Guess what our smoking decks look like up here in the winter:
Posted on 07/15/2006 7:30:05 AM PDT by SheLion
The Pennsylvania Restaurant Association has thrown its support behind a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants, bars, casinos and private clubs.
So why couldn't we find any local establishments who agree with them?
Admittedly, we used a small sample, but when staff writer Jeff Pikulsky talked to owners of Mon Valley clubs and restaurants last week, he found angry opposition to the proposed ban.
Monessen Elks Club Steward Marcy Zites estimated that 70 percent of her club patrons smoke and feared that a ban would be bad for business.
Those sentiments were echoed at the Foster House in North Belle Vernon, where bartender Lisa Vestrat said customers have been complaining about the possibility of a ban.
At the High Point restaurant in Coal Center, Loretta Sepesy lamented, "People like to have a drink and cigarette. They take away all of your rights anymore."
The proposal to ban smoking in public places was introduced by Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, a Republican from Montgomery, and is currently being considered by the Senate's Public Health & Welfare Committee. Similar legislation in the House died in committee last month.
The ban is being offered out of concern for the health and welfare of employees who work in those facilities and are exposed to second-hand smoke. A recent report from the U.S. Surgeon General brands second-hand smoke as a health risk and recommends that it be banned from public gathering places.
We understand the concern of the state's Restaurant Association and its desire to be on the politically correct side of the smoking argument. But we think the organization should have contacted more of its members to see if they feel the same way.
It's our position that in a free society, this decision should be up to the individual restaurants, not the government. Restaurants who want to ban smoking should be welcome to do so, and customer response will determine if they are right or wrong.
"The sun does more damage to peoples' bodies than second-hand cigarette smoke," said Monessen Elks Club trustee Brian Mears. "What is the government going to do next, shut down the sun?
Shh, Brian, don't give them any ideas.
I worked in NYC for years. When Bloomberg brought on the smoking ban there I knew it was only a matter of time before it was the law of the land everywhere.
If you believe that, and that idiot runs for President and wins, we may as well kiss our butts good-bye! And not just because of the smoking issue, either.
What tees me off is: He went over to Turkey for a "visit," and sat on the floor with all the Turks who were all smoking. This idiot never said one word about it! Just kept grinning that surpy smile of his.
The problem with putting smoking to a vote: when only 25-30% of the patrons smoke (rough estimate because I have heard much higher), vote to smoke or not to smoke, smokers lose out every time. No matter what it will do to a private business owner. The anti's want smoke free and they care squat about you!
I am not forcing you to be in that atmosphere!
Good for your freind, he is living on others misery. Not all can jump through the hoops necessary to get a "mother may I".
Any business owner today who can still allow a smoking section knows enough to install the big smoke eaters.
The one tavern here in town installed 3 huge smoke eaters. You couldn't see the smoke let alone smell it.
That's how the Casino's do it in Vegas. Big smoke eaters. People are smoking all over the place, but the air is clear as glass.
That's what "I" wanted to say, but I was trying to be nice. LOL! High Five!
Understandable, unfortunate, but democratic. The opponents here think they should have full rule over what they can do in their business, but that the citizens should have no say in the laws.
Hey, if it went to a vote and couldn't pass, that would be fair. How is it fair to deny a majority of the population who wishes clean air?
I am not forcing you to be in that atmosphere!
Good for your Friend, he is living on others misery. Not all can jump through the hoops necessary to get a "mother may I".
By "others misery" I meant "other business owners". You know, those that lost business or went out of business because of the "nanny law".
Guess what our smoking decks look like up here in the winter:
Assuming that the same percentage of patrons went out before and after the ban. Many people passed on going out because of the raunchy stench of smoke odor permeating everything on their body including clothes and hair. Now there's a whole new market of people to appeal to. Families who don't want their children to have to deal with the smoke, etc. Sure, nonsmoking restaurants could exist now, but your strategy is to post it on their door whether or not they're smoking. Most families would not bother to know the establishments that allow smoking. Plus, the establishments that would have a waiver would see the business of the businesses which chose not to get a waiver. Sure, customers may change loyalties. This does not mean business declines.
