Florida: Complaints over restaurants not complying with smoking ban

I'm not arguing the affect of first hand smoke, I would like to see the statistics that say it's 25%.

I'm not sure that 25% figure passes the smell test. That would mean that the average 20 year old smoker would only live to be about 65 instead of 80. I haven't seen a figure that says there is such a drastic difference.

I did run across this study, which is an interesting read: Click Here

But you see nothing strange about the American Cancer Society citing numbers the other way

Context. The article is attempting to explain why smoker policies cost more. The issue is the insurance companies see it that way. I could link you to numerous undeciferable actuarial discussions on loading and reserves but the short message is that the smokers die earlier. Maybe its because of cigs or maybe people who smoke just die earlier. Either way the cost for insurance is real. I think 25% more is a minimum in pricing that a company would charge.

There's also this thing called the Declaration of Independence which outlines how the "rule of law" can be used as an excuse for all sorts of government abuses.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This is kinda the central principle around which all our laws are founded. No doubt, the things that you advocate can be defended as being within the "rule of law". I never advocated breaking that law, either, if you read my posts. I simply said that it should not BE a law to begin with, because it is not something that the government has any business meddling with.

It would be different if the effects of smoking weren't widely known and if the restaurant owner tried to prevent customers from knowing what kind of environment they were entering. But, neither of these are the case.

"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."

I agree. The problem is, you seem to think that the owner paying the government to use his own property justifies any interference that they see fit to impose upon the restaurant owner.

"Whether you like it or not, the government, in effect, controls all private property through this mechanism."

Agreed. My answer is "not".

"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."

You have a good grasp of what the law is, but speak little to whether or not it is right or wrong. Blindly following along with whatever law comes down the pike seems, historically, to have been a good way to legitimize the persecution of people.

"These regulations have undergone change from time to time. This is simply another change."

No, it's not simply another change. It's another usurpation of power; the transfer of rights from an already persecuted citizenry to an already bloated and corrupt centralized government. All so you can dine out.

"If the business owner doesn't like it, he should move his or her business to another state that continues to allow smoking."

So, instead of a restaurant patron finding another establishment, you would instead have the restaurant owner, at great expense, move his business to another area? Why does your right to enjoy a restaurant for 30 minutes once or twice a week deserve more protection than the business owner who's hard work has not only fed his family, but also created jobs for people in the area and contributed to the economy? Is your smoke-free meal more important than the wages of a business owner with a kid in college or a waitress struggling to make ends meet, so much so that you would suggest they move to another state if they want the freedoms that were supposedly guaranteed to us as Americans?

And, did you ever hear of "take-out"?

The smokers here are stunningly ignorant, and also very mean.

Everyone in the medical and biological world knows that tobacco smoke is a toxic carcinogen. EVERYONE. Even the ones that Big Tobacco pays off will admit how harmful tobacco smoke is privately.

Yep. It's bad stuff. Already been said a hundred times. No argument here. Moving on...

...is it right that the government tells a business owner that he cannot allow his customers to use a legally purchased product inside a business he built and paid for with his own labor, time, and money?

Is it right that one's property rights are violated to some fictional "right to dine out"?

Do you have the right to choose establishments that are already smoke free, by the choice of the owner? If demand rises, don't you think there would be more smoke free restaurants?

Why would you patronize an establishment that, without a law being made, would, according to you, try to kill you?

And, what about peanuts? Some are allergic to them, and can actually die in a short period of time if exposed to them; should we outlaw them in restaurants too? (I've never heard of anyone getting cancer and dying in the space of a few minutes).

Ever hear of take out or drive thru? How about frequenting smoke free establishments and encouraging others to do the same? Couldn't you petition restaurants to ask them to become smoke free? Could this be perhaps a better solution than you wanting to use government to bend all restaurants in an entire state to your whim?

In other words, who is forcing you to go to these places? Why can't supply and demand take care of this, without getting government involved to trample our rights? Don't you realize that every time government is given more power, the bar is raised and a precedent is set? All so you can sit down once a week for a lousy hamburger?

You're really willing to sell out your rights and the rights of others for this?

The public health laws exist to - guess what - protect the public health. There is no "property right" issue on public health. Owning a restaurant does not give anyone the "right" to inflict harm on their customers or to allow them to be harmed. (That ficticious "right" sounds very Democratic to me. We Republicans are all supposed to know that any inherent rights we claim reach an end when they harm others, as tobacco smoke definitely does.)

Protecting the public health includes protecting the public from health hazards. Cigarette smoke is a certfied health hazard. Restaurants are already subject to public health laws. The logic here is simple, and legal. Don't go claiming any fictious "right" here to damage the health of others; there isn't one.

As a biologist, knowing how damaging tobacco is to humans and animals, I would outlaw it totally tomorrow morning if I had the power to do so. Marijuana is illegal - and it should be - but tobacco is a drug that is both more addictive and more damaging to the user and others than marijuana is, so it should be illegal as well.

And it certainly should never be allowed in public places where its use always damages others. Tobacco smoking is simply totally wrong for so many reasons (addictive, carcinogenic, toxic, etc.), and in public it's a public health hazard.

