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.
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is a bit like having a peeing section in a public pool!
Excellent analogy!
Thanks.
And pay for two seats when I fly Southwest air.. Which I never do BTW..
Once again an example of smokers blowing smoke, where they claim to care about the property rights of the business owners...That is untill the innocent business owners actually lose the rights smokers claim the businesses have. So when push comes to shove, the selfish, inconsiderate smokers instead cower at home for fear of not being able to blow smoke in other peoples faces.
You would rather revel in the loss to the businesses than sacrifice a few minutes without the precious cigarette that obviously controls your pathetic life.
Way to show your PHONY support for innocent business owners cowering hypocrites.
LOL! Well, if you really want to be Politically Incorrect, you have to wear the "No IRS" t-shirt and the ball cap!
But, you are REAL CLOSE!
"Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is a bit like having a peeing section in a public pool!" is not a good analogy at all, for an American restaurant. Might be OK in a Nazi-run country, but not America!
"Public" restaurants are privately owned. The government has no business telling the owner whether or not he may allow smoking.
In a Constitutional America, the law must be: "Owner's business, owner's rules."
If you don't like the owner's choice of clientel (i.e., smokers), go somewhere else!
Nothing personal, pal. I know you are a non-smoker, but it is for sure that the silly rules banning smoking in restaurants is pure Fascism, and not worthy of a FRee Republic!
In a FRee Republic, the owner decides how to operate his/her business, and customers choose to patronize or not patronize an establishment based on the owner's marketing strategy and execution thereof.
Repeat after me, class: "IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHETHER A BUSINESS ALLOWS OR DOES NOT ALLOW IT'S PATRONS TO SMOKE!
What is it about NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS you anti-smoking Nazis don't understand?
Ya gotta eat/drink/tip in the bar now to smoke anymore, where your bartenders are blowing their tip money on drugs, stripper support and probably numerous body piercings.
Unintended consequences once again! BWA HA HA HA HA
I can see that you're not very familiar with Haverhill, MA or the Merrimack Valley.
;O)
For instance, an efficacious drug for obesity could easily become mandatory in the current climate of the Nanny State
Like what, methamphetamine?
What they can keep out of you with the force of their jackboots, they can just as easily force into you.
If they do as good a job forcing people to take drugs as they are currently doing with stopping them, expect the streets to be knee deep in blood and gore.
lewislynn Alert!
Given the flavor of the former, you may wish to reconsider.
"Public" restaurants are privately owned. The government has no business telling the owner whether or not he may allow smoking.
DEAD WRONG!
( I can't believe this. Lewie is actually on the side of common sense (and courtesy) and Taxman is making no sense. I wonder if it's an omen? Could this be the beginning of the Apocalypse? )
Even though restaurants are privately owned, there is enormous precedence for a government ban on smoking in restaurants. It falls under the heading of "public health". Specifically, the government may not prevent you from endangering your own health, but they are obliged to prevent you from endangering the health of others - at least not without their permission.
The government requires privately owned restaurants to wash their dishes at a certain temperature. The government requires privately owned restaurants to have regular exterminator visits. The government limits how many people may occupy privately owned restaurants. The government even requires that a privately owned restaurant refuse to serve alcoholic beverages to a drunk patron. These are all matters where the government is requiring the owners of privately owned restaurants to take certain actions to protect the public health.
A smoking ban is no different.
And, as for the nonsense about some judge ruling that the government study on the carcinogenic effect of second hand cigarette smoke was flawed, just think about what that statement says. Thirty-four scientists and numerous assistants put that study together and interestingly, they all agreed. Now, if you have ever been around scientific types, you should know that they like to disagree, if only to irritate the others. Yet, they still agreed that second-hand smoke is a class I carcinogen. On the other hand, one judge with absolutely no scientific background threw it out. Yeah, right!
I am certainly no fan of big government (federal, state or local). That's because, most of the time, when government sticks their noses into something, the result is to further erode our rights, without protecting the rights of anyone. But, when they place a ban on smoking in enclosed public places, they are protecting the rights and public health of the greater whole. After all, the rights of smokers to poison their own bodies does not give them the right to poison mine or anyone else's, even in a privately owned establishment.
A business owner may indeed set his own rules, within certain limits. But, even privately owned restaurants must maintain certain public health standards. Just because many smokers don't want to give up their precious cigarettes for even an hour, while they have dinner, doesn't change the fact that their smoke does indeed present a public health risk. But, their whining does show one thing; health risk or not.. It shows just how totally inconsiderate many of them really are.
If you want to fart or smoke, you should be considerate enough to take it outside.
