Florida: Complaints over restaurants not complying with smoking ban

First Coast News ^

[SheLion]

DUVAL COUNTY, FL -- Florida's smoking ban was officially put into place on July 1st but not everyone is abiding. The state has had close to 800 complaints on restaurants that are not complying with the rules.

In Duval County, there have been 19 complaints with the majority coming from customers of RP McMurphy's located in Jacksonville Beach. The restaurant has received a warning and has 30 days to comply.

[Steely Glint]

Smokers who want to continue to deliberately inflict their carcinogens and toxins on unwilling non-smokers love to lie about the regulation of secondhand smoke. They love to claim that secondhand isn't harmful (a lie), that the government has no legal right to regulate bars and restaurants (another lie), and that banning smoking in places open to the public is somehow Socialist, Nazi, or "nanny-statist" (yet another lie). The truth is that they HAVE no valid arguments. Zero. Zip. Nada.

YES, SECONDHAND SMOKE IS HARMFUL TO HUMAN HEALTH

The following government agencies have all declared secondhand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to be a toxic and carcinogenic health hazard:

The Surgeon General
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
National Toxicology Program
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

Smokers will loudly claim that the EPA's 1993 risk assessment that classified ETS as a "Group A" carcinogen was overturned. It wasn't. What happened was that representatives of the tobacco industry filed suit against the EPA relating to the findings of its ETS risk assessment in a tobacco-producing state, before a judge who - what a coincidence - turned out to be a former tobacco industry lobbyist. This judge somehow managed to rule - despite evidence to the contrary - that the EPA's finding that ETS caused lung cancer was invalid. However, this ruling was utterly vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District on December 11, 2002, rendering it null and void. Despite what some people will try to tell you, the EPA 1993 risk assessment was NOT overruled: the attempt to invalidate it was what was overruled.

Cigarette smoke has been shown to contain well over 2000 chemicals and at least 40 known carcinogens. There is virtually a total consensus in the medical community and in the biological research community that secondhand smoke is hazardous to human health. Medical schools, teaching hospitals, and university medical research institutes all know and teach the hazards of secondhand smoke. In an amazing coincidence, virtually every public figure who maintains that secondhand smoke isn't a very real health hazard mysteriously either turns out to be a smoker or to have some kind of political or fiscal connection to the tobacco industry. Go figure.

In 2000 Philip Morris, one of the leading tobacco companies, let the cat out of the smoking bag. On its website, Philip Morris posted "...there is an overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other serious diseases..." and that "There is no safe cigarette." That's right, a tobacco company admitted that. It's no longer deniable.

SURPRISE, THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY REGULATES BARS AND RESTAURANTS

Arguing that the government has no right to regulate bars and restaurants for health-related reasons is an act of total ignorance given that every existing bar or restaurant in the United States is currently subject to governmental health-related regulation. Yes, that's right: they are all already regulated for health purposes. Yes, every single one of them. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the food and drink business or is lying.

DARN, THE REGULATION OF PLACES TO EAT AND DRINK PREDATES ALL MODERN POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Smokers love to call the government health regulation of places to eat and drink "Socialist," "Nazi," or "nanny-statist." These are acts of simple ignorance, as inns and taverns were regulated by the English government in medieval times. Here in America such government regulation started well over 300 years ago, in the early 17th Century - which is, of course, long before anyone ever heard of Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, or Hillary Clinton. Blaming modern political ideas for acts that date back to medieval times is just silly. But then, of course, any defense of public smoking is silly, as no one can *seriously* defend anything that deliberately inflicts carcinogens and toxins on unwilling victims.

[FLAMING DEATH]

"Sorry, that argument is childish."

No, a property owner asserting his or her right to serve the clientele he wants is certainly not childish.

"Any bar or restaurant open to the public is automatically subject to government regulation and inspection."

True, maybe...but unconstitutional nonetheless. It isn't your property, and it isn't the government's property.

[CSM]

"Thankfully I don't have this dilemma, although the answer is yes, I would visit as long as they didn't smoke in my presence. I would not, however, stay in the home overnight or even for any extended period of time. I can't stand the smell for long.

As I said before, anyone who would value cigarettes over family is pathetic."

Anyone who would put their family below a smell is pathetic. What is the difference between you chosing not to spend an extended period of time at a smokers house vs. a smoker chosing not to do the same at an anti smokers house? Is it all based on the morals you get to dictate?

[FLAMING DEATH]

"Smoking doesn't "cause" asthma, but any asthma researcher not on a tobacco company payroll will tell you that it aggravates existing asthma. Exposure to smoke is related to both asthma severity and incidence."

Easy fix. Don't smoke. Also, don't be around people who smoke.

"Smokers try to imply that there is some kind of argument or controversy over the health effects of secondhand smoke in the sceintific community. "

I don't argue that at all. If smoke is harmful, stay away from it. Let the free market decide which public places will be smoke free, not the government.

"Read it and weep. "

If your point is that inhaling smoke is bad for you, well, I can only say "No sh**". But this has nothing to do with the debate, as it has already been established time and time again. The point is, does a property owner actually own and control his property, or does the government?

"Are you smokers dumb enough to keep inhaling this vileness?"

