Montgomery County Smoking Ban

[hwyman3]

Also, Little Evo's on the base is non-smoking. Since there is so much demand for a non-smoking restaurant in Lexington Park, what is stopping you from opening one? Since the demand is so great, you could make a fortune and never have to work again! The point is that this is America, it should be up to the restaurant. If a restaurant wants to be a non-smoking establishment, more power to them. If you don't like the food at a restaurant, do you continue to eat there? No, you go someplace else. If enough people agree with you, it will go out of business. It is the same with smoking. If the smoking offends you, do not go there. If enough people agree with you, either the restaurant will change it's policy or it will close.

 

[John Z]

I'm very curious how the smoking vs. non-smoking will play out in Montgomery County. I am a non-smoker, but I rarely have been bothered by smoke in restaurants in SoMD. My wife and I really enjoyed going to Texas Ribs & BBQ in 'dorf, and that is one place where the smoke really does overwhelm the non-smoking section. Oh well, we found other places to eat. I know better than to lobby for non-smoking in restaurants in SoMD; I'd be run over by serveral Nascar-stickered 4x4 trucks inside two minutes. But who knows, in 20 years, maybe only a small percentage of folks 'round here will still smoke. But this does make for an interesting debate.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by hwyman3
If you don't like the food at a restaurant, do you continue to eat there? No, you go someplace else.

That is retarded. You go to a restautant to eat, not smell smoke.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by czygvtwkr
...that over inflated ballon you call a head

You were the one that opened that door. I know your type too you are probably one of those people that take a 10 minute smoking break every hour at work. Constantly saying stuff like "I deserve my smoke break"

So that is name calling in your mind.

And again you show that you don't know crap. At work I usually only have four cigarettes during the day and each break is less than five minutes. Some days I only get one or two smokes in. How much time do you spend getting coffee or just shooting the sh!t? Probably a hell of a lot more wasted time by you then me Slick. I put in a solid days work for my pay. During the last CA study where management did a utilization breakdown of our time we were occupied doing our assigned tasks at the 96% level. Everything was documented even time spent responding and reading emails and phone usage. Some government workers do actually work.

And I knew you would switch the topic when called on it.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Are you having a conversation with yourself? Called on it? Called on what? Change of subject, the subject was smoking and how smoking ####es me off in general nothing there is off topic unlike you braging about your organizations CA study success.

You are definately the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by czygvtwkr
Are you having a conversation with yourself? Called on it? Called on what? Change of subject, the subject was smoking and how smoking ####es me off in general nothing there is off topic unlike you braging about your organizations CA study success.

You are definately the pot calling the kettle black.

No moron, I am talking to you. Let some air out of that head so it can hold some data. It isn't about what p!sses you off (which I am sure is a long and boring list of things), it is about a proposed ban on smoking in Montgomery County. And my comment about the CA study was directly related to your futile attempt to say I as a smoker am a slacker at work. I even quoted your statement in that post in case you are having too much difficulty following the discussion.

 

[vraiblonde]

Damn. I thought for sure I was going to get back on here and find David had banned me for yelling at ST.

More non-smoking restaurants:

Cafe des Artistes
Spinnakers
Every Chinese restaurant in America
McDonalds

So eat there and kwitcherbitchin.

 

[czygvtwkr]

"I've seen and listened to your type before, continuous sniveling and whining. When called on it you try to shift the topic. I'll bet that you aren't happy unless the world revolves around your pathetic amoebic life, well guess what Slick, it doesn't."


As opposed to how you stay on topic here. You have no buisness trying to call people on the very things you do yourself on here and then call them a hypocrite, oh the irony.

Not sure why I bother there is no way I can convince a big blowhard that thinks they are an expert on everything to even take a look at a point of view other than their own. Your old saying "Im not happy unless your not" says it all perfectly.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by czygvtwkr
"I've seen and listened to your type before, continuous sniveling and whining. When called on it you try to shift the topic. I'll bet that you aren't happy unless the world revolves around your pathetic amoebic life, well guess what Slick, it doesn't."