The Maine lawmakers even made all the Vet Clubs smoke free. The VFW, The American Legion......all of them. These men and women fought for what? Freedom? Yea, right. Now it really makes me wonder! Freedom for who? Freedom for me but not for thee!
It's sickening. I am happy that you took time to read some of that.
The anti-non-smokers have NO clue as to what smoking bans are doing to our economy. Smoking Bans Are Choking The Economy. But the anti-smokers could care less. As long as they don't SEE anyone smoking or SMELL smoke, then they act all smug and holier then thou.
Also, like it or not, many Bingo halls have to shut down as well. And their money used to go to charities. Well, when one of your local charities cry the blues, point to the anti-smokers and let them know the truth.
Sure, smoking isn't for everyone, and if it bothers a person that badly, then stay home or go somewhere that doesn't have a lot of smokers. Fair is fair.
Also, the smoking bans not only kills the business, it has the trickle down effect: the vendors that supply the business also falters. And the businesses that can manage to limp along have to lay off and cut hours.
Smokers aren't going away. I'm sorry to say that to all the FReepers in here that wish to hell we would, but we aren't going anywhere.
If smoking and shs is so bad for everyone, then the government needs to ban it and pull in their belts and dump their pet programs.
BTW, my one grandmother died of cancer age 42. Never smoked a day in her life. My other grandmother? Smoked three packs of unfiltered Camels and lived to be 86.
What hurts me most is the pompous ass attitudes some of our very own FReepers have against us, just because we choose to smoke a legal commodity. Some days, I think I fell into the DU Yahoo Smoking Boards. ACK!
But the problem is that sometimes a person dont want a whole case, and they dont want to get screwed getting a six pack at the bar.
I enjoy beer, but a whole case is a bit much and I would much rather get beer while I am food shopping.Two birds with one stone.
Oh exactly! I see it starting on this thread already!
Yep. And Gawd! I thought KOOP was bad. This guy is nothing but a bold faced liar!
Yep. You should see my anti-smoking FReeper list that I keep. You would not believe it. Or maybe you would. heh!
"Sure, nonsmoking restaurants could exist now, but your strategy is to post it on their door whether or not they're smoking. Most families would not bother to know the establishments that allow smoking"
So because people who worry about their children are also too stupid or too lazy to check a place out everyone must suffer. Gee, what a sensible argument (not).
No one is "entitled" to clean air. The following was written to the letter of the Editor:
All citizens do NOT have any "right" to breathe clean air. If we did, then all planes, automobiles, trucks, factories, and
breweries (the source of toxic poisons in the air) would be banned. Only then we all "breathe truly clean air".
The Report by the Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, who is a self-described rabid anti-smoker, does not show any "new evidence" as they claim. As the Report itself states, it is merely a compendium of previous reports and biased "studies" written by and/or paid for by the anti-smoker industry. No new studies, no new evidence.
No one has ever died from being around secondhand smoke but this conveniently escapes the anti-smoker zealots. Coronary heart disease is usually genetic in origin, but it's politically correct nowadays to claim that secondhand smoke is the culprit. Never mind that no unbiased, scientific study has ever proven that secondhand smoke has ever caused anyone any harm; the real truth isn't on their agenda.
The anti-smoker campaign has never been about health, it's always been about power and control by The Nannies (along with millions of dollars for the anti-smoker and pharmaceutical industries).
Hey! How about letting the free market decide instead of the government? Let the business owner and his patrons decide if there should be smoking or not? We do not need more heavy hand of government coming down on us like this.
How about a few signs in the windows???
I could have said the same thing about bargoers and bars that have a waiver. You ignored my point about the majority finding this acceptable. Perhaps your facism is starting to show.
And who the hell wants kids in a bar and/or tavern anyway? We adults are entitled to SOME recreation without kids. Geesh! Always for the kids. Well, what about people who HAVE no kids? They shouldn't be made to suffer because of it!
As for revenue going up after a smoking ban, tell it to THIS business owner in Washington State!
The anti's promised PROMISED the business owners that they would have more revenue from all the people that didn't smoke! All these people would be beating down their doors. Guess what? Didn't happen. And it won't happen either.
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.