Smoking Ban Hurting Tempe Restaurants

cbsfive ^

[Don Myers]

"I find it sad that you don't think smokers should have the same reaction when seeing such signs."

Oh, no. Lets have no back-pedaling here. The point is that public establishments operated on private property are subject to control other than by private owners.

[KentuckyWoman]

What is amazing to me is that smokers consistently refuse to recognize "rights" of non-smokers while adamently and vehemently voicing their support of their own "rights."

I believe that both smokers and non-smokers have the RIGHT to either enter or not enter any PRIVATE business as they wish! Try imagining a business where even non-smokers were FORCED into lighting up to enter (and don't give me all that tired rhetoric about SHS - it's been debunked several times and I refuse to even dredge through it all again).

I argue this case STRICTLY from a Constitutional standpoint while most non-smokers who wish to argue it do so from a Personal Desires/Emotional standpoint. It's been PROVEN that more red sportcars are pulled over every year for speeding. Should we ban red sports cars to ensure the safety of the masses? It's been PROVEN that waterbeds are not good for our spines. Should we ban waterbeds to make everyone more healthy? What about french fries, sodas, candy, ice cream? Let's take Flouride - the government puts it in our drinking water because it was supposed to prevent tooth-decay in the poor children of America. Can you say POISON? There are MUCH larger issues to worry about than a few random minutes of SHS to some non-smoker who WANTED to eat in a particular restaurant and much more inclusive bans coming down the road if people like you don't soon realize that this is NOT about smoking but, rather, about what the government has the power/right to control.

[Don Myers]

"I'm a jerk ..."

Now, you have it.

[JDoutrider]

by Otto Mueksch
After obtaining data on "Taxable Sales in California" (Sales and Use Tax), I analyzed the Periods of 1989 to 1993 (Pre-smoking ban year), and 1994 to 1999 (Post smoking ban). The media, with furnished information from the anti-smoking industry, wants to tell us that everything is fine, there is NO damage to the restaurant industry.

In fact they tell us that the restaurants are doing better than ever since the ban and there is no cause for alarm. When you look at those two periods, you also have to consider the overall economic tendencies - 1989 to 1993 was at the tail end of a recessionary period, with ZERO growth.

The "Eating and Drinking" group contains eating places where no alcoholic beverages are sold; eating places where beer and wine is served; and eating places where all types of liquor is served.. I call the first group FAST FOOD or FF, and combine the two remaining groups into RESTAURANTS AND BARS or RB.

The analysis I conducted shows the following:

Even though there was Zero growth, the FF sector showed an increase in sales of 11.7% Whereas the RB showed a modest gain of 1.2%. Another interesting feature of the report issued by the Board of Equalization is the number of permits issued in the various categories. The permits for the FF sector increased during this period by 15.7%, while the permits for the RB group declined by .9%, or 293 fewer RB.

Looking at the period from 1994 to 1999, the overall economy (taxable sales statewide) increased by an incredible 31.9%. Looking at the sales for FF and RB I found that they increased also, with FF sales outpacing the overall figure at 38.4%, while the RB sales were below the overall economy figures, at 28.6%. However, the clincher, and what the Media and the anti-smoking industry does NOT tell you, is that the number of permits isssued for FF rose by 12.7%, whereas the number of permits for RB DECREASED by 3.3%, which means that there were 1,039 fewer RB's in California.

In other words, during a period in which we saw a tremendeous increase in the overall economy, 1,039 restaurants or bars went out of business. That is the real impact of the smoking ban.

So if you hear of anyone saying that the smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in California.

[Don Myers]

"Not one person here has denied that smoking hurts some smokers. Not one. "

And, yet, you consistently deny that people who injest your smoke into their lungs are not at risk. Talk about dodging and weaving...

[Just another Joe]

Try refusing service to a minority member in one of your private businesses.

I am a smoker. I AM the minority.

You, AGAIN, mentioned OSHA in another post to the thread. Find for me, I'm SOOooo obtuse, the OSHA, EPA, ANY U.S. government entity's regulation on how much exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke is considered dangerous.

As for IARC's wonderful little report - The WHO's (World Health Organization) OWN study, the largest of it's kind, could find no significant statistical correlation between ETS and death of ANY kind.
The EPA did a meta analysis, which the federal courts invalidated.
I expect that the IARC's report is much of the same.

[KentuckyWoman]

Smokers say that smoking is a constitutional right, therefore, it is not out-of-line to ask just where the constitution lists smoking as a right. A method of creating laws is legal by constitutional means. At the moment, even court decisions are used to create a body of laws. Like it or not, that is the situation.

Show me where on this thread that any smoker claimed that smoking was a Constitutional Right. All anybody that I've seen has been saying is that the GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to control or restrict LEGAL behavior on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Or is this concept to complex for some to understand?

[Don Myers]

"In other words, during a period in which we saw a tremendeous increase in the overall economy, 1,039 restaurants or bars went out of business. That is the real impact of the smoking ban. "

I think that your assumption here is just an assumption. Businesses constantly go out of business due to other factors.

[Don Myers]

Then you have missed the posts that talk about smoker's rights. Is this right supposed to be a natural right, then?

