Anti-smoking activists scoff as ban is left off Senate agenda

press of atlantic city ^ | 5/13/2005 | John Brand

[KeyesPlease]

"I don't get it. Do we as legislators live in fear of the restaurant lobby, the tobacco lobby?" Vitale said. "If that is the case, then they really ought to rethink why it is they're in office."

[KeyesPlease]

Clearly, private property rigths and self determination do not even enter the equation.

[samtheman]

I hate indoor public smoking. But I hate socialist nannies more.

[Just another Joe]

PUFF

[CarolinaGuitarman]

""I don't get it. Do we as legislators live in fear of the restaurant lobby, the tobacco lobby?" Vitale said. "If that is the case, then they really ought to rethink why it is they're in office.""

Maybe a few of them realize they are in office to uphold private property rights.

[CSM]

All your rights are belong to us!

Once again, it becomes evident that this is about control. They need to prove that they are the all powerful rulers of their citizens. Just like any other fascist!

[quantim]

some legislators are concerned about a potential backlash from the restaurant community, which says it will suffer financially from such a ban,

You can't lump all bars, restaurants, and so forth in the same category.  It won't affect the higher end restaurants and most already don't allow puffing. Neither do most of the fast-food chains to my knowledge.  If anything it will help marginal businesses.  People do vote with their pocketbooks and many diners (and I work in the industry) like myself don't open the wallet to restaurants or bars when subjected to smoking pollution.  

Also bear in mind that 'private property rights' have limitations in 'public access' places.  I'm not suggesting that govt intervention is the solution but economics in the long run.  If it doesn't happen at the fed or state level, it will certainly happen at the county, township, or city level as communities and food and beverage owners/managers compete for those dollars.  Which means more restaurants, jobs, taxes and so forth to those communities that don't allow smoking in public places.  This is not remotely socialism but free-market capitalism.

[KeyesPlease]

"Which means more restaurants, jobs, taxes and so forth to those communities that don't allow smoking in public places. This is not remotely socialism but free-market capitalism."

I trust businesses, "marginal" or not, to act in their own economic self interest. Some will allow smoking, some will not, thereby maximizing profit potential by attacting customers seeking a specific environment offered by businesses at the discretion of ownership. As it damn well should be.

[quantim]

I guess than we are largely on the same page although for different reasons.  However it is a much more complicated and layered issue than just allowing or not allowing smoking from the perspective of the smoking patron, or business owner.  Do you believe an employee has a 'right' to work in a smoke free environment?  Should employers be 'forced' to foot the higher health care bills if they allow hazardous smoke to their employees?  Should restaurants/bars that allow smoking pay the same health/fire insurance rates as those that don't?  Why would a restaurant be any different than an office building where the practice is already banned? 

There are a hundred other related issues at stake.  I believe circumstances such as I just outlined will eventually rule the day.  Just as we cannot yell "fire" in a theater, or drive 100mph in a neighborhood, there are reasonable parameters that the public is subject to.  No smoking in all public places is coming, like it or not.  It is just how our society gets there in the form of who pays for what is where the friction will come from.

[Gabz]

You left out 2 categories - smoking owners and smoking employees..........

Smoking bans in office buildings inflicted upon them by other than the business or building owner is just plain wrong.

Economics should be the only thing that dictates this issue......not nannies running to their elected officials because they believe they have a right to not be offended but are afraid to put their own money where their mouth is an open their own non-smoking businesses.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Do you believe an employee has a 'right' to work in a smoke free environment?"

No. Nobody has a right to work in any particular job. They do, however, have a right to agree to employment in a place that allows smoking if they wish.

" Why would a restaurant be any different than an office building where the practice is already banned?"

Just because the government has shredded the property rights of office building owners does not make it right. No private property owner should be forced to ban smoking. Nobody is forced to enter their property, be it a bar, office, or department store. There are of course market reasons for individual property owners to ban it; a majority of people don't smoke and don't like to be around smoke. In government controlled buildings (city hall, the dmv, and so on) the situation is different. People have to use these government buildings for their services, as there is no other alternate business duplicating them.

[SheLion]

Geeze Louise! What idiots!

[Just another Joe]

Do you believe an employee has a 'right' to work in a smoke free environment? Should employers be 'forced' to foot the higher health care bills if they allow hazardous smoke to their employees? Should restaurants/bars that allow smoking pay the same health/fire insurance rates as those that don't? Why would a restaurant be any different than an office building where the practice is already banned?

No
No, there isn't anything proven to be caused by ETS to an otherwise healthy person
Yes, there isn't anything proven to be caused by ETS to an otherwise healthy person
It shouldn't, the office building should be allowed to choose also.

[Gabz]

Believers of the anti-smoker propaganda will not understand your logic.

People that don't care to be around tobacco smoke will believe everything told to them in order to justify inflicting their desires upon others.

[qam1]

Yeee haaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The sign stays for now

[Bogey]

People do vote with their pocketbooks and many diners (and I work in the industry) like myself don't open the wallet to restaurants or bars when subjected to smoking pollution.

---

Do you ask the public if they mind you starting your car in their face?
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.