That brings up an interesting comparison. Even if a farter should occasionally pass a long slow one in a theater, they at least don't go around loudly proclaiming that it is their right to fart any place they want. That's because they know that whether or not they have such a right, like smoking, it's just not polite. But then,... that's the difference between farters and most smokers.
Also, notice that I said "most", not "all". There are indeed some smokers who do have the common decency to take it outside and to those folks, I say a hearty, "Thank you."
Anyone over 200, or over the normal weight range for their height, must not be admitted into the restaurant. Obesity kills more people than smoking.
Until they put in weight scales and prohibit restaurants from serving overweight customers, then they are just being hypocritical(they really are not concerned about the health of the customers).
You could be a Heterosexual Married Mother. Ooops, ssems you may have broken that taboo as well. 8^)
It's quite easy to find that the 1993 EPA report that classified SHS as a Class I carcinogen has been vacated by a Federal judge and refuted by the Congressional Research Service.
So, since you are obviously one of those smokers who doesn't have the common courtesy of a farter, you choose to believe that a judge with absolutely no scientific background, or that Congress is more qualified to render a scientific finding, than 34 scientists (that's the number that I recall was bandied about when the judge made that ruling) and numerous assistants with scientific training. I suppose that if a judge were to vacate gravity, you would float away. And don't forget that Congress is still on record as saying that Marijuana is addictive and that has been proven incorrect many times over. So, who is the one who is really biased?
Unlike you, I admit that I'm biased. I'm biased because I want to protect my health and the health of others who have chosen to take care of our bodies. Your bias is because you not only want to destroy your body, you obviously don't care if you take others down with you, if it means that you will be "inconvenienced" by having to walk 20 or 30 feet to the door to do it. We can't have you be "inconvenienced".
If you want to kill yourself, go right ahead. I won't try to stop you and will even defend your right to make such a decision (even if you have to get the help of a Dr. Kervorkian type to do it). It's your life and neither I nor the government should pretend to know what factors may have led you to want to end your life sooner, rather than later. But at least, have the common decency not to act like a stupid terrorist homicide bomber, taking as many others with you as possible, when you go.
In the mean time, you might try to brush up on the meaning of courtesy. Among other things, it means that if you have to fart, you should go outside, or at least to a bath room or other unoccupied room. If you have to take a leak, you should get out of the pool and find a toilet. And, if you want to smoke, you should go outside. That's because non-smokers find your smoke just as offensive as your farts or urine in the water.
It should be noted that if most smokers were as courteous as most farters, we wouldn't need laws to prevent smoking in restaurants.
The difference between government oversight to ensure that a restaurant does not endanger the health of its patrons in respect of cleanliness, food preparation, overcrowding, varmits and drunks and a restaurant that allows smoking is the difference between night and day.
In the first instance, it is reasonable for the government to require certain minimum standards of cleanliness, food preparation, overcrowding, varmits and drunks. Those regulations protect all patrons, disadvantaging no patron and advantaging all patrons.
OTOH, it is unreasonable (and, I believe, unconstitutional) to ban smoking in privately owned businesses. No smoking regulations disadvantage a sizeable segment of the population, and are not in keeping with the spirit of equal protection of the laws.
Why not require that restaurants advertise their smoking policy? And allow the diners-out to make a choice based on their individual preference?
Is that not the essence of a FRee Republic? Citizens making choices based on their own preferences?
People have choices with respect to where they eat. Smokers have as much right to enjoy their meal as non-smokers do, and it is not within the purview of government outright ban smoking in a privately owned bar or restaurant. Patrons will vote with their dollars as to their preferences, and restaurants will provide the services, amenities and atmosphere that their patrons desire.
That is what FReedom (at least in this context) is about.
[BTW, I am not going to get anywhere near your fart discussion! It is inappropriate to this discussion.]
I thought I was being pretty courteous, inviting you to research facts and to admit bias, if that's the way you felt.
This jumbled garbage about farts and your altruism about protecting others is hilarious in the extreme.
Are you saying that the Congressional Research Service is biased and has no scientists onboard?
Your ranting reply has forfeited all pretense at courtesy and you can rest assured, twirp, that if we ever meet, I will piss on your shoes, fart in your womanly little face and blow smoke at you 'til you squeal like the woman you are, praying that you'll be stupid enough to assault me.
Have a nice day, Mr. Hole.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. You might find my common sense applies to the other stuff we've argued over too...
Just because many smokers don't want to give up their precious cigarettes for even an hour, while they have dinner,
They won't admit too it but they can't. The fact that they won't patronize their favorite eatery or bar because they can't smoke is proof that cigarettes control their lives....I know, I'm a former (considerate) smoker. (most people didn't know I smoked)...
Thanks again.
Interesting and amusing angle, you have a creative mind.
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.