As opposed to how you stay on topic here. You have no buisness trying to call people on the very things you do yourself on here and then call them a hypocrite, oh the irony.

Not sure why I bother there is no way I can convince a big blowhard that thinks they are an expert on everything to even take a look at a point of view other than their own. Your old saying "Im not happy unless your not" says it all perfectly.

You're right, I'm happy because you obviously aren't and probably never will be.

Well time to go back and continue watching another group of losers. I bet you're a Cowboy fan too.

 

[hwyman3]

Originally posted by SmallTown
That is retarded. You go to a restautant to eat, not smell smoke.

My whole point is that if you don't like the smell of smoke in a particular restaurant, then don't eat there. I have seen posts that say non-smokers should not have to adjust their choice of dining because that restaurant respects a persons choice to smoke. Now if the same restaurant chose to serve bad food or chose to treat it's customers rudely or anything else you don't like, you wouldn't eat there. Smoking is no different. If you do not like the smell of smoke, don't eat there. If enough people don't eat there, the restaurant must either change it's policy or go out of business. You may call it retarded, but that is how business works.

The other reason I have heard for banning smoking in bars and restaurants is the health of the workers. Most of the people I see working in these areas don't need to worry about second hand smoke, since many are smokers themselves. Isn't first hand smoke even more dangerous than second hand?

 

[Larry Gude]

Let's see if we all agree here...

...if not for pressure from 'busy bodies', 'liberals', and 'control freaks' like me, we would still have ashtrays at the grocery store, in the department store, especially the clothing section, on all airline flights and that nice, blue haze reflecting from the projectors glare at the movies.

We used accept it just fine. Smokes were legal then, they're legal now. However, they are un-fairly singled out because so much political will has come to bear from people, including ex-smokers who's numbers equal current numbers of active smokers. Fair? Good? bad?

People are winning law suits with the outrageous claim that their emphasema ravaged loved one died not knowing, not knowing(!), the health risks of smoking.

I am becoming much less of a literalist in my dotage.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by hwyman3
Now if the same restaurant chose to serve bad food or chose to treat it's customers rudely or anything else you don't like, you wouldn't eat there. Smoking is no different.

it is different because the purpose of a restautant is to EAT. Not smoke. Sure, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if I decided to go into one of those tobacco shops in the mall with a sandwich and ask them to quit smoking while I eat. You the establishment for what it is meant for it, and everyone is happy. While i'm happily eating a nice juicy steak, you can be in the tobacco store with your smokestack friends just having a good ol time.

 

[hwyman3]

Originally posted by SmallTown
it is different because the purpose of a restautant is to EAT. Not smoke. Sure, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if I decided to go into one of those tobacco shops in the mall with a sandwich and ask them to quit smoking while I eat. You the establishment for what it is meant for it, and everyone is happy. While i'm happily eating a nice juicy steak, you can be in the tobacco store with your smokestack friends just having a good ol time.

No one is stopping you from going out to enjoy a nice meal if that is what you want to do. I can respect those who do not want to smell smoke while they eat. Non-smokers have many options to choose from to enjoy a night out. Since there are many restaurants that are non-smoking, many have been listed in previous posts, why is it too much to ask that smokers have the same rights? Some people enjoy a smoke with their meal, much the same as some enjoy a glass of wine.

All I am saying is that it is that it should not be up to the legislature to determine if a restaurant is smoking or not. It should be up to the individual restaurant. Let the restaurant serve their customers.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by SmallTown
it is different because the purpose of a restautant is to EAT. Not smoke.

Actually, the purpose is to make as much money as possible for the owner (or whatever goal s/he has). How s/he meets demand to accomplish this end is up to him/her in a free society...You are free to patronize the establishment as you wish. One should have no more right to dictate smoking as they should the menu (Italian, Indian, whatever) OTHER than voting with your dollars.
Why should you have the right to dictate what others do on their own property? Understand the irony in your line "I really don't carry how you live your life, just don't bother me with it."

