Posted on 10/27/2005 4:12:30 AM PDT by SheLion
This week, supporters of a smoking ban in Chicago's restaurants will rally in the Federal Plaza at noon in anticipation of a vote on the Chicago Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. They will effectively remove smoking from all public places.
This ordinance is a more comprehensive form of the current ordinance, which only bans smoking in public places except for designated smoking areas. The new Chicago Clean Indoor Air Ordinance 2005 by Alderman Ed Smith of Ward 28, bans it completely from all public places.
Any adult that has lived in the public sphere for at least part of his/her life knows that smoking can be harmful to his/her health. And as an adult, a person has the right to ingest potentially harm-inducing substances into their body. McDonald's, anyone?
But Smoke-Free Chicago, the major campaign with TV commercials, ads on city buses and in newspapers, takes another angle. The ads, which, for the most part, depict very clean-cut, youthful men and women who are part of the service industry, (servers, hosts, and bartenders) telling their stories about how they deserve a smoke-free workplace just like many of the service industry workers in already smoke-free cities. The people depicted in the ads usually say that they have not smoked ever in their lives, but now are suffering the consequences of working in a smoke filled area.
The problem here is that Smoke-Free Chicago is denying the existence of choice. Choice, selection, free will, is the major discerning factor in this scenario. If a person does not want to work with in a potentially unsafe situation, then he/she could find another job or occupation. A person with a phobia of heights would not actively seek out a position as a roofer, they would find a job more suited to their needs. Or a server could seek employment at an already smoke-free restaurant or bar, since as it stands right now, owners of restaurants and bars can make the decision whether to allow smoking inside their establishments.
This decision, the choice of restaurants owners, is the key in understanding this situation. In this capitalist, free enterprise economy, restaurant and bar owners already have the choice of making a restaurant smoke-free. The logical conclusion here is that if a restaurant or bar owner was insistent that his/her establishment be smoke-free, it already would be, regardless of a law that would force the issue.
We all know that there are some things in the world that can harm us, physically, emotionally, or otherwise. A logical person would follow the path of harm reduction, knowing that if there is something happening at a place that he/she did not agree with, he/she would avoid that place.
Regardless, one of the most beautiful things about living in this country is the freedom of choice to which we are entitled. What is coming next for bars, if the smoking ban passes? No drinking? We tried that once already. Remember how great that turned out to be?
I'll bump it!
We have the same thing going on in the Columbus area. The ban passed last year, and now all the suburbs are having their own little votes set up. I am a non-smoker who really hates to breathe in cigarette smoke, but I still plan to vote against the ban. I think this has less to do with clean air than it does to keep regulating what people should be able to figure out for themselves.
Remind me to plan the annual Chicago boondogle with my extended group of friends to another city. We can spend our disposable cash somewhere else! I hope many other folks do the same.
We have the same thing going on in the Columbus area. The ban passed last year, and now all the suburbs are having their own little votes set up. I am a non-smoker who really hates to breathe in cigarette smoke, but I still plan to vote against the ban. I think this has less to do with clean air than it does to keep regulating what people should be able to figure out for themselves.
Maine forced a complete ban as well, last year. It's not fairing too well. At least, the smaller bars and restaurants aren't fairing too well, let's put it that way.
If a business owner wants smoke free, that should be left up to him and his patrons. And not nanny government. Nanny government didn't put blood, sweat and tears into a business. Yet, they are allowed to go in and dictate how the owner is to run it? Totally disgusting.
When Bloomberg made NYC smoke free, the Japanese businessmen went nuts. They wanted to find another city in which to come and hold their meetings. I often wonder how that turned out.
As for smokers vacationing in a smoke free place, why go and pay for that personal abuse? I sure won't! Like Bill O'Reilley says "Boycott the darn place!" Take our money someplace where all people's are accommodated.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/13/1100227634938.html?from=storylhs
"The regulars at Brian's bar agreed. The talk that night last week had been of the front-page picture on the New York Post. It was a close-cropped head-shot of a young GI in Fallujah, face smeared with fatigue and camouflage paint, and a daub of what on closer examination was revealed to be a splatter of dried blood down the bridge of his nose.The face of battle - yes, but it wasn't the 10,000-yard stare of eyes fresh from combat that had the regulars' attention. It was the just-lit cigarette dangling from the soldier's lips. AdvertisementAdvertisement
"So that's how it works," quipped Brian. "Shoot a fookin' sand goblin, win a fookin' fag."
The regulars chuckled, as Americans always do at that imported word, which means gay, and only gay, on this side of the Atlantic. But they got his drift, and one of the patrons wondered if the soldier and his M-16 might not find fruitful employment on New York's home front.
"Mr Mayor, you son of a bitch," he began, making a gun with index finger and upraised thumb, "you're dead." Then, in defiance of the Big Apple's draconian smoking laws, he exhaled a plume of ostentatious rebellion towards the yellowed ceiling. "Fook you, Mr Michael Bloomberg," added Brian."
Thanks for the post!
I am a nonsmoker who believes that the proprietor of a business has the right to determine whether or not to permit smoking.
The market will respond to what consumers want. If there is a demand for nonsmoking restaurants, let it be by the choice of the owners of the restaurants. If there's a demand for smoking restaurants, then let the owners make that determination.
Freedom does not mean freedom from.
Quite unbelievable for an "old" European that there is something like a "smoke ban". Really a different world. As an non-smoking architekt I had to share my office with colleagues who smoked about 40 to 50 (meanwhile banned because of their high nicotin-rate) French cigarettes. Nobody asked me if I tolerate that or not. I have to say that it was my own decision to work there. Therefore I had no problem with all that smoke although I would not tolerate it today. In the meantime I am my own boss anyway and I have nobody to ask.
:-)
BUMP
Too much common sense, although common sense seems to be in short supply these days.
There has always been room enough for everyone. You said it well. Thank you!
:-) Thank you for the great post and the kind words.
Although I try to avoid blanket indictments, it's becoming more true everyday that when democrats are in charge, your liberty will be taken away. They have completely embraced the fascist tenet that government should control private property for the Marxist "common good." Where the notion came from that a private business is public property I can't find. It's something that seeped up from the communist sewer and is now embraced by majorities in areas controlled by democrats.
The rat party has become dangerous and needs to be confronted.
It's not just the rats, sergeant. There are plenty of those that call themselves conservative that will go along also. They may be CINOs or RINOs but in some cases it's the Republicrats enacting smoking bans and the DemoncRATS opposing them.
You sure are welcome. It's nice to have a fellow FReeper come in and not try to pick arguments over this issue. :)
If a business owner wants smoke free, that should be left up to him and his patrons. And not nanny government. Nanny government didn't put blood, sweat and tears into a business. Yet, they are allowed to go in and dictate how the owner is to run it? Totally disgusting.
if a bar owner wants a profitable smoke free building, he needs to lobby government to ban it everywhere. we recently had this problem in my county, just the county was going to ban smoking. altho all the owners i know don't smoke, and would like smoke free bars, they knew that many people would go the extra couple miles past county lines to go somewhere to smoke. owners said make it statewide or forget it.
Why of course! If a restaurant/bar that I like to go to went smoke free and the one across the street stayed open for smokers, that is exactly where I would go to spend my money. Surely, you don't think that I will patronize a smoke free joint spending good money when they refuse to accommodate me?!
You are talking about a level playing field. And you are also saying that all business's must be made smoke free so this one business doesn't loose money. Well, excuse me. But all the rest that go non smoking will also lose a lot of revenue. We just don't "go there anymore."
And why would the business lose money? I thought smoke free is what everyone is screaming for!
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.