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.

[kcvl]

Yes, twelve long years at a job where I was the low person on the totem pole. I could either inhale it or quit. Since I enjoyed taking home a paycheck I was forced to inhale someone's smoke.

[kcvl]

You are forced to pick up the expenses of smokers everyday in insurance payments and healthcare costs.

[Phantom Lord]

As if it weren't bad enough for the customers, the poor servers have to endure it for hours on end.

They do not have to endure it. They are free to work in a different profession if they like. Also, the smoking section is often fought over by servers as it is the smoking section that provides the biggest tips.

[Just another Joe]

You are forced to pick up the expenses of smokers everyday in insurance payments and healthcare costs.

BS, show the costs. I can show you, state by state, what smokers pay in and it's a lot more than they get paid out.

[AmishDude]

It's also called "market niche". If it works for them, I applaud them for it.

[70times7]

But it is hypocritical for me to complain about the cigarette across the restaurant while I am staring at the smoking skillet of fajitas in front of me. Smoke is smoke.

Come on, Pappy. No doubt that many non-smokers are whiney obnoxious crybabies. My guess is that the percentage of them for non-smokers is about the same as the "screw you I'll smoke where ever I damn well please" crowd for the smokers. But please just stop now instead of joining those who will go to any silly lengths in an attempt to uphold a weak point.

I don't have a problem with a restaurant banning smoking but I don't want the government involved.

This is the key issue. The government has NO BUSINESS sticking their noses into private establishments and telling them to ban smokers. I hate cigarette smoke, and it may or may not be dangerous to me "second hand". But that is nothing compaired to the very real danger of a government out of control.

[Phantom Lord]

You were not forced. You were there by your own free will. You were free to get employment elsewhere. Forced has a meaning, and your situtation does not fit it.

[JamesA]

Smoking was out in Florida...All the smokers panicked, whined and cried. It is so nice now going into a eatery not having to gag on someone's smoke.

[Phantom Lord]

You are forced to pick up the expenses of smokers everyday in insurance payments and healthcare costs.

It has been shown repeatedly that smokers at not a drain on these as their premiums are higher, they die earlier, and they do not live long enough to collect SS and other payments and entitlements.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I know. I don't think non-smokers should engage in any cost-shifting, particularly in the area of medical care.

[kcvl]

So I was suppose to give up my job because another employee decides that I must inhale her smoke or leave that job? That really makes a lot of sense especially to selfish smokers who think they have more rights than the rest of us. That doesn't surprise me one little bit.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Smokers should have to buy into their own insurance pools. I would add that practicing homosexuals shoud have to do the same. People who engage in more risky behavior should cause those who engage in less risky behavior to cover the costs associated with their behavior.

[Phantom Lord]

You had several options. Get a job elsewhere. Ask to be moved to a different desk. Ask the boss to stop her from smoking at her desk. Talk to her about her smoking and get her to smoke elsewhere.

Again, words have meanings. FORCED has a specific meaning. Your situation didn't fit the definition.

[MissTargets]

However, smokers should not force the non-smoking population to pick up the costs associate with your habit. Shifting the cost of one's habit to others that do not engage in your habit should never be allowed.

What cost? Health care? I am sure there are millions of non-smokers, that we pay for their health care. Cigarettes are taxed enough. Just another Joe or else gabz has a chart showing how much each state makes off of cigarettes. You really would not want us all to quit now would you?

[nevergore]

"You prove that it doesn't. I don't need a study to tell me that smoking is killing people. I WORK WITH IT EVERYDAY!"

First, it was your contention that second hand smoke is dangerous...You need to back up YOUR statements....

Second, your now mixing the proverbial "apples and oranges' to buttress your previous assertion.

No-one would disagree that smoking is good for your health, but that wasn't the issue, WAS IT? The issue was second hand smoke....No sleight of hand tactics here to change the subject, try to stay on topic.

Now support your statement....or let others on this forum judge your assertions as "ridiculous"....

NeverGore :^)

[Just another Joe]

Smokers should have to buy into their own insurance pools.

Smokers DO buy into their own insurance pools by paying higher premiums and higher taxes than, just about, any other portion of the American public.

[kcvl]

As I said before she was there a LONG time before me. I needed my job so quiting was not an option and she sure as *ell wasn't going to stop smoking. Since she was having an affair with the boss he wasn't going to say anything to her either. I understand that smokers have more rights than the none smokers (or at least, that's the impression that I am getting).

[kcvl]

Like I said, you are welcome to burn your lungs to a crisp all you want. Just leave mine alone. Yes, smoking causes many people to have health problems, starting with allergies and breathing difficulties. You can deny it all you want but it's a fact. I don't need a "study" to prove anything. You can find a study to back up just about anything one way or the other. Why would I waste my time trying to explain that to you?

[Phantom Lord]

I understand that smokers have more rights than the none smokers (or at least, that's the impression that I am getting).

No one here has made any such statement or assurtion. What people have said is that the owner of the property/business has the ultimate right of operating his establishment as he sees fit and that the government shouldn't use its power of force to tell the business owner how to operate.

[Gabz]

That is what you FR-smoking types wanted isn't it?

Yes it is and I don't see any pissing and moaning here except from the anti-smoker gnatzies like you.