Anti-smokers destroying small business.

[Highwayman]

We argue till we’re blue in the face that restaurants and bars are private property and should be free to set their own policy about smoking. We get to hear all about how non-smokers rights trump smoker’s rights and public smoking should be banned. Well next door in Colorado they did.

Bar and restaurant owners objected but the anti-smokers got their way. The result, as predicted, is empty bars and restaurants. The flood of new business from the non-smokers didn’t happen. The smokers stayed home where they could still light up with a beer.

That’s the reality.

Bill Johnson
Rocky Mountain News

The issue is no longer just about smoking.

Passing a state law outlawing smoking in most public places was, by this comparison, the easiest thing to do.

The law was not required to address the inevitable hardships such a bill was destined to inflict.

There was clapping and backslapping on the floor of the state Senate the afternoon it passed there. But none of that really matters now, when the issue is one of how it impacts people's lives.

They are men and women who once ran tiny, yet prosperous, packed-to- the-kegs establishments, who now tend mostly empty bars. The looks on their faces would be no different had their roofs actually fallen in.

They call me. What am I supposed to do, I ask? Write about it, they respond.

What has happened is a statewide tragedy, sponsored by the government. And where are all of the people, they all want to know, that the government promised would flock to their now-smoke-free bars? …..

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...870793,00.html

Years ago a horse thief was hanged because stealing a cowboy’s horse was in effect stealing a cowboy’s livelihood. Today non-smokers can steal a business owner’s livelihood without accountability. Maybe it’s time for lynching to come back into vogue.

[Detector]

I really don't think these types care about reality. Their only concern is that once again they push their wants to the rest.

The problem is that given 2 establishments A:Smoking B:Non-Smoking isn't good enough because establishment A: gets all the business and B: Goes bust. So its not a matter of having a smoke free establishment but forcing their will upon the rest.

[lurker]

From that story:

"We've got young men now fighting all over the world for what they tell us is for democracy and freedom," Jim VonFeldt, 60, said.

"Yet our own government is taking away my freedom to operate my business right here at home. It's just not right."

[Bargod]

You don't have to go as far as Colorado to find this kind of thing, it's not a state law, but there is a city ordinance in Lawrence for the same thing. A few months after it was passed, it was amended to allow smoking in certain businesses. One of those being Hallmark cards, now employees can smoke in the break room, but not one retail establishment was allowed to have smoking in it when I moved back to Wichita last year. The bars did take a substantial hit. Some of them will still let you smoke if they know you and it's slow, but most of them had to foot the bill to build a patio for the smokers so they would still come.

[notyoubob]

Oh what the hell; this board has been about as exciting as tepid overcooked tapicoa pudding lately so here goes:
But first of all, I have to say I really wish it would have been up to businesses to decide whether to allow smoking or not and not a government. But with that being said:
Can I get drunk from sitting next to a chronic over-indulger?
Can I get fat from sitting next to someone whose diet consists entirely of Big Mac's and Fries?
Can I suffer from diabetes because my neighbor has it?
Smoking is indeed different. I once, during my "chewing tobacco" days, sat next to an ******* who insisted on blowing smoke into my face. I finally asked him to blow elsewhere, not even outside, but in a different direction, and he curtly told me that the dangers of second hand smoke were "junk science" and didn't affect anybody. So I asked him if I he would open his big mouth and let met spit some "second hand tobacco juice" in him. Luckily, for both of us, he just called me a jerk and moved to a different part of the bar.
The air around me and you is the only one we breath at that time; if you pollute my air with your smoke, what do I do? You can step outside for a smoke, but I can't breathe smoke-free air by moving a few feet away.
There are a lot more of our freedoms that are currently at risk of being taken away than being able to smoke in the same area that people don't want it.
Let the (smokeless) flames being...
PS: Oh, I live in a ski resort in Colorado that banned woodstoves years ago as well as smoking in restaurants and what was the hue and cry? We'll go broke!
It hasn't happened and before the Colorado state law prohibiting smoking in virtually all public places, all but one bar in town voluntarily banned smoking, due to complaints mostly from women who said they wanted to party in their bar but got tired of having to go home, take a shower and put their nice clothes in the washer to get rid of the stink. The bar owners report business as usual and in some instances better.
Give it time.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by notyoubob

.... But first of all, I have to say I really wish it would have been up to businesses to decide whether to allow smoking or not and not a government. But with that being said:......

I’m glad you said that because that has been my contention all along. Let the business owner decide.

Do some businesses do better with a non-smoking policy? Given that the majority of folks don’t smoke one would think so. If there was really a demand for non-smoking bars and restaurants you would think that the owners would do it on their own. I once stopped at a place for lunch and after seeing the no smoking sign on the door walked to the other side of the parking lot to another place. Could a non-smoker do the same in reverse? Sure they could. If the demand was real the owner that allowed smoking would be looking across the parking lot at his competitor with a full house and seeing his nearly empty place figure it out. He would voluntarily become a non-smoking place to survive and that’s how the free market works.

As for other freedoms being under attack, you’re right. If you notice in many cases the attacks follow the same model as the one that was used against tobacco.

[Bargod]

notyoubob - I can completely see your side (well, not the chewing part) but as a amoker, I have always tried to have the courtesy to not do what you to others what you experienced.

I too believe that it should be up to the business owner. Each city or state will be different, and what might work well in Boulder or Aspen might not work so well in Durango or Fireside since there are two different types of people in those areas. I personally think that a statewide ban was not the answer, but what do I know.

[Detector]

I'm with ya. It should be a businesses choice.

I don't think anyone argues the fact that secondhand smoke contributes to lung cancer, but it's far less than many other things such as car exhaust and burning of waste. By "junk science" their probably talking about the way the so called facts are presented.

The fact is not all people are effected by secondhand smoke or even first hand for that fact. Studies have shown that some people that have lived all their life with smokers never got cancer while some with little exposure did. Of course it's these that are susceptible that get counted not those that aren't.

Fact is there are many things we are all exposed to on a daily bases that may give us cancer but nothing is done. Secondhand smoke is among the lowest risk yet it's that one making the headlines.

Secondhand smoke can't hold a candle to the number of deaths due to alcohol but you won't see them trying to ban it.

Back to the business. A business should have the choice since it can directly affect the bottom line. They've already made it so a business is required to have separate sections but thats not good enough.

[Bubba]

As a former smoker and current non-smoker, I say the government F#%ked up. They should leave it up to the business. As a non-smoker I have the brains enough to decide for myself if I want to go into a business that allows smoking. If I don't want to smell the smoke now, or later on my clothes, I don't go in. If I don't want the effects of second-hand smoke...which I personally feel is overblown....I have enough common sense to not go into an establishment that allows smoking.

[Turiel]

I"m suprised Garden passed a smoking ban. Its all very silly I think, most places have smoking and non smoking sections. I'm not sure why there has to be such a huge conflict over this.