Don't smoke in public. Don't let others smoke in public. It harms other people.

And save your own life: quit smoking now, for your own good.

Simply stated, the human body isn't at its optimal condition when addicted to the nicotine in smoke, and calling people who expect us nicotine addicts to take our unpleasant addiction out of their faces Nazis is wrong.

Chancellor, the addiction is in your mind. It's actually quite easy to quit smoking. All you have to do is really want to.

I was taking an instrumentation course in college and we were getting a lecture on the devices used to measure gas concentrations. At that time the bridges going across Lake Washington had toll booths. I remarked to the instructor that the toll takers must subjected to a lot of carbon monoxide from the automobile exhaust.

He said "Yup, they had the second highest level of carbon monoxide in their blood that we ever measured."

Me (puffing on a cigarette) "Who was first?"

"Smokers."

I stopped smoking that day, didn't smoke for six months, and had no "addiction" symptoms. Of course I eventually started again - but I smoke because I like it, not because I'm "addicted".

Get sufficiently motivated and you'll find the vaunted "addiction" is a myth.

I totally agree. My parents, grandparents, aunts & uncles all smoked like they were being paid for it. I was around it for 53 years (still am) and I have no health problems caused by second hand smoke. Let businesses decide. When we go into a restaurant anywhere they do have smoking/non-smoking sections I tell them I'll sit at the first available table - smoking or non.

BTW, I, too have never smoked (well, not counting the few puffs I had when I was drunk one time a LONG time ago)

"Owning a restaurant does not give anyone the "right" to inflict harm on their customers or to allow them to be harmed."

No one said it did. Very simply put, if you think you will be harmed, then it is YOUR responsibility to avoid these places, and to instead patronize places that are more friendly to your desires. The only way a restaurant owner would have the "right" to harm you (and heaven knows why he would) is if you had no choice but to go there and they locked the doors behind you when you entered, which is clearly not the case. Complaining about smokers in a smoking restaurant is akin to sitting on a dungheap and and complaining about the smell. You have the right to go to another establishment, you have the right to go to a store (most of which are smoke free) and buy and cook your own food, and you have the right to hit the drive through or carry out from restaurants that allow smoking. Conversely, there is no "right" to eat out. However, the Constitution does say something about taking private property without just compensation...which is exactly what is being done incrementally to property owners all over the United States in the name of such "noble" causes as public health, urban development, environmentalism, etc. It might seem like nothing to you, but that's just one more purpose for which the property owner can no longer use his own property.

"That ficticious "right" sounds very Democratic to me"

That's why I didn't say it. I never said I had the right to harm anyone. It's just a question of who you want to be responsible for your own safety...you, or the government. I said that a property owner has the right to run his establishment the way he wants and for his own purpose, so long as it is made clear to all what's going on inside if it should be open to the public. They then have the freedom to choose not to go there if they believe it will be harmful to themselves. But, instead of acting like adults and making choices, some want to be able to walk around blindly with the full protection of the Nanny government. This, to them, is a lot easier than thinking. So, they ask the government to swoop in and save them from people exercising their rights so they can continue to lead a responsibility-free life.

"Protecting the public health includes protecting the public from health hazards."

And, it is truly amazing, once the foot is in the door, so to speak, what can be construed as a "public health hazard". Ridiculous.

"Cigarette smoke is a certfied health hazard. Restaurants are already subject to public health laws. The logic here is simple, and legal. Don't go claiming any fictious "right" here to damage the health of others; there isn't one."

You're right. If you leave, I cannot damage your health, and you have exercised your rights to preserve your safety. Bravo, very simple, and no government involvement. But there definitely is a right to property, and government's disregard of it, nor your hatred of it make it any less so. I fail to understand why people who say that they are conservatives lobby the government to take away their freedoms, just so they can eat out. That's a good reason to disregard the intentions of the Constitution, right?

"As a biologist, knowing how damaging tobacco is to humans and animals, I would outlaw it totally tomorrow morning if I had the power to do so. "

Oh, yeah, well you know best. Far be it from us to suggest that we may do with our bodies what we wish. Statements like this amuse me. We get it already. Smoking is bad. You shouldn't do it. People are still gonna, so let's move on! I know it is hard for you to accept that some people take risks for enjoyment, and at times, I wonder if that's really what this is all about, since I am not suggesting anything close to what you are saying (i.e., that I have a "right" to kill you...you can always leave). You know, having had an alcoholic uncle, and a grandfather who died of a heart attack, I could say the same thing about drinking and high cholesterol foods. But, you see, it isn't my right to tell you what to do, just like it isn't your right to tell those business owners what to do. Mind your own business. If you don't like it, don't go in. Why is that so hard for you? Could it be that your agenda is really NOT about people's health, but about control?

"Don't smoke in public. Don't let others smoke in public. It harms other people."

Let freedom, supply and demand, and the free market dictate which restaurants will be smoke-free and leave everyone else alone. I know this is hard for you to accept, but some people wish to live their lives without the benefit of your wisdom.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016017/posts