I could ask, "Are you nonsmokers dumb enough to keep patronizing establishments where this takes place?" Ever hear of voting with your pocketbook? Why do you insist on government intervention and disregard of individual rights to accomplish something that could be achieved by simply letting the free market dictate which establishments are smoke free and which aren't?

Is it because you can't stand to not get your way?

[RightFighter]

What is the difference between you chosing not to spend an extended period of time at a smokers house vs. a smoker chosing not to do the same at an anti smokers house? Is it all based on the morals you get to dictate?

It's not about dictating morals. It's all about stench. Period. Not smoking doesn't cause disgusting smells. Smoking does. I make no moral judgments on anyone who smokes. The act of smoking is no more immoral than the act of biting ones fingernails (another disgusting habit that I, thankfully, was able to rid myself of several years ago). I have friends who smoke. I work with people who smoke. They are not bad people because they smoke, nor are any of you.

[CSM]

It is about your standard of stench. Would you visit your family if they were pig farmers? Would you visit family if they were not very clean? To use your argument, putting the convenience of your nose above your family is just as pathetic as a smoker putting smoking above their family.

[RightFighter]

The point is, does a property owner actually own and control his property, or does the government?

Well, let's see, the property owner has to pay taxes on that property each year in order to enjoy the use of it, and if he doesn't pay, the property will be taken from him by threat of force. I'd say that sums it up. Whether you like it or not, the government, in effect, controls all private property through this mechanism. That control is extended even further in the case where the property owner decides to open a business that is open to the public and is subject to government regulation. There have always been restrictions placed on the operation of restaurants for the health and safety of both patrons and employees. These regulations have undergone change from time to time. This is simply another change. If the business owner doesn't like it, he should move his or her business to another state that continues to allow smoking. Maybe all the smokers will follow, so next time a smoking amendment comes up on our ballot, it will pass 100-0.

[CSM]

So because of small wrongs in the past, these larger more incremental wrongs are OK? Are you on the right DiscUssion board?

[RightFighter]

So because of small wrongs in the past, these larger more incremental wrongs are OK? Are you on the right DiscUssion board?

I didn't say that it was right that government controls things this way. I think property taxes are awful, although not as bad as income taxes, which we thankfully don't have here in Florida. However, the fact is, government does have a place in the regulation of business for safety and health reasons. In the case of this amendment, the government didn't make some demand up out of thin air - we the people demanded that this regulation be put in place by an overwhelming margin. Smokers are understandably pissed off that they can't smoke anywhere they want to anymore, but that's just too bad. I couldn't care less.

[CSM]

Yep. The tyranny of the majority. What a wonderful thing. How about if they ban cooking at restaurants? Wouldn't want the toxins in the air to damage the lungs of an anti cooker.

The reality is that the majority vote decided that it was reasonable to decide the activities in a private establishment. Didn't SCOTUS rule on this regarding sexual acts in the home? How can the Florida law be constitutional?

Whenever the tyranny of the majority is acceptable, be afraid, be very afraid. That would eliminate hunting!

[RightFighter]

The reality is that the majority vote decided that it was reasonable to decide the activities in a private establishment.

There is a distinction between a private establishment and a private establishment that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

That would eliminate hunting!

Are you saying that a majority of people would vote against hunting? I'm not sure I agree. I certainly wouldn't.

[RightFighter]

Just thought you might enjoy this thread. I'm causing trouble again.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Troublemaker! I like this one:

There is a distinction between a private establishment and a private establishment that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Guess they forgot about that.

There is so much spin on this thread from the smoking Nazis, it makes my head hurt!

Hey, if you want to kill yourself through a slow and painful death (tobacco), have at it! Just don't force your crap on me!

[RightFighter]

There is so much spin on this thread from the smoking Nazis, it makes my head hurt!

Be careful. I think you usurped one of their phrases. I guess it will be okay this one time, as long as you don't say something like "I have a dream that one day we will all live smoke free." That would be downright plagiarism.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

[RedBloodedAmerican]

if theres a red x, try this

[RightFighter]

What a hottie!

[Im4Starr]

When your child gets emphysema at age 40, I'll listen.

You seem to imply that everyone who has ever been around smoke for an extended period of time will get all sorts of unpleasant conditions. But if that's the case: Why isn't an across the board truth?

I can give you chapter and verse on people I've known personally who smoked all their lives who have not even a trace of cancer or breathing problems...one guy died 2 yrs ago at the age of 90...smoked for 77 years..died of old age. Another woman I know just celebrated her 85th birthday, lived through the holocaust, survived 3 husbands and 2 kids, and has been smoking for 70 years. And her only malady, at the moment, is a bum hip.

And I'm still not clear on why if smoking causes cancer, some doctors are convinced that smoking pot is a cure. Seems ironic, no?

[Im4Starr]

And I can't forget all the rescue workers at ground zero, who, after cleaning up the debris from the towers day in and day out, requested (and received donations of) cartons of cigarettes.

[Steely Glint]

"No, a property owner asserting his or her right to serve the clientele he wants is certainly not childish."

"True, maybe...but unconstitutional nonetheless. It isn't your property, and it isn't the government's property."

There is this wonderful thing in this country called the Rule of Law. You should look into it some time.