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.

[CSM]

"Yes, of course there is no sense in unnecessary risks. When a job has inherent risks to it, why add unnecessary risks ? Cigarette smoke isn't necessary to the accomplishment of the job of serving drinks and meals."

Who decides what an unnecessary risk is? Shouldn't it be left up to the individual employee to decide that they can accept said risk for the potential monetary reward? Many jobs exist with both necessary and unnecessary risks. The individuals decide to either take these risks or find other employment. If a labor pool didn't exist for smoking bars and restaurants, then neither would these establishments.

Not only do you need a customer, but you also need the labor to serve the customer. Seems to me both sides of the equation were voluntary and both sides were getting along just fine.

[VRWC_minion]

They will soon prohibit smoking in cars, followed by your own house.

First it will be homes with children.Its abusive to smoke with children in the same room.

[Looking4Truth]

"Interesting idea. So you'd be willing to go into a restaurant not knowing whether the owner bothered to refrigerate the meat the night before, or whether he hired workers who had not been checked for communicable diseases that can be passed along by handling food, or whether he turned the heat up enough in his dishwasher to kill bacteria from the previous eater? Sometimes these things don't work right even with government involvement, but without it I can guarantee you eating out would be a major adventure."

This is an 'apples and oranges' comparasion.

[E Rocc]

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.

In other words, a law got passed so government could enforce the whim of the majority. How the law got passed is immaterial. I refer to a statement made by Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, that appears in my profile as well.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." The point that we are all making is that it should be none-of-the-business of people in general. The decision should be left up to the bar owner, the one who has staked his or her investment in the success or failure of that business. They will do what their patrons want. If business is better with a ban, there will be a ban. If not, there will not be. Perhaps they could be required to post a "smoking allowed in this establishment" sign to protect those with a legitimate health risk, and save the tender-nosed from offense. But that's it. The idea that some busybody who is offended by the smell of smoke should be allowed to make such rules for a business they would never deign to patronize is collectivist statism at its worst.

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.

What's next, a ban on flatulence? Onion breath? A law requiring everyone to bathe daily? Your use of the word "putrid" instead of "toxic" betrays your agenda. (Had you said "toxic" my counterpoint would be very different).

I'm afraid this is just an issue where the majority rules.

So if a majority wants a ban on all guns in a city, should they be allowed to do that? How about a ban on un-PC speech? The whole premise of our system of limited government is to remove topics and issues from control by the whims of the mobs and leave them up to those directly involved.

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.

Considering that the most used (abused) excuse for this law is "employee protection", perhaps those who work in bars that allow smoking but don't wish to be around smoke should find other employment. Certainly this would be a more appropriate solution than a bar owner being forced to abandon their investment because the people who bothered to vote thinks cigarette smoke smells "putrid". As it happens, I used to post on a bar employees forum and 95% of the posters strongly opposed these kinds of laws. Guess who gets to "enforce" them, the way most are written?

-Eric

[VRWC_minion]

Who decides what an unnecessary risk is? Shouldn't it be left up to the individual employee to decide that they can accept said risk for the potential monetary reward?

But states already gave these protections to employees in other jobs. Withholding these protections from waitstaff is discriminatory.

[CSM]

"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 ?"

You have made them a second class citizen by convincing the world that they have no ability to chose. They just sit back, braindead, and have no ability to chose where they work.

[Clemenza]

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE OF A WAITER WHO HAS DIED FROM SECOND HAND SMOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't like the environment, don't work there. NOBODY PUTS A GUN UP TO YOUR HEAD TO WORK AT A SMOKING RESTAURANT!!!

BTW: Aside from an occasional cigar that I enjoy at a tobacco shop, I don't smoke and I don't hang out with smokers as yes, I find it to be irritating. That has not turned me into a nanny-stater, however, and I will continue to defend the rights of people to have a CHOICE in terms of places to eat, drink and socialize.

