Good column on restaurant smoking ban

[Larry Gude]

So if I sit there...

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.

...with my greenhouse autofogger spewing out chlorinated hydrocarbons at a low enough rate that research hasn't proven is harmful, say a few parts per million, you're good with that?

You don't need research, at least shouldn't need, to KNOW that smoke is probably bad to inhale.

We're talking about a behavior, like poor diet, that only takes it's toll over time so the whole thing is blown up a bit but, consider:

When we were kids, there were ashtrays at the end of each aisle in the grocery store. Same thing at Hechts or any clothing store. Movie theatre, airplanes, doctors office waiting room.

Wanna go back to that?

If no, why not? I mean, it's not proven harmful or anything, right?

The fact is humans don't change behavior much unless someone is #####ing
about it. Sure as sunrise, we'll take it too far and get silly about it. Anti smokers are just that, anti, and they are after abolition, not reasonable restrictions.

I think it's reasonable to have smoking and non smoking sections and I'm all for bars being all smoking and it would be nice if this was a simple business decision but we, the people, need some help sometimes.

Vrai nailed it though; you don't have to go to a restaurant. Now that smoking
is a current issue, they, the restaurants, will adapt to the market.

 

[vraiblonde]

Wanna go back to that?

Well....yeah

 

[Larry Gude]

Liar!!!

You are affecting a pose to support a position!

She rolls down the window when smoking in the car, everybody!.

Fake smoker!

 

[Otter]

*eartag*...

 

[Larry Gude]

What?

...She hasn't banished me to the garage.

Yet.

 

[Tonio]

...She hasn't banished me to the garage.

Yet.

If that happens, it won't be the garage. It will be the tobacco barns in Hughesville, where you'll have to inhale decades of nicotine and "tar".

 

[citysherry]

BTW, can someone give me the name of a non-smoking restaurant (not fast food) in Calvert?

 

[mAlice]

BTW, can someone give me the name of a non-smoking restaurant (not fast food) in Calvert?

Don't you have a phone?

 

[vraiblonde]

BTW, can someone give me the name of a non-smoking restaurant (not fast food) in Calvert?

CD Cafe (have the smoked salmon fettuccini, if they've still got it) and Dry Dock, off the top of my head. There are certainly more but I don't live down there anymore and don't know what's still around or new.

Chinese restaurants NEVER let you smoke. Get ya some Kung Pao Chicken

 

[czygvtwkr]

I remember when I was a kid, about 8 years old this woman at the grocery store wasn't paying attention and backed into me burning me with her cigarette. I punched her right in her big ass LOL.

 

[ylexot]

...with my greenhouse autofogger spewing out chlorinated hydrocarbons at a low enough rate that research hasn't proven is harmful, say a few parts per million, you're good with that?

Go right ahead. If I don't like it and the restaurant allows it, I won't eat there again. That's how it works. The market will force change.

You don't need research, at least shouldn't need, to KNOW that smoke is probably bad to inhale.

We're talking about a behavior, like poor diet, that only takes it's toll over time so the whole thing is blown up a bit but, consider:

Oh, so you're for legislating diet as well then?

When we were kids, there were ashtrays at the end of each aisle in the grocery store. Same thing at Hechts or any clothing store. Movie theatre, airplanes, doctors office waiting room.

Wanna go back to that?

If no, why not? I mean, it's not proven harmful or anything, right?

If they want to lose the business of the non-smokers, they can go right ahead and shoot themselves in the foot.

The fact is humans don't change behavior much unless someone is #####ing
about it. Sure as sunrise, we'll take it too far and get silly about it. Anti smokers are just that, anti, and they are after abolition, not reasonable restrictions.

I think it's reasonable to have smoking and non smoking sections and I'm all for bars being all smoking and it would be nice if this was a simple business decision but we, the people, need some help sometimes.

Are you feeling ok Larry? You sound like a Democrat..."The government knows what is best for you. We will save you from yourself."

Vrai nailed it though; you don't have to go to a restaurant. Now that smoking
is a current issue, they, the restaurants, will adapt to the market.

So now you agree with me?

BTW, how's your lung cancer? I mean, you actually live with a smoker! You must be on death's door right now.

 

[Bruzilla]

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...



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?

Let me answer your suggestion with a quote from a very wise woman...

"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."

 

[Bruzilla]

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.

What the Hell difference does it make if second-hand smoke is harmful or not? At the minimum, it's very, very, annoying to those of us who don't smoke, and more than enough to ruin the good time that we're paying our hard-earned American ducketts for. Lord knows the food I'm eating is probably more toxic than the smoke, but at least the food tastes good.

 

[vraiblonde]

At the minimum, it's very, very, annoying to those of us who don't smoke

So hold your nose. :shrug:

 

[Ken King]

What the Hell difference does it make if second-hand smoke is harmful or not? At the minimum, it's very, very, annoying to those of us who don't smoke, and more than enough to ruin the good time that we're paying our hard-earned American ducketts for. Lord knows the food I'm eating is probably more toxic than the smoke, but at least the food tastes good.

But you know what, we are paying our hard earned bucks for the same pleasures and if the establishment owner has made the choice to cater to smokers that is his option and if it bothers you then it is you that should go elsewhere.

 

[Kizzy]

I remember when I was a kid, about 8 years old this woman at the grocery store wasn't paying attention and backed into me burning me with her cigarette. I punched her right in her big ass LOL.

That is the funniest thing I've read all day!

 

[Bruzilla]

But you know what, we are paying our hard earned bucks for the same pleasures and if the establishment owner has made the choice to cater to smokers that is his option and if it bothers you then it is you that should go elsewhere.

Once again... the fundamental service of a restaurant is to serve food. The fundamental service of a bar is to serve alcohol. Neither of these have a funamental minimum level of expected service that includes smoking. Therefore, it is the person who comes to eat or drink who should expect the minimum level of service for their dollar, not the smoker.

 

[mAlice]

Once again... the fundamental service of a restaurant is to serve food. The fundamental service of a bar is to serve alcohol. Neither of these have a funamental minimum level of expected service that includes smoking. Therefore, it is the person who comes to eat or drink who should expect the minimum level of service for their dollar, not the smoker.

Bruzer, you're missing the point. It should be up to the owner of the establisment who he wants to cater to.

Ya' know what this is going to boil down to in the future? Private clubs. You'll end up having to pay an annual membership fee to eat or drink in any given establishment.

 

[vraiblonde]

Once again... the fundamental service of a restaurant is to serve food. The fundamental service of a bar is to serve alcohol. Neither of these have a funamental minimum level of expected service that includes smoking. Therefore, it is the person who comes to eat or drink who should expect the minimum level of service for their dollar, not the smoker.

By that token, I should also assume that noisy people who insist on yakyakking throughout their meal, annoying me beyond words, should be silenced, right? After all, the fundamental purpose of a restaurant is eating, not talking.

And all televisions should be removed - you're there to eat, not watch TV.

Right?

 

[mAlice]

By that token, I should also assume that noisy people who insist on yakyakking throughout their meal, annoying me beyond words, should be silenced, right? After all, the fundamental purpose of a restaurant is eating, not talking.

And all televisions should be removed - you're there to eat, not watch TV.

Right?

Right.