[RabidBartender]

"The picture is the owner must provide a safe environment for the patrons if he or she will continue to operate a public establishment. I doubt that you would listen to any study by anyone that said that cigarette smoke is dangerous to people who inhale it. To me, that is a no-brainer, regardless of studies."

And we should BAN sick people from coming to resturants. God knows I don't want one of them to sneeze near me or touch the table where I've been sitting. This endangers ME, so it should be BANNED!

There are people who are allergic to cat hair. Each resturant/bar should install a hypoallergineic (not a real word) air chamber to statically remove all cat hair from patrons who could endanger ME.

There are plenty of resturants/bars that prohibit smoking. The problem is, the anti-smoking control freaks simply wish to impose their will upon the rest of the population without regards to their personal rights. Then the freaks whine: "What about my rights?" Right there you are stating: "My rights are more important than your rights." What an arrogant and selfish load of Bullfinch.

If you don't like the way a business is being run, go somewhere else. If you feel business owners are in violation of OSHA regulations, report them to OSHA. Stop whining, grow a pair, and do something besides relying on the government to bully people for you.

I stopped smoking in 1999 and feel great, however, I don't start spazzing when I see a cigarette ad in a magazine; or pull out an air horn and start bleating when someone lights up on the other side of the lake I am fishing in. Which is how the anti-smokers sure appear with their hateful dialouge and accusations to the pro-smokers.

[Don Myers]

"You, AGAIN, mentioned OSHA in another post to the thread. Find for me, I'm SOOooo obtuse, the OSHA, EPA, ANY U.S. government entity's regulation on how much exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke is considered dangerous."

Perhaps, you should reread the posts where I use OSHA as an example of how the feds regulate public establishments. I wonder if the tobacco industry's money has anything to do with invaliding certain studies. They have done that before.

[metesky]

And, could you provide a valid reference as to why governments were instituted?

We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence

[Don Myers]

"The problem is, the anti-smoking control freaks simply wish to impose their will upon the rest of the population without regards to their personal rights. "

No Rabid, the problem is that people no longer give a darn about how others feel. We live in a society in which Number One is uppermost and immediate, personal gratification is most important to the individual.

You folks carry on, I am going to take a shower.

[KentuckyWoman]

Then you have missed the posts that talk about smoker's rights. Is this right supposed to be a natural right, then?

I don't believe they have been taling about any rights specific to those who smoke. They have simply been pointing out that smokers have the same rights as those who don't smoke. If I choose to allow smoking in my home and you don't like it, don't come inside. OTOH, if you don't allow smoking in your home and I smoke, I have the right to not enter a place that I cannot light up. There is no double standard here - there is NO LAW that requires you to enter my house nor that requires me to enter yours. Same with PRIVATELY owned establishments. There is no law that forces ANYONE to enter including employees who are free to work at another establishment. Once again, capitalistic concerns will determine allowable behaviors and not the desires of periodic VISITORS who are free to enter or not at their pleasure.

[Just another Joe]

Perhaps, you should reread the posts where I use OSHA as an example of how the feds regulate public establishments.

Perhaps YOU should reread my post. I asked for ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY'S regulation. If there is NO entity in the government that has a read on how much ETS is dangerous then what say SHOULD the government have in it? They have facts and figures for everything else they regulate. Why not ETS?
My own suspicion is that they don't have ANY supporting proof that can't be invalidated. It is only the tyranny of the majority, egged on by the anti-smokers, and that's ALL it is.

[JDoutrider]

Give it a break! Bars rarely go out of business. The cost of a liquor license in Kalifornicate is prohibitive (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars)! The background check will forbid you the license if you have been rumored to have dipped the pigtails of a girl student in ink in third grade! There are waiting lists to get licensed!

However, if a fascist state prohibits it's patrons to enjoy the fruit of their labors in their favorite watering hole, the patron will go where he is welcomed...not where he is being oppressed...

[Don Myers]

"...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Thank you for this quote. It is exactly what I needed. Non-smokers are citizens, and they have the rights of citizenship under the Constition,including the right of representation with their representatives. In other words, they have the right to seek laws when not expressly forbade by the US Constitution.

[KentuckyWoman]

the problem is that people no longer give a darn about how others feel. We live in a society in which Number One is uppermost and immediate, personal gratification is most important to the individual.

Oh my goodness!! This is TOO funny coming from an "anti-smoking everywhere that he wants to go" proponent! ROFLMAO!!!! Who is so worried about personal gratification that they can't pass up one restaurant in favor of another that doesn't allow smoking??? Oh, but this IS RICH!!!! LOLLOLOLOLOL

[FreeTally]

Oh, no. Lets have no back-pedaling here. The point is that public establishments operated on private property are subject to control other than by private owners.

No, I understand that the federal government has illegally stiffled freedom of association through private "anti-discrimination" laws. I find it sad that you think "blacks" should be any more upset that someone will not serve them than a smoker would if someone refused to serve them. Its two equal cases of freedom of association. Neither group should be mad if its soley the decision of the property owner.

[FreeTally]

Now you go and act like you are 14-years old by splicing a post of mine so it appears as if you are replying to my quote of "I'm a jerk". Typical tactice by you and your statist buddies. Its usually an indication that I am wasting my time with you guys.......yet again.