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.
Smoking bans have been a part of our history. Even the states that founded the US had various bans.
The majority wants a smoke free environment and even though the minority is being protected, step by step the majority is getting its way. Majority rule is tyranny but at least its orderly.
Sorry, all your lining out of things doesn't change the fundamental question.
Namely, you have no "right" to dictate to a business owner how he should run his business, also known as private property. You also have no "right" to a smoke free meal on private property.
If you don't want to smell smoke while you eat, eat somewhere where there is no smell of smoke.
Try to imagine a patron of a resturant pulling a gun out and telling anyone smoking that they will have to stop because the person with the gun doesn't like the smell. Would that be OK? Then substitute a government employee with a gun for the person who doesn't like the smell.
Where on earth anyone thinks they obtained the legitimate power to force people to make the decisions for the use of their private property is anyones guess. It is incorrect to think that such legitimate power exists, and immoral as well.
Usurpation of rights has the longest of histories. Which of course, doesn't make it legitimate.
Majority rule is tyranny but at least its orderly.
Now there is a ringing endorsement of tyranny. I guess some value "order" over freedom.
Dead people are very orderly.
Your TOTALLY disgusting!
GREAT!
That's a good sign. Such an expression of disgust proves that you do have the ability to, some day, comprehend, at least to a small degree, how the rest of the world feels about smokers. A friend of mine who quit about 10 years ago, expresses it best, as he often says, "The best stop-smoking program that I can imagine, would be to some how, impart to smokers, exactly what the rest of the world thinks about them. No sane person's ego could handle that."
You're on the right track. Good luck.
So I don't have people around me like you! Period!
That said, I am deeply saddened and concerned at the systematic dismantling of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that has taken place in recent years and now threatens to destroy all that those founders and patriots achieved and defended. I see hundreds of thousands of patriotic wealthy Americans now being forced renounce their US citizenship. They are not doing this by choice, but to seek relief from the recent barrage of onerous, self-serving laws that were passed by the very same people who are supposed to be protecting us from such tyranny.
And you are ADVOCATING the use of smoking bans?
Hypocrite.
This ought to give you some sort of hint how objectionable the stink from your cigarette is. If smokers had any kind of clue, they wouldn't insist on smoking in public places and virtually force the nonsmokers to take drastic actions.
Ok. Fact; you think it's moral and legitimate to force people at gunpoint to run their businesses as YOU see fit.
People who are otherwise conservative are willing to allow the creation of dubious health arguments and also allow the taking of another's property so that they can avoid smokers.
You seem one of them. Otherwise conservative, but on this issue, an issue of manufactured rights, you advocate thuggery and tyranny.
This ought to give you some sort of hint how objectionable the stink from your cigarette is.
To you. And who cares? It's off topic. The topic is whether you can rightfully force people at gunpoint to your will. Smoking is irrelevant.
If smokers had any kind of clue, they wouldn't insist on smoking in public PRIVATE PROPERTY places
There I fixed the problem. I know how to strike out too. The difference is, I strike out lies and misconceptions.
and virtually force the nonsmokers to take drastic actions.
This is the most specious and absurd argument I have ever seen.
You wear aftershave that I don't like. It makes me nauseous. Worse than cigarette smoke. Therefore you virtually FORCE me to blow a hole in your head. Reductio ad absurdum
You either are or you're not. Tobacco smoke has nothing to do with it.
Second, it is also my contention that in the event that a government, whether rightly or wrongly, terminates the ability of a restaurant owner from serving smokers he should be compensated. The smokers here apparently don't care about him.
Third, my posistion is the reason that you are getting so successfully attacked on your options on places you can smoke is not because of health reasons its because it stinks. It stinks so badly that otherwise good conservatives really can't get all that worked up over the issue.
So in order to avouid being labeled a RINO, I have to take a tobacco purity test written by tobacco addicts ?
The smokers are exercising their rights not to frequent an establishment that doesn't allow them to smoke. Just as you should exercise your right not to frequent an establishment that allows smoking. There are plenty of them around.
This is called the free market. Read up on it if you get a chance.
The smokers here apparently don't care about him.
Sniff, I know what you mean, Oprah.
You apparently like the stink of tyranny better than the stink of cigarette smoke. Well, at least you've declared yourself.
None have so far agreed that the owners who lost the right to sell to smokers should be compensated. All they care about is that they can't smoke. They appear selfish.
A courtesy that most smokers refuse to give non-smokers.
All you care about is that some people can.
They appear selfish.
And you don't, wanting to put people out of business because you might be offended by a smell? Please.
