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.
So you really don't give a crap about the financial well being of the restaurant owner. You don't really care about his finacial situation you just care about your ability to smoke at his restaurant. That is fine but just drop the act that your concerned about the lost business.
Also, if governments did have to shell out cash for the taking of the restaurants business it would put financial pressure on towns to end the current bans and be a disincentive for future bans. Frankly, I am surprised the national restaurant associations have made a case out of this.
Good reason to stay away from businesses that allow smoking on their property.
Not in the current social and political environment. Not to mention that roads and non-smoking laws have nothing in common.
Both are the taking of property.
For me damage is = to having to eat a meal while smelling your smoke.
As much as we have been to the Cape, we never ventured up there. We had friends warn us ahead of time. ~whew!
Some Republicans are just Democrats who want government guns to be used to force people to do their (different) pet causes.
Like the man said, "it's the same thing only different".
Property rights, my friend. Now, the DMV, that's quite another thing.
You *would* pay extra taxes to violate property rights? I think you need to rethink you position or find a different color star for me to wear other than yellow.
Apparently the lawyers of the restaurants don't agree with you or they would appeal the rulings.
Allright... [rolls up sleeves] You asked for it, buddy...
First of all, farting and smoking ain't parallel analogous actions and that constitutes a fundamental logical flaw.
Second of all, if you don't like smoke, then stay the hell out of a privately-owned restaurant that permits it. My puffing FRiends and I will thank you.
Third of all, SOMEBODY is just BEGGING for an atomic wedgie this morning...
...the world gone crazy
I avoid smoking business at all costs and never hesitate to compliment the owners for providing it.
TJ sez-- Good reason to stay away from businesses that allow smoking on their property.
Hear hear.
Well, it breaks my heart. Your either true to your party or get out. I can't stand RINO's and I can't stand those standing on the cusp.
I realize smoking isn't for everyone, but smoking is no worse today then it was 40 years ago. The anti's are just trying to trump it up. It's all about the money.
And when Boards of Health can dictiate how a business is to be run, then that is crossing the legal line, imho.
Then, private business owners set their own smoking rules -- smokers would patronize businesses that cater to smokers, and non-smokers would patronize businesses that voluntarily prohibit smoking.
Choice is the essence of FReedom!
Government coercion is the essence of National Socialism!
Frankly, I am surprised the national restaurant associations have [not] made a case out of this.
So am I.
This is not even a question in law. It is done all the time. Your right about the rights though, the government is obligated to compensate you when it takes your property.
Absolutely. I can tolerate a fart much better than your smoke.
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.