Eateries resist telling smokers to snuff it
Posted on 03/02/2003 5:11:15 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Eateries resist telling smokers to snuff it
Owners say they aren't obliged to enforce ban; Poss endorsed
03/02/2003
If Dallas Mayor Laura Miller expects restaurateurs to become her anti-smoking patrol, she's mistaken, industry leaders said Saturday on the first day of Dallas' restaurant and bar smoking ban.
The Greater Dallas Restaurant Association is instructing owners to abide by the new city ordinance, such as by posting "no smoking" signs. But it is telling them not to feel compelled to enforce it.
"We are not going to get into a confrontational situation if someone is smoking," said Mark Maguire, president-elect of the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association and owner of Maguire's Regional Cuisine and the M Grill & Tap in Dallas. "We're going to choose not to confront it."
At a smoke-free happy hour at Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant, Mayor Laura Miller praised the ban as a victory against illness.
"It's a public health issue, first and foremost," she said. "You have to stay strong and believe in that."
RICHARD MICHAEL PRUITT / DMN Jeramy Tuggle, a waiter at Dick's Last Resort in the West End, had to go outside for his smoke break Saturday. |
But count restaurant association leaders among the nonbelievers.
Ms. Miller angered them enough that the association on Saturday made its first mayoral endorsement ever - recommending City Council member Mary Poss, who is challenging Ms. Miller in the May 3 election.
Ms. Poss vowed Saturday that, if elected, she would attempt to overturn the ban.
"Some of these businesses will not be in business," she said. "Others will move to the suburbs."
Ms. Miller played down the endorsement.
"It doesn't surprise me. The restaurants are nervous because this is a big change," she said. "They'll come around quickly."
The mayor cited studies indicating that smoking bans increase restaurant patronage rather than drive it to other cities, as some restaurateurs fear.
At the Cadillac Bar in Dallas' West End, general manager Mark O'Brien said he opposed the ban, although he reported normal business Sunday and no problems among nicotine-starved patrons.
In keeping with the restaurant association's guidance, he said he would not harass customers who decide to light up at the risk of being fined as much as $200.
Among the smokers who were grumbling but not puffing at the Cadillac was Jared Davidson.
He said he would consider taking his cigarettes - and money - to restaurants in Addison, Arlington or Fort Worth.
But he remained at the Cadillac on Saturday.
Mr. Davidson sat quietly, his food before him and a half-empty glass of suds inches from his left hand. But at his right, the ashtray was gone.
"It's really weird - really weird - going into a bar, having a beer and not being able to have a cigarette," said Mr. Davidson, gesturing as if holding an invisible cigarette between his index and middle fingers. "It's going to take some getting used to."
MONA REEDER / DMN Mayor Laura Miller says restaurant owners eventually will see the wisdom of the city's smoking ban, which went into effect Saturday.
|
At Dick's Last Resort, a West End bar and restaurant, Douglas and Karen Lambert sat at the bar drinking beer. Mr. Lambert smokes; his wife doesn't.
He said he would abide by the ban; he doesn't even smoke in his own house. But that doesn't mean he likes the new city restrictions.
"It should be up to the establishments, the owners, to decide where customers can and can't smoke," he said.
Likewise, it's up to customers to take their business to restaurants that appeal to them, Mr. Lambert said. "If you don't want to smell smoke, don't come in."
Jason Buckner of Dallas said he agreed with the ban.
Dining in a Dallas restaurant without the smell of burning tobacco wafting his way, and coming home without smelling of smoke, will be a welcome change, he said.
"I can't really stand smoke," he said. "The ban is a real benefit to people who want to be healthy."
You and I both need air to breathe. Clean air, as free as possible from contaminants.
Neither of us need air tainted with the poisons derived from burning dried tobacco. NEITHER OF US.
You CHOOSE to smoke, I do not. You CHOOSE to take into your body that which is detrimental, to you and to me, to both of us. That is a right that I will defend, as it happens.
However, now you are insisting that you have the right to carry on with your craziness, even if it encumbers other people. In other words, you think it is perfectly reasonable to inflict ME with YOUR problems.
That is NOT reasonable, however, not even a little bit.
Years ago, a slight majority of people smoked, and those who didn't smoke were willing to put up with those who did. Then, things changed. People became more aware of how harmful it was. Soon, only a minority of people smoked. Soon after that, people began to demand that they do so only outside the workplace. That was eventually the norm.
Now, even fewer people smoke, and those who do NOT smoke are more insistent of their rights to breathe uncontaminated air.
You who smoke, since you are addictive types anyway, and have shown you have little concern over the long-term ramifications of your personal choices, are predictably attempting to turn your nasty habit into a sacred right that you MAY inflict on others.
So you say "go somewhere else!"
