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.
The government has an interest in the manor and conduct of the restaurant's operations and it excersize's that through zoning laws on where a restaurant can be parking etc. , health restrictions and licensing.
So, it has been established that it is the business of government to tell a restaurant owner how to run his business.
However when a restriction is added to existing owners that results in a permanent loss of revenues that owner should be compensated.
EXCELLENT?? What side are YOU on?!
I didn't WRITE this article! This is what the BUSINESS owners are saying! HELLO!!
Way to show your PHONY support for innocent business owners cowering hypocrites.
You are an ignorant A HOLE and one ellava poor excuse for a Republican. Who do you think you are coming into our threads and bashing us.
Your no better then the pukes over at thetruth.com.
I bet YOU'VE got some habits that "I" would find revolting. You disgust me.
Is there ANYway we can put an ignore on the RINO A HOLES that come in here? Anyway??!!
Your TOTALLY disgusting!
Very well said, metesky. This Action-America is totally disgusting. He's a little brown shirt marching in time with the jackboots, and he calls himself a Conservative?
God help us if this is what our party is coming to.
Trying to put a Tu-Tu on Uncle Sam are we, Mr. Hole??
Since when did that ever stop the thugs and busybodies?
Takings clause? Taxpayers should compensate a restaurant owner for lost revenues due to a smoking ban law? I think not!
Laws that ban smoking in private businesses are unconstitutional, right from the get-go. They should all be repealed, and then let private businesses decide whether they will allow smoking.
And their customers will reward/punish them accordingly.
That is the essence of a FRee Republic, in this case anyway!
The amount and duration of the exposure is so limited to the average person at the restaurant that SHS could not be a serious threat.
The real reason is two-fold. The smoke smell is awfull and no one who doesn't smoke wants to be smelling smoke while trying to enjoy their meal. In addition, the average smoker has no clue how objectionable their smoke is and how far that smell travels and often act irresponsibly by blowing smoke all around.
If you would like to show me, or point me to , the study, that has NOT been discredited, that says SHS is a HEALTH hazard I might be more willing to listen to your other arguments.
As it is YOU are the one blowing smoke.
BLESS you, Taxman. I would vote for you anytime!
Your my kind of conservative! Thank you!!!
It would be easier to just repeal all the laws concerning how businesses run their own affairs.
Not to mention that roads and non-smoking laws have nothing in common.
Typical logical fallacy used by many nonsmokers. If X causes damage and Y causes damage we cannot do anything about X unless we also do something about Y.
Variation of false choice.
We seem to have a LOT of them in here lately.
Your fallacy.
Mine is, "If X is not proven to cause damage and Y is proven to cause damage then leave X alone and do something about Y."
SHOW US the money, Action-America.
All talk and NO Action! heh!
Towns do not have rights, they have powers. Where would this power to tell businesses who to serve come from?
I would be willing to pay extra taxes to accomplish that effect.
You don't mind if I opt out do you?
AND? ;^)
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.