Posted on 06/19/2002 7:11:34 AM PDT by SheLion
Some Haverhill restaurant owners are complaining about a city ban on smoking.
NewsCenter 5's Kelley Tuthill said that they claim the smoking ban is driving customers away and they say they're ready to fight to get it overturned.
Restaurant owners said that they've lived with these new regulations for three months with devastating consequences. They plan to speak out Tuesday night at a meeting at City Hall.
In Haverhill, the bar banter has moved outside. Three months ago, the city banned smoking in most restaurants. The ashtrays may be gone, but so are the customers.
"I would say we lost 30 to 40 percent of our business right off top since March 1, and it happened that day," restaurant owner Mike Difeo said.
It was a similar story at Benny's farther north on Route 125.
"It's a struggle. I've lost $49,000 as of today, and I can see I lost my main base of customers because of non-smoking. I am losing help. My people are not making money. I went from 58 employees to 44 employees," restaurant owner Ben Brienza said.
Workers and some customers may be heading across the border to New Hampshire.
"I think it's a ridiculous law. Little by little, we are lawing ourselves right out of freedom," one customer said.
"A lot of people we don't see anymore. It's sad," another customer said.
Before the regulations, nonsmoking customer could dine in a separate section of the restaurant.
So is Haverhill fixing something that wasn't broken? Not according to a member of the board of health.
"You can't drive over 65 on the highway -- that is a health issue because of accidents, and there are many different rules in that regard," board of health member Dr. Carl Rosenbloom said. "I think (the government) has an obligation to protect certain aspects of public health that an individual cannot protect themselves."
The board of health does not expect to make any decision at Tuesday night's meeting. It will take public comment for at least a week. Then, board members will either keep the regulations as is, go to a citywide ban in all establishments or chose something in between.
That's been kind of a pet theory of mine for a while. Since the U.S. has fought totalitarianism for so long and from so many varied sources, we've tended to incorporate some of the more effective techniques, perhaps all of them, here at home. "We learn from the Best" so to speak.
The whole of Europe, Japan, Australia is pretty open about tobacco. Only in America are people currently on a tack very similar in nature to the hysteria that accompanied prohibition.
board of health member Dr. Carl Rosenbloom said. "I think (the government) has an obligation to protect certain aspects of public health that an individual cannot protect themselves."
Dr. Rosenbloom doesn't know the distinction between public property and private property. Whether it is ignorance or incompetence he has disqualified himself from being worthy of sitting on the board of health. Knowing that he is unqualified, the board of health should remove him from being a member. If the head of the board of health doesn't do that then it needs to be seriously considered removing the head of the board of health.
Frankly, all persons on the board of health do know the difference between public property and private property. That said, they are being intentional deceptive and more sternly, out-right dishonest when the claim a private property restaurant is public property and implement no-smoking laws on private property.
My house is open to the public but I let very few people into my private property. Most retail business are open to the public and let many more people into their property than I or the typical house-owner does.
Let the business owner decide. NOT the Boards of Health.
The Boards of Health didn't invest any money into the business, so how can they go in and tell the owner how to run it. Just doesn't sound quite legal to me....
The decrease in market value is a result of government interference with the market.
I thought it was OK for the market to dictate smoking policy ?
The market isn't dictating it, the government is.
So, the market forces are a good thing, unless you have to smell something you don't want to smell. If you think that at some time in the future, somewhere, you might have to sniff something poo-poo, then no financial suffering on the part of a fellow citizen is too big a price to pay to spare your delicate sensibilities.
You don't have to live these business owners' lives, pay their bills, or scramble to survive because you got blindsided by the tsunami of lawyers, otherwise unemployables who got no-heavy-lifting jobs working for "smoking cessation" Jihadi organizations, and their useful idiot delicate flowers who get the vapors when they venture out into public and decide the rest of the world has to conform to their narcissistic demands.
This used to be a country with balls, no more. The effete sissies, and their Machiavellian masters have put a tutu on Uncle Sam.
Just doesn't sound quite legal to me....
Judging what is legal or not should be based on objective law -- does it protect individual rights and private property rights or does it abuse them. Also, does the law uphold private contracts between consenting parties or abuse them.
As it stands now, much of what is legal is in fact legitimized crime under the color of law. There are people -- politicians and bureaucrats -- responsible for writing and implementing those criminal laws and they must be indicted for dong so.
Politicians and bureaucrats are parasitical elites because they gain unearned paychecks by destruction of individual rights and private property rights. In short, we are the hosts and they are the parasites.
You sound like you have it right, but what to do about it. We vote them in, then they turn on us. Not all of them, but quite a few lately.
Both are and I am a big cheerleader of smoke free environments. However existing restaurant owners should be compensated for the loss in value of their business.
So, the market forces are a good thing, unless you have to smell something you don't want to smell. If you think that at some time in the future, somewhere, you might have to sniff something poo-poo, then no financial suffering on the part of a fellow citizen is too big a price to pay to spare your delicate sensibilities.
