Good column on restaurant smoking ban

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802594.html

This ran in the Post, which we would normally expect to take the liberal view and push for a smoking ban.

D.C. Should Keep the Freedom In Smoke-Free
The real issue is whether to force people to give up a socially scorned behavior when that behavior is legal. Alcohol creates social and medical costs; Prohibition flopped. Education has already drastically reduced smoking. So why get heavy-handed about forcing further change?

For several years, Tacelosky has compiled a list of D.C. eateries that have voluntarily gone smoke-free; the list, now up to 194 spots, is a powerful argument for letting the marketplace solve the problem.</NITF></NITF>
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bubble people annoy the #### out of me. I always have this urge to punch them in the mouth and really give them something to cry about.

"Well, why don't you just go to a non-smoking restaurant?"

"Because I don't want THAT food, I want THIS food! And I don't want to be annoyed by anyone while I eat it."

:rolleyes:
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I'm all for banning smoking in restaurants and bars, for the simple reason that smoking is not an integral part of eating or drinking. If you had to smoke in order to eat or drink it would be different, but I don't like having to have my meal ruined because someone three tables away, in the smoking section, is sending a gray cloud my way. If there truly were a God, he would have blessed us non-smokers with the ability to create nauseous flatulence in quantity, and on demand, for just such an occasion. I could send a cloud of colan smoke over to your table to ruin your meal just as you're ruining mine.

The fact is that until someone adapts the "Get Smart" "Cones of Silence" for use in restricting someone's cigarette smoke to their immediate area, there's no way to prevent the smoke from reaching non-smoking customers. Having designated smoking tables don't work as we're all sharing the same air, and the smoke doesn't know it's not allowed to drift pass the "Smoking Area" signage.

For those barkeeps and restaurantiers who believe that there should be smoking at designated smoking tables, I have a simple solution to the problem: make it the law of the land that if smoke from the smoking area floats over into your table in the non-smoking section, and disturbs your meal, your meal is FREE! That'll put and end to the theory that smoking/non-smoking areas work quick, fast, and in a hurry!
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Bruzilla said:
I'm all for banning smoking in restaurants and bars, for the simple reason that smoking is not an integral part of eating or drinking.
Smoking is not an integral part of anything. :ohwell: Restaurant owners are allowed (or should be allowed) to set whatever rules they want in their establishment. If you want to eat there and the restaurant allows smoking, you have to put up with it. If you smoke and the restaurant doesn't allow it, you have to put up with it to eat there. It's simple.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
As dad used to say...

he would have blessed us non-smokers with the ability to create nauseous flatulence in quantity, and on demand, for just such an occasion. I could send a cloud of colan smoke over to your table to ruin your meal just as you're ruining mine.

...the skunk never smells himself.

I'm all for a ban on smoking in the indoor dinning area but I am also all for smoking being allowed in at least part of the bar and al fresco (al capone? one of them...). Smoking and drinking go together.

Smokers, I've been told, are loath to achknowledge how noxious it is to non smokers, especially self righteous ones. So, they lash out at self righteous non smokers.

Balance in nature.

:kiss:
 

citysherry

I Need a Beer
vraiblonde said:
Bubble people annoy the #### out of me. I always have this urge to punch them in the mouth and really give them something to cry about.

"Well, why don't you just go to a non-smoking restaurant?"

"Because I don't want THAT food, I want THIS food! And I don't want to be annoyed by anyone while I eat it."

:rolleyes:

Why should I have the burden of seeking out a smoke free restaurant any more than I should have to look for a restaurant that meets any other basic health standard?
 

mAlice

professional daydreamer
citysherry said:
Why should I have the burden of seeking out a smoke free restaurant any more than I should have to look for a restaurant that meets any other basic health standard?


Same reason smokers have to seek out restaurants that allow smoking. Stop whining.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
citysherry said:
Why should I have the burden of seeking out a smoke free restaurant any more than I should have to look for a restaurant that meets any other basic health standard?
Maybe because there is no proof that second-hand smoke causes any health problems...
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bruzilla said:
smoking is not an integral part of eating or drinking.
Restaurants aren't an integral part of eating and drinking. If you had to go to a restaurant in order to eat or drink, it would be different...