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.
Taxman, THINK! Your own statement, above, makes no sense. You suggest that the drinker who is told that he can't have a drink, will feel less disadvantaged than the smoker who is told that he can't light up. Or, what about the patron standing in line outside, because the government mandated capacity has been reached? Is he less disadvantaged than the smoker? THINK!
A restaurant smoking ban does indeed protect all patrons. It even protects the smokers for the short time that they are in the restaurant. Granted, the smoker may feel disadvantaged. But, so will that drunk.
However, I do understand that smokers, who are told that they can't smoke may feel more disadvantaged than drunks, who are told that they can't have another drink. I base that conclusion on their relative reactions. A drunk may become slightly indignant, when told that he can't have a drink, while smokers who are told that they can't light up, get down right obnoxious.
You are right about FRee Republic being about citizens making choices based on their own preferences. But, there is more to it than that. It is about citizens making choices based on their own preferences, as long as those decisions don't impinge upon the rights of any other citizen. I will defend your right to swing your fist anywhere you want, as long as you stop swinging before you hit another individual or damage his property. Likewise, I will defend your right to smoke as many cigarettes as you want, without an unreasonable tax burden or excessive regulation. But, you have no right to risk the lives of others, in the pursuit of your personal vice.
As for those who would claim that second-hand smoke is not a threat to others, I know better, and it is from personal experience. My wife and I were at a very popular restaurant where there were many smokers. This had never been a problem for either of us. Neither of us had ever had any serious reaction to smoke, although it did tend to make both of us nauseous. As we always did, we waited for a table far away from the smoking section. Just as we were about to order desert, my wife started having trouble breathing and began to turn blue. A girl at a nearby table, who realized what was happening, rushed over and demanded that my wife take a breath of her rescue inhaler. My wife managed to gasp that she didn't have asthma, but the girl demanded loudly and shoved the inhaler at her. My wife took a breath from the inhaler and very quickly began to breathe better.
My wife had gone her entire life without asthma or any sign of asthma. She had just had a complete physical about 2 or 3 months earlier and was in top condition. The doctors told her that adult onset asthma almost always comes on with little or no warning. After questioning her at length, they told her that the smoke in the restaurant was the only thing that could have triggered her attack. Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) is by far the most common asthma trigger and causes the most violent attacks, as well. They also told her that, since most asthmatics now carry rescue inhalers that are almost 100% effective, deaths of known asthmatics have dropped in recent years. However, they have been unable to prevent asthma deaths in situations of first attacks, where the victim is not carrying an inhaler and dies without ever knowing that they had asthma or that smoke could kill him. Without a doubt, the girl who shoved her inhaler at my wife, saved her life.
Interestingly, by using a preventive inhaler before leaving the house, my wife can now go into that same restaurant, with no asthma symptoms. We still go there often, despite the smoke, because we keep hoping to see that girl there again. You see, we never got her name.
The point of all of this is that in the US, roughly 5000 people a year die from asthma attacks (American Lung Association), many of them, first attacks. Those people didn't even know that they should avoid smoky environments. My wife came to within seconds of death, due to secondhand smoke. Furthermore, there was no way to have predicted that she would have such a reaction to secondhand smoke. Many people unknowingly face that same situation every year and some of them die. Of course, since the smokers have made a decision that they know will shorten their own life, they obviously have no concern at all for the lives of others.
Since we know that cigarette smoke, including secondhand smoke is the most common trigger for asthma attacks and that many people who have never had signs of asthma, die from first asthma attacks, even disregarding the significant cancer risk posed by secondhand smoke, that is more than enough reason for any branch of government to ban smoking in enclosed public places and large gatherings of people in open arenas.
More than 400,000 Americans die prematurely every year, either directly or indirectly as a result of tobacco. The sad part is that several thousand of those people didn't even use tobacco. Those were people who were killed by smokers. The government has more than enough reason for a complete ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces and crowded arenas. The only reason that the various governmental bodies have not done any more to protect us than they have, is because the smokers have played the "victim" game extremely well and they are exceeded in their arrogance, only by the queer lobby.
As for not wanting to address the farting question; it really is appropriate. If someone farts nearby, I may find the smell obnoxious, but it ends there. When someone lights up a cigarette nearby, I not only find the smell obnoxious, but it makes me nauseous. Very many non-smokers have similar reactions. If a smoker doesn't like to smell other people's farts, then he might have an inkling of what other people think of him every time he lights up in their presence.
But, it all comes back to one point. If most smokers were courteous and considerate of others, there would be no need for such laws.
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.