Replies

I think these Nanny-state laws are wonderful. I feel so much better now that I don't need to think or make decisions for myself. The stress in my life has just melted away...

OK, seriously though - I would be careful about using profitability as your primary argument against restaurant smoking bans. Here in Tucson, we had a smoking ban in restaurants enacted about five years ago. The main argument used by the local business community was one based on profits - nobody argued against it as an unwarranted intrusion of regulation in private commerce.

Initially, there was a dropoff in business, such that the local government said they would revisit the issue in the next year. So what happens next? The restaurants business really picked up, surpassing their pre-ban numbers. The reason for this was the local population growth was ginormous - I think Tucson was like the fourth-fastest growing area at that time (still up in the top 10 or 20). Since all the anti-ban arguments were couched in terms of profits, the whole thing faded away. The ban is now in place and permanent. Not a chance it will go away.

Personally, I prefer to eat without smoke, but before the ban I did not have any trouble finding smoke-free places to eat (either they did not allow smoking, or there was an adequate non-smoking area). Now, it does not matter what I like or dislike; the choice is made for me.

You make some very good points.

Regardless of what arguement is used the antis always find another one, particularly when they see they have lost one, they drop it in favor of another, until that too is proven wrong.

The proponents of the bans are the ones that started with the profitability arguement, in their divide and conquer scheme.

But you are correct, all choice has now been taken away from everyone.......Restaurants that were smoke-free by choice have had their market taken from them in the name of a level-playing field. Those that catered to smokers have had their market removed from them. The choice to work in a smoke-free or smoke-filled place has been removed from employees in the name of protecting their health, even though most didn't ask for the protection. the same goes for customers.

Maine forced a complete restaurant ban in 1999. So, we went to the local Tavern for our meals and beverage and spent out money where we were wanted.

Now, the State did a full smoke ban with the Taverns, bars and Sports Inns. And it's really killing the private sector.

I didn't write this article, but we sure have been keeping an eye on the outcome. It isn't pretty. And I am sure you who do not like to be around smokers, could have found a place to eat that didn't HAVE smoking. Why not let the business owner decide and not the state?

Now, it does not matter what I like or dislike; the choice is made for me.

Yup, and like seat belts and helmets (both of which i use) these are personal freedoms taken away. Now there is a long list of precedent cases to allow the courts to take away more freedoms. (Like what you can do on your own soil-- which is next). I have seen neighbors complaign about the smoke from their neighbors house. There are movements funded by lawyers to correct the food we eat.

Where is it written that everyone has the freedom to not be upset by circumstances once in a while?