Smoking Ban Hurting Tempe Restaurants

cbsfive ^

[chance33_98]

Smoking Ban Hurting Tempe Restaurants 

Tempe, June 19 (AP) -- It may be a breath of fresh air to walk into restaurants here and not smell smoke, but restaurant and bar owners say they're smothering.

They are asking the City Council to do something to ease the financial pain arising from the new, restrictive anti-smoking ordinance.

A number of owners say revenue is down by as much as 20 percent since the voter-approved ordinance took effect May 30. They plan to outline their concerns during a council meeting Thursday.

"You can either kill yourself with gloom and doom, or you can take the tack that clean air is far better than dirty air," said Lee Fairbanks, who spearheaded the campaign to restrict smoking. "It's healthy, it's better than sitting in a cloud of cancerous smoke."

Since Tempe voters approved the most stringent smoking ban in the area, police have responded to 38 complaints of smokers in bars and restaurants but issued no citations.

[Don Myers]

"Yet on the other hand you think smoking should remain legal? Your own reasoning argues against your position here. If it's dangerous enough to regulate its use on private property, why should it remain legal? Why would you oppose those who want to ban it?"

This conversation is getting a little weird. Who said that I would oppose anything? I just don't care.

[Don Myers]

Yes, we have some people who don't want the smoke in their lungs. That is true.

[Don Myers]

"I really don't think you want to be part of the solution, so as my grandfather used to say, "You're part of the problem.""

Tell us your solution.

[FreeTally]

That is the scariest statement I have read on these boards.

Yes, even many of the other statists on FR imply and state that they "work within the law", but Don is the first I have seen state "That's why we take it".

[FreeTally]

Tell us your solution.

Mind you own damn business and stay off of the property of those who have policies you do not like. Its pretty simple - worked for years.

[Just another Joe]

Let the free market prevail.
If there are enough people that want a business to be non-smoking and feel strongly enough to express their views to the proprieter/owner, the business WILL go non-smoking.
The government should have NO SAY in it.

[metesky]

That is true as long as they do it amongst themselves.

Don! What a shock! You're agreeing with my position.

You agree with major premis pro-choice people have been advocating:

You have just agreed that we have the right of free association. This is progress.

Then why do you ignore the business owner's rights?

[Gabz]

You, of course, will provide me with the article or amendment that provides for cigarette smoking as a constitutional right.

You, of course, will provide the article or amendment that provdes for not being subjected to cigarette smoke as a constitutional right.

And while you're at it. I'm sure you will be willing to provide the article or amendment that provides for your right to cause harm to the income of a private business owner.

thanks.

[Snuffington]

Who said that I would oppose anything? I just don't care.

You don't care?

This is an important consideration because traditionally cigarrette smoke has been considered a nuisance, and handled under nuisance law. But you and others now contend it is more than a nuisance. You contend it is a health hazard.

Health hazards are measured by different standards than nuisances. We generally make things illegal when their use harms innocent bystanders, unless they can demonstrate some great value that outweighs their harm.

When it comes to smoking in restaurants, you want to treat them as health hazards. But outside of that, you don't care? That's some very shallow thinking on the issue you seem to care so much about.

[KentuckyWoman]

Yes, we have some people who don't want the smoke in their lungs. That is true.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth or attempting to twist what I did say. When they effectively banned all smoking in GOVERNMENT owned buildings, I said FINE! because some people are more or less forced to go into these building to conduct business with a government that they support through taxation. When ANYONE starts trying to force private property owners of businesses we VOLUNTARILY visit to kow-tow to their wishes through legislation is when I have a problem. None of us has a right to coerce owners of private property to behave in a manner that WE deem fit and this includes everything from the height of their grass (if it bothers me so much, I can always ask their permission to mow it) to whether they allow folks to partake of a perfectly legal substance.

[ozone1]

My turn, did you note where that study came from?

A group that is dependent on government grants and contracts. If you give the wrong answer, we cut your funding. The house has passed a bill requiring sound science be used for EPA regulatiions, this is not sound science, it is called junk science.