[metesky]

Notice how some wimpy whiners love to give themselves tough guy screen names?

[CSM]

"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."

And you don't have the right to wear perfume or cologne. I hate that smelly crap. You don't have the right to order the shrimp, I hate that smell too.

[petercooper]

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

This is a ridiculous statement. Bartenders/waiters/waitresses CHOOSE their occupation. If they don't like it, they could try something else.

[VRWC_minion]

You have made them a second class citizen by convincing the world that they have no ability to chose

Smokers are the ones forcing these poor people to have to accept employment that makes them breath smoke in all day long. If they didn't insist on being rude and forcing others to breath their smoke, then these workers wouldn't need protections.

Here is a question. Why does the cashier at the grocery store get a smoke free environment while yuor waiter doesn't ? Why does the flight attendant get a smoke free environment while the bartender doesn't ?

[SheLion]

Why ? because smokers are basicallt selfish and rude.

I think of you as one of the most rude and selfish people in here. How about that? As long as your rights are protected and your little caccoon isn't violated, you feel you can just lord it over all the rest of us.

But one day soon, when something that you do that is legal is yanked from you, who will you turn? Surely, not to the rest of us who have already been there and put through it. Think about it minnie.

[VRWC_minion]

This is a ridiculous statement. Bartenders/waiters/waitresses CHOOSE their occupation. If they don't like it, they could try something else.

So now more people that were previously blocked from choosing this profession may now be free to choose it.

Why are you against letting nonsmokers choose to be waitstaff ?

[SheLion]

Notice how some wimpy whiners love to give themselves tough guy screen names?

Yes, come to think of it, your right, metesky!! Really gives me a vision NOW! LOL!

[VRWC_minion]

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE OF A WAITER WHO HAS DIED FROM SECOND HAND SMOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its not necessary for smoke to be deadly. Employees should not be forced to breath smoke, deadly or not.

[SheLion]

You don't have the right to order the shrimp, I hate that smell too.

Or raw bloody meat. YUK! And don't sit too close to ME if your drinking BEER, ole beer breath.

[Shryke]

Bull. 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.

I understand the point you are trying to make, however, there is an important difference between selling bad food, and allowing customers to engage in a legal act (smoking). The first constitutes criminal negligence or intent that will defintely sicken or kill people, without their prior knowledge. This is something we as American generally outlaw.

However, the second situation is different. The owner of that property has decided to allow/forbid smoking - as he should be able to given that this is his property, given that smoking is a legal act on private property, without exception. The customers, if they are concerned about such a rule, can get full knowledge of this before they enter and patronize the business. The decision of the customer to endure cigarette smoke or not is up to the customer, and the business owner will benefit or suffer based on that choice. This is capitalism at its finest.

You, however, feel that "public health" should extend past criminal acts into "annoying" acts. Despite your arguments concerning second-hand smoke being bad for you, etc., etc., ultimately any second hand smoke that you endure is simply an annoyance. The "damage" to your health is laughable - you inhale more toxins walking on a city street than from one or two hours in a restaurant. But, because you are annoyed, and in the majority (non-smokers), you have enacted legislation to hinder poperty-owner's rights under the guise of "public health". I find that not only socialistic, but dishonest as well. Don't worry though, the only people that will have to suffer from this legislation are business owners without porches. And who cares about them? Or their tax dollars?

[SheLion]

Bartenders/waiters/waitresses CHOOSE their occupation. If they don't like it, they could try something else.

Thank you! Minnie thinks that only one group of people should maintain their rights. HIS!

Ours? Forget it!

[CSM]

"But states already gave these protections to employees in other jobs. Withholding these protections from waitstaff is discriminatory."

So, by your reasoning: We already took some rights, so it is OK that we take more!

[VRWC_minion]

But one day soon, when something that you do that is legal is yanked from you, who will you turn?

You mean like how smokers yank the clear air from those around them without any concern ?