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.

[Just another Joe]

I told you, I would not vote for these bans even though I'm gratefull they are taking place.

He wouldn't vote for it but he wouldn't vote against it either.

[VRWC_minion]

So, which founding father wrote the constitution of the State of Michigan? How about keeping it relevant to the thread and giving me the name of the founding father that wrote the constitution for the State of Ohio.

You smokers are so detached from reality its amazing. You challenge me that property rights are not under the soveriegn authority of the state. I explain to you that, that isn't how the gov't was formed and I find a SC case that dates back to 1877 that explains in perfect wording what the natuire of the states power over property is and the only response to that is "Nah, nah, you can't prove it for my state or you still haven't shown it to be uttered from the mouth of a founding father".

This apparently makes the reality of the SC ruling unreal for you folks.Even if its the final law of this land. The ability of smokers to ignore reality and not face facts is astounding to me.

[VRWC_minion]

Unless we know the owner personally, why should we patronize a business that doesn't cater to our wants?

You want support to stop bans on smoking for owners that no one knows personally yet none of you would support a legal fund for an owner to get remibursed by the state that bans smoking. You smokers think thats consistant. The only consistant thing about it is the selfish smoker only wants to help the owners rights if it allows him to smoke, otherwise they cannot give a crap about his rights.

[VRWC_minion]

So there is no such thing as a just war fought for idealistic purposes?

Of course, but its still about who is going to have soverignty.

[VRWC_minion]

He wouldn't vote for it but he wouldn't vote against it either.

Now, now.

[Mears]

If the ability of smokers not to face facts is astounding to you why have you spent a good portion of the day trying to explain those facts to us?

I would think,with your superior intellect,you would have had much better things to do with your time.

See ya!!!!

[Just another Joe]

The only consistant thing about it is the selfish smoker only wants to help the owners rights if it allows him to smoke, otherwise they cannot give a crap about his rights.

The only consistent thing is that we want the OWNER to be able to decide. This is in line with other LEGAL commodities that do not cause harm, on a second hand basis, to a vast majority of people.

I personally don't give a damn if an owner of a bar in New York City wants to make his business nonsmoking.
When he is NOT ALLOWED, BY THE GOVT, to ALLOW smoking in his business because of junk science, scare tactics, and annoyed nanny state apologists like yourself, THAT is when I think I should need to get involved.
NOT by patronizing their business but by expressing my personal opinion to the politicians and doing my best to see the ones defeated that side with a nanny state govt.

[Just another Joe]

He wouldn't vote for it but he wouldn't vote against it either.

Now, now.

Don'tcha just HATE it when I'm right?

[VRWC_minion]

I would think,with your superior intellect,you would have had much better things to do with your time.

I needed a diversion.

[VRWC_minion]

I would vote no, but I would have to use my left hand to force my right hand to flip the no lever.

[Just another Joe]

I would vote no, but I would have to use my left hand to force my right hand to flip the no lever.

I hate to say it but I just don't trust you enough to believe you.

IMO, you'd be flipping that "BAN 'EM ALL" lever so fast it would probably bend the aluminum.

[VRWC_minion]

IMO, you'd be flipping that "BAN 'EM ALL" lever so fast it would probably bend the aluminum.

If I could kep my emotions in check I would be okay. If I had a drink or two, then the yes lever would be toast.

[Macknight]

I'm a biologist who does medical research. It's not just tobacco smoking in public that should be banned, it's all tobacco smoking. The dangers you read about have all been understated. The truth is that the dangers to the smoker and those around him are worse than you've heard.

Don't even call me a socialist or a Nazi. This is purely a health issue. Don't try and make it a political issue.

Every honest medical researcher knows that tobacco smoke is medically harmful whether it be primary smoke or ETS. There is no doubt about this.

If you have links that say otherwise they are Big Tobacco's propaganda links. The real medical community knows how damaging tobacco smoke is.

The warnings on cigarette packs are all very understated.

[Grit]

If you have links that say otherwise they are Big Tobacco's propaganda links. The real medical community knows how damaging tobacco smoke is.

Does that mean you will not consider links because they are obviously Big Tobacco's propaganda. I don't want to waste my time.

[Bogey]

sorry what what I do in my own home is my business, and not the goverments

Exposing your children to poisons becomes the business of all of us.

---

Hmmmmm. You think government should intervene in exposure
to SHS," for the children".
Are you referring to the government that makes 70 cents on the dollar selling these "poisons"?
The same government that is balancing the budgets off the
sales of these toxins.
Let's see.. the government is going to take away people's kids for using a legal product inside the privacy of ones home.
Strange. Particularly when OSHA, couldn't link SHS exposure
to illness or disease. Their agency.
You have no clue how dangerous what your suggesting would be to the government. Their liability and accountability would go to the forefront.
They will NEVER allow that.
The fact that you actually believe that you and a handful of others are going to neuter the governments cash cow
is nothing short of hysterical.
The money for your services is paid for by smokers.
You don't contribute to the system as we do.
You will go away first. Believe it.

[qam1]

I'm a biologist who does medical research. It's not just tobacco smoking in public that should be banned, it's all tobacco smoking use of. The dangers you read about have all been understated. The truth is that the dangers to the smoker user/participant and those around him are worse than you've heard.

Don't even call me a socialist or a Nazi. This is purely a health issue. Don't try and make it a political issue.

Every honest medical researcher knows that tobacco smoke is medically harmful whether it be to the primary smoke  user or SHS others exposed to the behavior. There is no doubt about this.

If you have links that say otherwise they are Big Tobacco's Freedom loving people's propaganda links. The real medical community knows how damaging tobacco smoke  is.

The warnings on cigarette packs about are all very understated.

[SheLion]

That is really cool. I like the way you did this!!!

[SheLion]

The fact that you actually believe that you and a handful of others are going to neuter the governments cash cow is nothing short of hysterical.

Exactly!

[SheLion]

If you have links that say otherwise they are Big Tobacco's propaganda links. The real medical community knows how damaging tobacco smoke is.

[Looking4Truth]

My bad.