Did you notice they selected which studies they wanted to include and ignored studies that showed no effect. I can show you large scale studies that show that second hand smoke may actually "immunize" you against lung cancer.

The source you quote is not from an objective group. More bs. Believe them and I'll let you taste some of this wonderful almond smelling kool aid I made.

Some people do not like the smell of smoke, but that is a preference not a threat to your health.

[Gabz]

I say (yet again), what would be wrong with having smoking AND non-smoking establishments with the sole decisions being left with the property OWNERS?

Your valid point is totally missed by the Don Myers of this world.

I just wonder why people who are so against private property rights and personal responsibility are posting on Free Republic.

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

"...what would be wrong with having smoking AND non-smoking establishments...

Cool - But that may need to be tempered with something else. Having 'Smoking' and 'Non-Smoking' areas smacks of the "Seperate but Equal" practice that was in use just a few years ago.

I've yet to see any hard (Read: conclusive) Evidence that, so-called, "Second-Hand-Smoke" is as deadly as claimed. Yes, I've seen all of the TV commercials and read most of what's available. But, all of that is biased...err...based on one-sided material.

Me? - No, I do not smoke but I grew up in a home that held smokers and, as you well know, I am married to one.

[Snuffington]

Having 'Smoking' and 'Non-Smoking' areas smacks of the "Seperate but Equal" practice that was in use just a few years ago.

No it doesn't. A smoker may enter any non-smoking establishment simply by not smoking for the moment. Any non-smoker may enter a smoking establishment any time simply by being willing to tolerate smoke.

Also, there is nothing mandating equality in smoking an non-smoking establishments. They may be as nice or as shoddy as the property owner might desire. Since no one would be forced into one or the other, there is no need to try to keep them identical.

That's quite different than the "seperate but equal" practice previously applied to skin color.

[Gabz]

What is amazing to me is that smokers consistently refuse to recognize "rights" of non-smokers while adamently and vehemently voicing their support of their own "rights." We seem to think only of ourselves in this country. We are really in trouble here.

What is TRULY amazing to me is anti-smokers such as yourself are posting on FreeRepublic.com. You insist on denying the rights of PRIVATE business owners to choose the clientele to which they choose to cater. These private businesses may be open to the public but in most cases they are limitted to whom they admit and have much disrection as to who they admit.

I just left an establishment - the owner of which nearly fell down from laughing at what you said about this issue. And when she found out you were posting this to a conservative website, she actually bought me a beer. and she's a DEMOCRAT.

There is not one member of the contingent here smoker or non that has EVER expressed smoking should be allowed anywhere, everywhever or at all times.

You are one of those people that truly needs to get his facts straight.

[Protagoras]

Many people are increasingly telling smokers where they can't smoke.

I wish you had the balls to come onto my private property and tell me who could and couldn't smoke.

I'll be happy to make your dental appointment for you.

[Protagoras]

Some people do not like the smell of smoke,

I hate the smell of tyranny and cowardice.

[Great Dane]

Well, I do too. Business establishments look at the profit line and go where profits are greatest.

And thats the way it should be, but if non-smoking was that good for business, said businesses would have gone 100% smokefree years ago without having the government mandate it, as for the businesses that have gone smokefree, it just proves there is room for both, but you can't tolerate that.... can you. ?

[Great Dane]

Great Dane, go and gnaw on that bone. You are late to this conversation.

What's the matter dear, can't handle people not agreeing with you........ well, you have better get used to it. :-}

[Gabz]

Smokers say that smoking is a constitutional right, therefore, it is not out-of-line to ask just where the constitution lists smoking as a right.

I've yet to meet a smoker who has made any such comment.

As a smoker I do claim it is the choice of the PRIVATE property owner to determine his/her clientele.

I don't enter establishments that have raw shrimp in close proximity to the clientele. I can't handle it. I love shrimp and it is consumed on a regular basis in this household. But, I have to leave when my husband is cleaning it. I guess I'm entitled to push for a state law forbidding the presence of raw shrimp in any "public" place.

Good gravy