maxwell, your so funny. heh!
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 is a matter of opinion. It is changing as the thugs become more exposed for what they are.
Both are the taking of property.
Which doesn't justify taking property just because you use stolen money to pay the owner of the property the amount the thieves arbitrarily set for the loot.
To say that eminient domain is justified for busy body rules for others businesses in the same way as taking property for a road is justified is wrong.
maxwell, your so funny. heh!
FRee to make choices?
Willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices?
Horrors! The PC Nazi crowd needs to re-educate me!
NOT!
How come none of these Boards of Health have established a mximum toxicity level for second hand smokeAnd I'll get sick if someone has the smell of kerosene on their clothes or person. We're going to let the government ban all "bad" smells?Its the smell that is the issue. Even clothing worn by a smoker is enough to make some nonsmokers feel sick.
OSHA has established PELs for most if not all of the "bad" components in cigarette smoke, and just about all bars and restaurants meet them. This isn't about real safety or health, this is about a bunch of sanctimonious bureaucraps trying to force us to live by their rules in all aspects of our lives, "for our own good" of course.
As has been mentioned, that's why they don't just let the businesses themselves decide.
-Eric
Scary, is right!!!
When they call themselves Conservatives, what IS that? Just when it suits THEM??? I think not!
But I don't want to be within smelling distance of a smoker.What's wrong with letting a business owner decide if he wants your business, or that of smokers?
-Eric
I disagree, it's all about the power.
And when Boards of Health can dictiate how a business is to be run, then that is crossing the legal line, imho.
When ANYONE can dictate how a business is run, it has crossed a moral as well as legal line.
Holy smokes!
Because that's called freedom, and it is not part of the agenda of most people today. It is payed lip service by people who don't understand it.
The free market is moribund in this fascist country. And freedom with it.
Now this is REALLY scary! I am an adult, thank you Doctor! I can protect my OWN health, thank you Herr Doctor!
It's no secret. Smoking bans have never worked in localized areas, where an adjacent populated area has no such ban. It just drives the smokers to a nearby town.I really hope this is satire. Otherwise, it translates to "Big Brother must be allowed to make the rules for everyone around, otherwise He can't help you live your life Properly".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.
-Eric
Not to mention that roads and non-smoking laws have nothing in common. Both are the taking of property.
Uhmm, VLWC_minion, you have finally stated what alot of us where trying to get you to realize ~100 posts ago. In your words and thank you for finally seeing the light, "both are the taking of property". While not entirely accurate, at that. You've finally beached yourself on the rock signposted "Rights of Private Property-Keep Out". Good thing for you, being adrift at sea is quite a helpless feeling.
Bravo and welcome aboard
You can forget the conservative and liberal labels. There are only two kinds of people.
Those who want to run other's lives by use of force and those who want to be free and are willing to let others be free as well.
Those who would use force to compel others to live as they (the thugs) choose just come with different issues.
I agree. Nonsmokers hate the smell and will use whatever arguments they an to accomplish the desired result which is to be able to go everywhere without having to smell the smoke. Its not about health issues.
I have no problem with that what-so-ever. But when property is taken the owner needs to be compensated.
Your so right! Now that I look at it that way.
The words the anti's are spewing in here, I have seen so many times before, at the anti-smokers sites.
Jackboots marching in time with Brown Shirts.
They just don't get it. And I have said this so many times before: smoking is no worse today then it was 40 years ago, and before. If it was, how did so many of us "get grown?"
They don't like my smoking, however, I don't LIKE the hate coming out of their mouths. They are so full of hate, it isn't any wonder how we got to be in the fix we are today.
It's THEIR way or the HIGHWAY. Sorry! I can't oblige.
I have always agreed that private property owners should be allowed to decide without gov't interference
I hate the smell of tyranny much more than the smell of 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.