Smelling cigarrette smoke while I eat is about as objectionable as smelling crap while I eat. Either way I would reward both the crap free business as well as the smoke free business.
You don't have to live these business owners' lives, pay their bills, or scramble to survive because you got blindsided by the tsunami of lawyers, otherwise unemployables who got no-heavy-lifting jobs working for "smoking cessation" Jihadi organizations, and their useful idiot delicate flowers who get the vapors when they venture out into public and decide the rest of the world has to conform to their narcissistic demands.
I said that laws bannning smoking (unless they were state wide) should result in existing restaurant owners to be compensated in one cash lump sum for the decrease in value of their business resulting from the regulation. I further said that I would be willing to pay my proportinate share of that in taxes.
This used to be a country with balls, no more. The effete sissies, and their Machiavellian masters have put a tutu on Uncle Sam.,
You take a stand toward wanting places to be smoke filled and I take a stand toward wanting places to be smoke free. How is that being a sissie for either of us ?
Oh really, exactly where did I say I wanted places to be smoke-filled, besides in your mind?
You want the government to negate private property rights, period.
Give it a rest, you've become really tiresome.
You are so right about that!
Say hello to a non-person. :-}
But the US is pushing the rest of the world to fall in line, why.......... because Europe is proving that there is no difference in cases of cancer or other ilnesses between smokers and non-smokers, and the government doesn't want to be proven wrong.
"I smoke and I own a gun. How much more Politically incorrect could I be?"
Well, if you REALLY want to be Politically Incorrect, you will have to buy a large car (any rear-wheel drive Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (or Lincoln), a Ford Expedition, GMC Suburban, etc.), become a Life Member of the NRA, get NRA license plates for your large car, a FRee Republic bumper sticker, an "Abolish the IRS" bumper sticker, several U.S. Flags, something that connects you to the U.S. Military (a base sticker, for example), and a Life Member of the LEAA sticker! LOL!
Then, everybody who sees you drive by will know you are not Politically Correct, especially if you are wearing your "Abolish the IRS" ball cap and Tee shirt!
I don't falsely describe your posistion in order to refute it why do that to mine ? If you have no refutation of my posistion then I would appreciate it if you didn't create strawman arguments, that is tiresome. I said the government has the right thru eminent domain to take someone's property. This has been a concept in law since the founding of our country. When its done the person should be compensated. Also, it is done for reasons other than safety. I don't necessarily like it but if we are going to take anothers propery we should compensate them.
On the other hand, when a whole large metropolitan area adopts smoking bans and there is no nearby alternative, you hear no such horror stories of lost business.
It's just like drinking bans. In Dallas, they have precinct option liquor laws. You can drive down one major street and pass through several dry precincts in a row, then a wet precinct and then more dry precincts. The thing that you will notice is that not only do the dry precincts not have bars and liquor stores, but they will not have a single sit-down restaurant among them, while the wet precinct will have dozens of each.
If Houston were to implement a complete smoking ban in restaurants (something that I would personally like), it would only be practical and successful if they could get the many small towns that exist within the Greater Houston area to implement the same ban in their jurisdictions, leaving the smokers no convenient alternative.
In fact, there is plenty of precedent for such bans. The Constitution guarantees your right to swing your fists about wildly. But, that right ends immediately in front of my nose. Similarly, anyone has the right to poison himself and the air around him. But, that right ends when that poisoned air reaches my nose, especially in a public place.
Every American has the right to endanger his own life, but he has no right to endanger the lives of others, without their permission, because of his own stupidity and/or lack of self control. If you want to drink yourself to death, that's fine. Just don't put others at risk by driving while you're drunk. If you want to poison your lungs, that too, is fine. Just don't put others at risk by spreading your poison in an enclosed public space, where others must also breathe that air.
If a smoker wants to smoke in his own home or car or out in the open away from others, then there is no reason why anyone should stop him. If he wants to smoke in the home of someone else, then the only person who should have a say is the owner/renter of that other home. But, when an inconsiderate smoker wants to endanger the health of many others who he does not know, by spreading his poison in an enclosed public place, that becomes everyone's business.
As a whole, the only group of people who are more inconsiderate than smokers, are fat people. But, now that Southwest Airlines has put fat people on notice, maybe others will follow Southwest's lead. Then, when the fat people have been thoroughly admonished for their lack of consideration for others, we can really turn our attention to smokers.
I would cheer a nationwide ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and open arenas where many people are in close proximity. It would probably have no effect on the cancer rate and death rate of smokers. But, the overall health of the thinking population would certainly improve dramatically.
Hi Taxman.. Great to hear from you.. How the heck are you? Hope all is well. By the way I do have a Dodge Caravan with an NRA sticker and and we have a base sticker since my hubby is a retired marine.. Also have the Sherrifs association sticker on there since my sons a deputy. Send the t-shirt but I'll pass on the base ball cap.. I'm pretty Politically correct already..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.