Don't like, don't patronize it.
(or marry it )

WTF is it about this desire to have a nanny state?

 

[Larry Gude]

One of the functions...

...of government is to act on the behalf of the citizenry, to promote the general welfare.

That means creations of standards, ideally based on the desires of the electorate; clean water, accurate measurements (gallon of gas IS a gallon) fresh food from approved (liscensed) and inspected vendors and so on.

We use to have slavery and some people said 'if you don't like what I do, lump it."

We decided collectively, through killing each other and destroying property that that was unacceptable.

Extreme example? Yes, but that brings us to the question; how bad is smoking?

Not in the same class as slavery. I do NOT support legislating private business to EXCLUDE smokers.

There is no reason government can't go on PROMOTING the general welfare without becoming the dread nanny state through, I admit at base, control issues in that regard. I distance myself and my views from that position.

No one ever passed a law banning 'heavy' beers. Through simple market promotion and government PROMOTED PSA's relating to general health and well being, 'lite' beer and 'lite' cigarettes were born. Flavor was out (way out) and public awareness of alternatives was in. Promotion of, not mandating of.

Montgomery County is saying 'there is not enough of a market for smoke free establishments therefore we will make one by eliminating the other".

This is fascism.

Montgomery County could have offered a 'public health' tax break to promote smoke free and then let business' decide, with a little carrot, if this made sense.

My beloved wife is 'stuck' with my dislike of smoke in the sme manner I am 'stuck' with her love of same. We can, will and do accomodate one another, for the most part, amicably on this issue.

I promote that she quit. She promotes that I kiss her ass.

We settled for a new sofa for Christmas. She doesn't smoke on it. I build her a fire every night so she can puff in comfort by the excellent draft of a cozy blaze. Me and the cat lounge in comfort and wait for her to return to the card game.

Which brings me to a better idea: Mandate fireplaces in public houses. It helps draw, duh, smoke.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by cariblue
SurfaceTension, that's one way of looking at it. ... ALL patrons should be able to enjoy themselves. This is why I don't take issue with restaurants that forbid smoking. For the same reason, no one should take issue with the restaurants that permit it.

I think we are of like mind....It's up to the restaurant owner to provide a pleasing experience for his clientele. People may petition the owner for changed conditions, but it should be (in America at least) up to the owner of the establishment to provide the atmosphere (excuse the pun) of his choosing.

If smoking is SO destructive to ban it from public areas, then it should be outlawed completely/designated a controlled & dangerous substance. Otherwise, as Larry pointed out, it's a matter of imposing one's own desires on someone else's private property via governmental control. Welcome to The Free State?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by SurfaceTension

If smoking is SO destructive to ban it from public areas, then it should be outlawed completely/designated a controlled & dangerous substance.

Two things:
Big Business
Tax Revenue.

The two reasons why the government will never outlaw smoking. The money that is made off tobacco is astounding. That is the only reason why it is not outlawed , not because it is good for you or bad for you.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Two things:
Big Business
Tax Revenue.

The two reasons why the government will never outlaw smoking. ...

I'd add a third, that the majority of people just don't care enough to make it an issue. Regardless, if it can't be acknowledged that it's THAT dangerous, then imposing one's desires on someone else's private property via governmental fiat takes us out of the realm of a freedom-loving people.

I had no idea that there were so many smoke-free places in SOMD...They should advertise this fact, as I would consciously frequent them more often. And, if there's a market here for this here, certainly Monkey County could figure something out without resorting to draconian measures.

Unless it's just about control/advancing an agenda...

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by czygvtwkr
Please name the ones in Lexington Park that do not allow smoking.

The Mixing Bowl
Ruby Tuesday's (during lunch hours)
Charlie's Deli
Asahi (never seen anyone smoking in there)

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
Unless it's just about control/advancing an agenda...

I think at the heart, it's an insecurity issue. There's an unbelievable zealotry with some activists for rescuing/protecting people they perceive as vulnerable. They might be reliving old issues with overbearing parents or schoolyard bullies or something. So they want government to be Superman.