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.

[SheLion]

So you'd be willing to go into a restaurant not knowing whether the owner bothered to refrigerate the meat the night before.

Food preparation is under the FDA Regulations. Tobacco, still today, is not.

[Gabz]

Superb graphics.

I have some errands to run - will return later.

[RightFighter]

Should the government be allowed to tell bars or restaurants they can't serve foods with too much cholesterol? How about alcohol?

The point isn't what's healthy or not, the point is government trying to enforce "healthy" behavior.

Sorry, this wasn't government trying to enforce any kind of behavior. This was a constitutional amendment, that was SOUNDLY passed by the people of Florida. I voted for it, and I'm proud of that vote. I am the most anti-cigarette-lawsuit person you will ever find, because I feel that smokers should not be able to sue the tobacco companies for selling a legal product. However, when someone's putrid cigarette smoke enters my nostrils, that's when their rights end. I'm afraid this is just an issue where the majority rules. Following the whole "business-owners-should-be-able-to-decide" line of reasoning, I'll just say, business owners who don't like this rule should relocate their businesses to a smoker-friendly state.

[SheLion]

The free people of Florida went to the voting booth and voted for this as a constitutional restriction if memory serves me right. Do you have a problem with voting booths and free people?

Ok, one gal in Florida ask this:

The one thing we are trying to research right now is WHY on the original petition signed to get this ban on the ballot was there a 35% section allowance for smoking in restaurants, yet, this never made it into law. It seems with this percentage for restaurant smokers, the voters deemed this "fair". How did we vote for one thing, yet Legislation changed it after the fact. They are the ones that made this "unfair" to smoking patrons. They are the ones we need answers from.

[toddst]

Per the RP McMurphy's restaurant, I would like to see a fund set up where those of us who believe in business and customer rights (smoke or no-smoke by choice) could contribute to a legal defense fund. The owners and patrons of RP McMurphy's have made it clear they don't intend to comply with state law and have posted a sign at the door so patrons know in advance they are entering a "smoking zone." Any thoughts on this?

[VRWC_minion]

but have their been ACTUAL CASES of waitstaff who have DIED from "second hand smoke?"

So, waitstaff are second class citizens and should be happy to work in a smoking environment, possibly risk their health, just so you can smoke after your meal ? Why should your waiter be forced to breath your smoke while your insurance agent is able to breath clear air ? Aren't waitstaff as important ?

[RightFighter]

If someone doesn't like the smell of smoke, they sit in the non-smoking section.

Sorry, this doesn't work. Nearly every restaurant I've ever been to that had smoking and non-smoking sections did an awful job of separating the two. Simply put, when the rights of one group (smokers) and the rights of another group (those who don't) conflict with each other, someone has to win. In this case, the CLEAR majority decided that they no longer wanted to allow smoking in restaurants. It's that simple. Frame it as an employee-health issue if you want, and that's the way the amendment was written, but what it's really all about is - you don't have a right to blow smoke in my face, whether you're sitting next to me or on the other side of the restaurant where it can waft its way over to my table.

[SheLion]

I have some errands to run - will return later.

I wondered what happened to YOU, too, Gabz!!! Ok, cya soon.....

[VRWC_minion]

Why do you care how other people live their lives

I happen to care about the poor person that is serving your drinks and meals. I guess you don't.

[SheLion]

Aren't waitstaff as important ?

For countless years, the waitstaff took jobs knowing full well there would be smoking. If they couldn't be around smokers, they took jobs elsewhere. Why should the world rotate on one groups butt?!

[RightFighter]

Why should the world rotate on one groups butt?!

Come on - we all know the world rotates on J Lo's butt.

[RightFighter]

I have to go to lunch now at one of our fine smoke-free establishments here in Daytona Beach. Thank God for this amendment. I can enjoy my meal now.

[SheLion]

Excuse me. With today's technology and the huge smoke eaters, your outdated. Sure, if you hang out at Sully's Bar and Grill on the back street you might not find much more then an open window.

In today's high class restaurants and bars, the owners have installed huge expensive smoke eaters to make life comfortable to everyone. Take your casinos. The same. Big smoke eaters. No one is put out anymore by the "smell of smoke." Unless just SEEING someone smoke sets you off. There IS a difference.

[CSM]

"I am supporting basic health regulations for the common good, and you are opposing them. There is no "confiscation" involved."

In any instance where a government imposed regulation (law) infringes upon a private property owners ability to use that property as they intend to use it is confiscation. Many restaurant and bar owners invested in expensive equipment to filter the air and make it more comfortable for their patrons. By passing a law restricting them from serving smokers, and realising a profit from those customers, the government has confiscated that use of the property. Any confiscation of a use of property is, in effect, confiscation of that property.

"That stance - supoorting public health - is the basis for such things as the health codes that restaurants currently operate under. Is forbidding restaurants to serve rotten meat "socialistic'? Of course not, and banning smoking in restaurants isn't either."

Yes, these health regulations are socialistic. If a restaurant wants to serve rotten meat to customers who want to eat rotten meat, then they should be free to do it. Any restaurant owner that wants to continue to attract customers will make sure that they serve a quality product. If they don't the customers will not arrive. The market should drive these things, not the government.

You support the government driving the market. Socialism at its worst!

[SheLion]

Come on - we all know the world rotates on J Lo's butt.

Lord! Her butt doesn't do ANYTHING for ME! Too much junk in the trunk. LOL Big Butt. hehe!

[SheLion]

You support the government driving the market. Socialism at its worst!

Well said. I have to bookmark this for "future reference."

[SheLion]

I have to go to lunch now at one of our fine smoke-free establishments here in Daytona Beach. Thank God for this amendment. I can enjoy my meal now.

Gosh! Please don't choke on your self-righteous pompous attitude there, buddy.

[cmak9]

and calling people who expect us nicotine addicts to take our unpleasant addiction out of their faces Nazis is wrong.

Ah, if only they would stop there. They are not after that. They are after control, and that's all it's about. They are control freaks. They will soon prohibit smoking in cars, followed by your own house. Then you will see them for what they are.

[VRWC_minion]

For countless years, the waitstaff took jobs knowing full well there would be smoking. If they couldn't be around smokers, they took jobs elsewhere. Why should the world rotate on one groups butt?!

Yes, and we stopped forcing people to work in smoke filled environments for all but restaurants and bars. Its about time these workers get the same protections the rest of the workers get ?

Why should someone who is trained and makes their profession serving food and drinks be forced to accept cigarette smoke when others in virtually every other vocation can work smoke free ?

Why ? because smokers are basicallt selfish and rude.

[Looking4Truth]

"It isn't a Nazi problem."

Actually it's a private property issue. I don't even want to get in to liquor laws from state to state, but if I own a business and allow smoking it is MY business and not the STATE'S. Let the free market determine if I stay in business or not. That's the real issue IMHO.