and most would go non smoking voluntarily.

Sean


ReplyQuote
stxnama
(@stxnama)
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 93
November 23, 2010 7:31 pm  

I saw in the Avis that the definition of enclosed space has been amended and now non-smoking law will not apply to open walled beach bars, etc.


ReplyQuote
TheSavage
(@TheSavage)
Advanced Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 48
November 24, 2010 5:51 am  

Smoke and Fries equals ' Nanny State'.
Happy Meals will soon be forbidden in San Francisco! BIG BROTHER THE NEW AMERICA!

It's official from CNN.com:

Children Robbed of "Happiness"[/url]


ReplyQuote
speee1dy
(@speee1dy)
Expert
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 8786
November 24, 2010 10:56 am  

I guess San Francisco is doing that because the parents do not properly supervise their childs diet. McDonalds=obesity=big brother.
Very Interesting


ReplyQuote
rks
 rks
(@rks)
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 396
November 24, 2010 11:31 am  

Liberties are not taken away, they are given away; all these examples prove the point.


ReplyQuote
stiphy
(@stiphy)
Trusted Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 956
November 24, 2010 12:55 pm  

RKS, do you feel that YOU have the right to give away MY liberty?

And what would be the difference between someone else giving away my liberty and having it taken from me?

It seems to me that if someone else can give away MY liberty than I never had it in the first place.

Sean


ReplyQuote
rks
 rks
(@rks)
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 396
November 24, 2010 1:52 pm  

Of course not stiphy. Smokers gave their rights away by neglecting their responsibility to those whose health they imperil through their actions. It's the same with obesity. The health risks are inarguable and people are entitled to ignore those risks but not entitled to force their choices onto others.

I know it's unpopular to point this out these days, but actions have consequences and people have responsibilities. Putting the weight of responsibility back onto the shoulders of the people who have shirked it enhances individual liberties rather than detracting from them, as you are lamenting.


ReplyQuote
Hiya!
(@Hiya!)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 727
November 24, 2010 2:37 pm  

People have the responsibly to not have more kids then they can afford to pay their taxes to keep a job to be able to take care of themselves in general. And I pay for these people all the time! So the responsibility speech your making is tiresome. It's not about responsibility it is about our freedoms.


ReplyQuote
rks
 rks
(@rks)
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 396
November 24, 2010 2:41 pm  

Tiresome? Using the negligence of others to justify your own is tiresome.


ReplyQuote
Hiya!
(@Hiya!)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 727
November 24, 2010 2:46 pm  

How in the world am I negligent?


ReplyQuote
aussie
(@aussie)
Trusted Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 876
November 24, 2010 3:10 pm  

Legal, illegal, and now legal again in many locations. And so well written!

http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/3-million-approved-for-capital-projects-1.1067754

"Under the changed definition in the bill passed Monday, an enclosed area is defined as a structure that has a roof and more than two substantial walls that have either no opening, or an opening that does not allow air in from the outside, or an opening that is less than 25 percent of the wall's surface area.

Additionally, the bill passed Monday decriminalizes a smoking violation.

In the original bill, which was signed into law in May and went into effect earlier this month, a violation of the smoking ban was a misdemeanor - which made it a crime.

The measure passed Monday makes a violation of the law a civil offense, rather than a criminal offense."


ReplyQuote
Page 5 / 6
Close Menu