Applebee's will ban smoking

Tribune Chronicle ^ | 05/11/04 | Staff, wire reports

[MissTargets]

LEXINGTON, Ky. - Applebee's restaurants in Niles and Boardman will be among those in Ohio that will go nonsmoking after a decision by Thomas and King, the nation's 11th-largest restaurant operator, the company announced Monday.

The policy at the Niles restaurant will take effect Monday and be implemented at all stores by month's end, the company said. Robert Holmes, 83, of Warren said he'd like to see other restaurants follow Applebee's lead in the no-smoking policy.

''Second-hand smoke is known to be bad for people,'' Holmes said Monday at the Eastwood Mall. ''Smoking spoils my dinner.''

Holmes, a former tobacco user, said he has eaten at Applebee's in Niles several times.

Besides Ohio, the smoking ban also will take effect at the franchise company's Applebee's and Johnny Carino's restaurants in Kentucky, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Indiana locations, the company said. Franchises owned by other operators would not be affected.

Mike Scanlon, Thomas and King's chairman and chief executive officer and vice-mayor of Lexington, was a vocal supporter of the city's indoor smoking ban that went into effect April 27. Scanlon said the timing of the company's action was coincidental.

''I can see both sides of the issue,'' Scanlon said. ''However, as a businessman, I need to listen to my customers and do what I believe is right for my business.

''While this decision will inconvenience a small percentage of our customers, I am certain that our new policy will attract many new customers who are seeking a smoke-free dining experience,'' he added.

Some of Thomas and King's nearly 80 restaurants already are smoke-free, including those in cities with municipal smoking bans such as Lexington and Tucson, Ariz. Scanlon said three restaurants the company has opened in the last year - one each in Arizona, Ohio and Kentucky - are smoke-free by choice.

Six months ago, the company banned smoking for employees. Scanlon said two of the company's nearly 6,000 workers quit over the issue.

Applebee's, based in Overland Park, Kansas, operates about one-third of its locations with the rest run as franchises.

[Naspino]

Some people have fatal allergies to peanuts. Should peanuts and peanut products be banned from public places?

Yes -- I think the throwing and rubbing of peanuts over random strangers should be banned. Its easy to be a jerk when you don't have family with these types of allergies.

[Gabz]

Not on this thread, because this is about a business making a decision about their private property...........however.....

[metesky]

Madam Dufarge and I were at a biker bar late Sunday afternoon. At this time of year, with the great weather we've been having, the place used to be packed to the rafters.

Sunday there were seven of us. At one point all seven of us were outside smoking, including the bartender and the one non-smoker.

We couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of the situation.

[Just another Joe]

Naspino, I ask you a serious question?
Should smoking be outlawed, or banned in any way by the government, because your wife is allergic to tobacco smoke?

[Phantom Lord]

I didn't know it was legal to throw and rub peanuts over random strangers. Is it? Last I checked that would be called simple assault.

Just the presence of peanuts in the vacinity of food being prepared can cause serious reactions to those with allergies. Should the governments power for force be brought to bear on businesses and ban the use of and presence of peanuts? Especially those bowls of free peanutes that some bars put out!

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

All the behaviors I mentioned are personal choices. No one should be coerced to bear the costs associated with the choices of another. To the extent that government or business does so, it is a form of theft.

That means that all government education and public health programs are confiscatory.

[Naspino]

Should smoking be outlawed, or banned in any way by the government, because your wife is allergic to tobacco smoke?

No -- I already said I'm not against cig. smoke. I'm against people that state that it doesn't harm others because they are fearful of losing their cigs. If a private business decides to ban it then there is obviously NOTHING wrong with that. Just move your patronage elsewhere like we've been doing for decades.

[Gabz]

funny you should mention homosexuals.............I have seen many of the anti-smoker gnatzie types who continually attempt to equate smokers with homosexuals.......while they continually fail in the attempt, they nevertheless continue trying.

You will be interested to know that one of the most vocal, powerful and highly paid anti-smoking crusaders is not only a homosexual but is a nationally known proponent of gay adoption. He is actually of the mindset that 2 gay men are a better family environment for children than a married heterosexual couple when one or the other of them are smokers.

[Just another Joe]

If a private business decides to ban it then there is obviously NOTHING wrong with that. Just move your patronage elsewhere like we've been doing for decades.

We are in agreement then.

[Naspino]

Its not hard to understand why. Socialists want workers and population control. Homosexuals provide population control and cigs damage worker efficiency. Better to be dead than inefficient.

[Just another Joe]

No one should be coerced to bear the costs associated with the choices of another.

Then why, in the face of smokers paying more, are you saying that smokers force a higher cost on nonsmokers? They don't. No matter what the insurance companies or the government says the facts say different.

[nevergore]

"I couldn't care less if credible studies proved that second hand smoke was good for you and full of nutritious vitamins and minerals. I still don't like to inhale the crap. "

Uugghh...then don't?

Though you might want to try more fiber in your diet.....just a suggestion....

NeverGore

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

You are losing it. I never advocated govt. action to restrict smoking in private establishments. I merely suggested that individuals bear the costs associated with their own choices. Therefore, your attempt at sliming me is off target.

But since you tried to confuse things, isn't it interesting that the trailer-park babe giving the thumbs up on the nekkid Iraqis had a cig in her mouth?

[Gabz]

If what you say is true, and I am in agreement with you, the last thing on earth any of the anti-smoker gnatzies should be doing is comparing smokers to homosexuals.

[Skooz]

I try my best to avoid it. Sometimes I can't. Sometimes a thoughtless smoker who believes his right to smoke trumps my right to breathe lights up in confined quarters and down my lungs it goes.

I never call on government to ban smoking, though.

[Naspino]

I didn't know it was legal to throw and rub peanuts over random strangers. Is it? Last I checked that would be called simple assault.

I would push for attempted murder as the case warrants. CSI did an episode where peanuts was used as a murder weapon. When you have someone in your family that can die from these allergies you might have a different take on the issue. I'm not for forced bans -- but I'm not going to argue with people that choose it for themselves. What would you say to a day care that won't let your child eat a peanut-butter sandwich for lunch because another child has an allergy? Screw the kid with the allergy?

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Just because someone pays more, it does not necessarily mean that they are not engaging in cost shifting. If I, as a non-smoker have to bear ANY of the cost of treating a smoker, that is immoral.

[Sloth]

And who would they be?

What, you want a list of names? I am talking about an attitude I've seen, on FR and elsewhere, that attacks anyone who merely expresses a desire to be in a smoke-free environment, or suggests that smoking is an unwise/unhealthy choice.

Most of the people I am aquinted with are not "pro-tobacco crusaders" but private property rights crusaders.

Good. I am on their side. Government should not be compelling such decision by private businesses, and this Applebee's exec sounds like a statist jackass due to his support for a municipal ban.

I personally do not demand active approval or endorsement of my lifestyle choices. I really don't care if most people approve of or endorse my choices. I can be swayed but mostly by family, friends, or personal experience, just like most other people.

Fine. Then you are not one of those I was talking about.

[Phantom Lord]

CSI did an episode where peanuts was used as a murder weapon.

CSI is fiction for one. And a daycare center that bans peanuts is perfectly fine with me. No problem. The question was however, should the force of government be used to ban said substance?

[Gabz]

I was not attempting to slime anyone...............you were included in the "To:" line out of courtesy since I was poking into a conversation between 2 other posters.

My abject apologies that you miscontrued my attempt at politeness.