Have Restaurant Smoking Bans Gone Too Far (If facemarks now are required)?

Eater ^ | Jan 14, 2020 | Monica Burton

[seastay]

Restaurants have changed in more than a few ways over the past 50 years. But the biggest shift, the one that has fundamentally changed what it’s like to eat in a restaurant or spend time in a bar, might be the switch to smoke-free dining rooms — These days, being asked to choose “smoking or non smoking” is something of a novelty. The transition to smoke-free bars and restaurants began with the rise of the anti-smoking movement in the 1960s as the dangers of cigarettes became clear and advocates argued on behalf of restaurant and bar employees, who had no choice as to whether or not they would be inhaling secondhand smoke. In 1975, Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, becoming the first state to limit smoking in most public spaces, and in the late 1990s and early 2000s state-enforced smoking restrictions ramped up, expanding to include bans on smoking indoors in most states and even parks and public plazas in some.

But although some of us may rejoice at the prospect of never again encountering unwanted second-hand smoke, Jacob Grier, a Portland, Oregon-based writer who covers smoking, vaping, and tobacco policy, believes smoking bans have gone too far.

...

[seastay]

This was back in January. But now if face-masks are going to be required to lift lockdowns at commercial businesses, and if face-masks are so effective, then allowing smoking indoors should be a no brainer as long as face-masks are also going to required indoors ? Or am i missing something ?

[dixie1202]

I’ve always believed it should be left up to the individual establishment rather than the government. All things equal, I’d prefer to eat at a non-smoking restaurant

[Cobra64]

I agree. Back in my smoking days, I avoided the “no smoking allowed” restaurants.

[Bratch]

Smoking bans were the camel’s nose under the tent.

It introduced the concept that individual actions can be controlled by government because of potential risk to other individuals. Even if the potential risk is theoretical.

Now the country is reaping that seed’s harvest.

[lee martell]

In the best of world’s, most restaurants would have room for an interior Smoking Area, with all required systems to circulate the air. In reality, it’s very expensive to pay the rent, the overhead, the insurance, staff, perishable expenses. You probably get cheaper liability insurance as a business if it is completely non-smoking. The system is fixed against the smoker, and has been for over 30 years.

I would guess most chefs do not have enough money to create an equally comfortable environment for both smokers and non smokers. It’s just easier to cater to the non smokers. Some non-smokers are conditioned to complain at the very sight of a lit cigarette. It’s become psychosomatic.
“Oh!! I...I can’t breathe...I’m gagging!!!..Call 911 somebody!!”

[TexasGator]

“The system is fixed against the smoker, and has been for over 30 years.”

So nothing about it being a non-healthy, dangerous stinky habit?

[Born to Conserve]

Smoking is a class indicator.

[stockpirate]

Do not end the no smoking ban.

[Conserv]

Sorry, that stench gets all over us non smokers... in our clothes and in our hair.

I’m all for smoke free restaurants and bars.

However, trying to prevent people from smoking in their own apartments is downright ridiculous.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I quit in March of ‘86.
My boss provided a new Chevy Caprice to drive.

It smelled so good that I couldn’t bring myself to smoke in it.
So I quit...

[lee martell]

...When done in excess, that’s certainly true.

“Moderation in all things is the best policy.”
Greek poet Hesiod/

[Bonemaker]

“...believes smoking bans have gone too far...”

They went too far when they were first passed and took choice out of the hands of business owners, customers, and people in general.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

All things equal, I’d prefer to eat at a non-smoking restaurant.

I think about 81 percent of the population agree with you. Tobacco smoke may be the lifeblood of a smoker, but to a nonsmoker it's irritating and off-putting.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Smoking is a class indicator.

Nowadays that's pretty much the case. But an interesting contrast is tattooing. Its popularity amongst the beautiful people made it increasingly acceptable to the middle class, where once it was confined to the lower orders. We'll see if that trend doesn't change.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

They went too far when they were first passed and took choice out of the hands of business owners, customers, and people in general.

If they had left it alone, it would have died a natural death. There would still be places for people who liked to smoke, such as in bars, but restaurants and other places where a generality of the population congregated would be smoke-free.

[Vermont Lt]

Smoking in restaraunts is gross.

If you want, I can come set garbage on fire next to ( a generic) you while you eat

[Pilgrim's Progress]

Do we need to like punch a hole in the mask so we can insert the fork? My neighbor wants to know so I told him I’d ask the smart people that I know.

[Conserv]

Ever been waiting in line and then have a smoker get behind you?

I mean, DAMN. The smell is quite noticeable.

[Responsibility2nd]

Smoking in a restaurant is a no brainer.

It takes no brains to do something that anti-social and stupid.

Smokers in restaurants suck.

[Responsibility2nd]

Tattoos.

It used to gross me out that my waitresses had tats. But I got over it. Had to.

It is a common element among the lower classes and poor people to have tattoos. And if flipping burgers or waiting on tables is all that you aspire to in life, then fine.

Get a tattoo. Limit your income.