Well, we too are insisting that YOU go elsewhere, but in our case we have the FACT of our mutual need for clean air to breathe. You need it, we need it.
Our MUTUAL need trumps your personal WANTS in this case. Ergo, you do NOT have the right to do as you please because it discomfits others.
Your argument is totally feckless, and without merit, and the mounting number of cities who are banning smoking in places of public accomodation is evidence of this. You have a voice, same as we do. Your arguments are being overcome by ours.
Your "rights" stop where they impede those of others.
One place we go to eat has smoking and non-smoking sections. They have these industrial type smoke-eaters that look like something out of the movie Brazil and I swear to you once the smoke is 18" to 24" away from you it's gone, there is no haze hanging in the air and not even a tobacco smell.
Too bad their food is going down hill since a change in ownership.
:O(
Subjective argument. You are not a nation of one. You live in a community with others. Sometimes, you have to work VERY HARD to have things come out the way you wish, and there are no guarantees.
The fact is, that I consider anti-smoking ordinances to be a VICTORY, so it depends on how you look at it. For years, non-smokers like me had to put up with the garbage you people spew into our air. Now, things are changing, and for the better.
I suppose the next thing your going to say is that YOU expect us guys to change our underware every day too huh??? =:o
Not so - speak with the owner/management about their smoking policy or open your own establishment. Keep the government out of it.
Who's mixing apples and oranges?
You are, as usual.
All of us need air to breathe.
No One has denied that.
Only a few of us CHOOSE to pollute it with smoke.
Oh, PULEEEEZZZZE....you've got to be kidding me. With who knows what being pumped into the air from hundreds of thousands of different sources on a minute by minute basis you are concerned about a little cigarette smoke???
I submit that all of us are entitled to air relatively free from contaminants, no matter who owns the building I'm sitting in, just as we're all entitled to BUY food free from harmful bacteria.
And I submit that you are only entitled to what the owner of the building permits you to be entitled to when you accept his invitation to enter his building.
I agree we are all entitled to "BUY" food free of harmgul bacteria - but we also have the CHOICE of where to purchase it.
As much as I love seafood, I do not go into seafood markets because I have an extreme allergic reaction to raw shrimp. I know enough not to go somewhere that is going to cause me discomfort - the first sign is a burning in my eyes, followed immediately by the swelling of my eyes to the point where I am unable to see.
But I don't seek to ban the sale or preperation of raw shrimp - I just avoid exposure to it - very simple.
This feckless argument on behalf of those who are SO incredibly self-absorbed that they think they have a right to pollute MY air in support of THEIR habit is proof-positive that many "conservatives" are just whiners with a different agenda.
You make no sense at all. If I own a business and my employees and clientele have no problem with tobacco smoke - who are you to walk in and claim it is YOUR air to breath????
No better than the Lefties they pretend to excoriate.
That is the category in which you belong. You don't like something so you demand that the government see to it that your delicate sensitivities are never exposed.
That's the difference between us conservatives and you wimpy Lefties - we speak with the business or speak with our wallets - you people go running to Big Brother government to take care of you.
Now I get it, you want us to bathe AND change our underwear every do!
What will be next with you, shaving on a regular basis? LOL!!
Proof, please............
There is no will about anything about exposure to the smoking of others. There are several very iffy mays or cans - but no absolutes such as you claim in regards to harm.
If you can prove your definitive and my comments wrong - I will be happy to change my position.
However, I don't believe there is a person on this earth, smoker or non, that can hold their breath long enough for you to prove your statement.
Kind of a liberal view, majority rule.
I've been accused of looking like Cro-Magnon Man, so I may as well grunt like him too ;)
Who are "they"?
Minorities ALWAYS out rule the MAJORITIES!
Do you have evidence for this theory? (I confess the only time I've heard it within memory is when the Democrats complained about George W. Bush's election).
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
If you are a smoker, it is "a little cigarette smoke." After all, since you people have no problem breathing in huge quantities of the stuff, of course you're not going to see how your "little cigarette smoke" is a BIG deal to the rest of us.
Speaking for myself, cigarette smoke makes me ill. It is one of the most aggressive allergens known to man, and that is extremely true in my case. "A little cigarette smoke" causes extreme distress for me. That is true for many others, as well.
In fact, that is SO true, that the majority are in favor of curtailing smoking in public places. I know it makes you angry--smokers have already demonstrated an unreasonable degree of personal pique. They appear to despise THEMSELVES so much that an early death seems a fair enough price to pay for the "kick" they get from nicotine.
Only trouble is they don't care who they hurt in the process. It is really quite sad.
And again.
Did the citizens get to vote on this??
Minorities ALWAYS out rule the MAJORITIES!
Does the 9th Circuit Court in California ring a bell? One man wanted to outlaw the Pledge of Allegiance, and they did.
But expect it to be overturned like 90% of all they're decisions are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