:razz:

You want to enjoy yourself when you go to a restaurant. So do I. You don't want to have to deal with smoke when you go out to dinner. I want to be able to smoke while I'm waiting for my meal or when I'm having a drink afterward.

So my solution is that you only go to restaurants that prohibit smoking, and I will only go to restaurants that allow smoking. How hard is that?
 

pixiegirl

Cleopatra Jones
vraiblonde said:
Restaurants aren't an integral part of eating and drinking. If you had to go to a restaurant in order to eat or drink, it would be different...

:razz:

You beat me to it. :kiss:
 

citysherry

I Need a Beer
ylexot said:
Maybe because there is no proof that second-hand smoke causes any health problems...

You mean "absolute" proof - right? Because I don't think there's absolutely proof that you won't get sick from an employee that doesn't wash their hands after bathroom use, etc., so why is there an "employees mush wash hands" rule? Or, why refrigerate the food at all...and restaurant owners could not cook the food all the way and save on electricity or gas because there's no absolute proof you'll get sick right? Basic health standards are enforced across the board when it comes to restaurants so that the public can have the freedom to eat in any restaurant without fear of illness.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
citysherry said:
Basic health standards are enforced across the board when it comes to restaurants so that the public can have the freedom to eat in any restaurant without fear of illness.
And if you knew of a restaurant that engaged in unsanitary practices, you'd simply refuse to eat there, wouldn't you? Or would you demand that they clean up their act because it's very important that you take a meal in that particular restaurant?

So there you go - boycott restaurants that allow smoking. Problem solved.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
citysherry said:
You mean "absolute" proof - right? Because I don't think there's absolutely proof that you won't get sick from an employee that doesn't wash their hands after bathroom use, etc., so why is there an "employees mush wash hands" rule? Or, why refrigerate the food at all...and restaurant owners could not cook the food all the way and save on electricity or gas because there's no absolute proof you'll get sick right? Basic health standards are enforced across the board when it comes to restaurants so that the public can have the freedom to eat in any restaurant without fear of illness.
No. I mean there is no proof at all. Period. Got some? Show us. There is most definitely proof that bacteria in food that is not stored/prepared properly or on the unwashed hands of employees can cause illness. Don't believe me? Go eat some raw chicken that's been sitting out for a while. I also remember an outbreak of hepititis linked to restaurant employees a while back.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a smoker.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I'll be the first to admit...

ylexot said:
Maybe because there is no proof that second-hand smoke causes any health problems...


...that the smoke nazi's have gone way overboard in the quest for their version of control issue victory but how is it that reasonable people can not agree, as a matter of simple fact, that by rolling a weed up and wrapping it in paper, setting it on fire and inhaling it, it is likely not to good for you?

Pure oxygen will kill you. Too many carrots will to. It is self evident that smoke is bad for human lungs in and of itself.

So is stress and I've argued many times for some positive value in smoking if it relaxes people.

That said, it's still smoke. If it were harmless smokers wouldn't exhale.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Good one...

Why should I have the burden of seeking out a smoke free restaurant any more than I should have to look for a restaurant that meets any other basic health standard?


Better retort:


Restaurants aren't an integral part of eating and drinking. If you had to go to a restaurant in order to eat or drink, it would be different...


Very nice.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Larry Gude said:
rolling a weed up and wrapping it in paper, setting it on fire and inhaling it, it is likely not to good for you?
Two words: medical marijuana.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Larry Gude said:
...that the smoke nazi's have gone way overboard in the quest for their version of control issue victory but how is it that reasonable people can not agree, as a matter of simple fact, that by rolling a weed up and wrapping it in paper, setting it on fire and inhaling it, it is likely not to good for you?
Smoking is bad for you, but there is no proof that second-hand smoke is harmful. There are many deadly things (as you pointed out) that are fine in small doses. Second-hand smoke is mixed with the ambient air which makes the concentrations low.
 
Top