Anti-smokers destroying small business.

[BroncoFan]

Governments, local or state (or federal) are getting too much power. Private businesses should have the right to be either non-smoking or smoking.

I, myself, am a non-smoker and hate being in smoking areas. I hate walking through smokers to get to where I am going. Moreso, I despise government invading into the rights of public citizens. If governments want to ban smoking, then they should only look into government controlled settings.

STAY OUT OF MY LIFE/BUSINESS. IT IS MINE! I PAY THE TAXES. I REAP THE BENEFITS AND THE PUNISHMENT.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

I went into the place and worked within their policy. Designating booths 2 feet away from people willing to assault my health is bad policy.

I asked for a different place to sit and let her know why. She got pissy with me. There was no reason I should have to go to the bottom of the list and wait longer.

It was after she provided poor customer service that I asked to see the management.

When I went back this week to discuss it with the manager he explained that they smoking section is consitently empty and that they encourage the staff to seat people in there when they can.

He apologized for his employee and gave me a $20 gift card which I refused. I accepted his policy and asked what they intended to do about the smoking problem.

They are looking into making that section smaller and to include the bar and the seats I refused to occupy.

The hostess was written up and I take it she has a history of problems.

Just like you righties to jump to conclusions without details. That's what keeps you Bushbots in busines.

So you went to the manager and discussed the placement of non-smoking seating in relation to the smoking area. That’s something I proposed a couple of years ago and you rejected the idea back then. Its nice to see you slowly coming around.

BTW, Bushbots? That’s another one of the group think words that appears in all the left-wing Bush bashing web sites. I guess you folks like to follow yourselves around in circles in search of an original thought. Do progressive Democrats still have to raise their hands when they want to go to the bathroom, or do you get to do that by yourself now?

[lurker]

Something I caught on a blog:

Liberals are affordable during peacetime....

from the Right!

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

So you went to the manager and discussed the placement of non-smoking seating in relation to the smoking area. That’s something I proposed a couple of years ago and you rejected the idea back then. Its nice to see you slowly coming around.

Just like you trying to take credit for something after the fact.

I know that "smoking sections" don't work but the farther from them I can get the better.

It's still only a matter of time.

I see the full "non-smoking sections" and the half empty stinking sections. When it comes up for that vote I see who's going to do the voting and I'm confident who will win that one.

Just for the health of it.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

Just like you trying to take credit for something after the fact.

I’d put up a link for you but all I get over there is a closed sign.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by BroncoFan

Governments, local or state (or federal) are getting too much power. Private businesses should have the right to be either non-smoking or smoking.

I, myself, am a non-smoker and hate being in smoking areas. I hate walking through smokers to get to where I am going. Moreso, I despise government invading into the rights of public citizens. If governments want to ban smoking, then they should only look into government controlled settings.

STAY OUT OF MY LIFE/BUSINESS. IT IS MINE! I PAY THE TAXES. I REAP THE BENEFITS AND THE PUNISHMENT.

It's not about invading your rights. The "gov't" (which is the people by the way) does not say that you can't smoke as many cancer sticks and kill yourself early. What they (the people) ARE saying is that you cannot kill other people with your second hand smoke. Some laws have to be passed to protect the citizens because the average american is not too bright. EXAMPLE...We have to have a LAW that says wear your seat belt and that your CHILD must be buckled in a car seat. We need LAWS for this? Come on people. It's STUPID to not wear your seatbelt and to not safely put your child in a restraint or car seat is neglect and a crime AND your responsibility as a parent..but yet we have LAWS to regulate stupidity. Smoking in public is the same way. IF we didn't have smoking bans people would be sitting in the mall (as they did years ago) and polluting everyone's air. Thank goodness for SOME gov't intervention.

[Detector]

OK so whats next? People are stupid and drink and kill innocent drivers, we should also ban drinking. Not just controlled drinking but all drinking because you know, people are stupid.

Again, I understand a ban or controlled smoking in locations where "we the people" have no choice in the matter, but in all public places is just not right. Especially when it directly plays a part in the success or failure of a business.

[Army_of_One]

I guess what you have to look at is...how many people does it benefit. People may say the gov't (the people) don't have the right to say "wear your seat belt" but if the population as a whole benefits from it then what's wrong with it. Not smoking in eateries is a good thing also. There are far more people that choose to not smoke than those who do. The smokers aren't being told they can't smoke...they just have to do it and be responsible about it.

[Detector]

There are far more people that choose to not smoke than those who do.

I think this tells the real story. Back when more people smoked, and even more non-smokers were at risk, it was no issue. It's the same problem with drinking. Far more innocent people are killed by drinking than by second hand smoke but far more people drink so they can over look the issue.

The smokers aren't being told they can't smoke...they just have to do it and be responsible about it.

I thought smokers were doing a fair job already. Heck, we're already limited to a small shack out back but thats not good enough. Restaurants, if they even allow smoking, are required to put smokers in an area where second hand smoke is not an issue, but thats not good enough. If non-smokers can even smell the smoke they complain. Hell, I can't stand 90% of the perfume I smell but I don't complain.

They're not asking smokers to be responsible they're asking them to don't smoke period.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

.....IF we didn't have smoking bans people would be sitting in the mall (as they did years ago) and polluting everyone's air. Thank goodness for SOME gov't intervention.

The problem with that example is that there is NO LAW in Dodge City banning smoking. The mall decided that it would be smoke free. That is the way it should be. Let the owner of a property and/or business decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking or not. I have the right, as a non-smoker, to decide if I want to go to a business that still allows smoking.

It is easy for management to decide if it is worth it to allow smoking in thier establishment. For a very simplified example, if I run a business that only has 3 customers, 2 customers do not smoke and they come in once a week and spend $30 each, and 1 customer does smoke and comes in daily and spends $20. It is not hard for me to decide that I am going to allow smoking in my business. From a financial standpoint it would be suicide of my business to lose my $20/day customer to satisfy my $60/week customers.

By the way, I am a current non-smoker, and I don't fully believe that there is as much danger to second hand smoke as everybody says there is. It is just politically correct in this day and age to bash the tobacco companies with this retoric. There is much more danger in breathing the carbon monoxide and other pollutants coming out of everybody's car exhaust, but I don't see anybody pushing for a ban on driving because of breathing second hand car exhaust.