Cafe business up in smoke (smoking ban closes restaurant)

The Citizen Auburn NY ^ | Friday, December 20, 2002 | By Mary Bulkot / Staff Writer

[Great Dane]

Oh Minnie, if you go to the post, Toast to Delaware," you will see that Max has posted three cased where the courts have overturned smoking bans, we kept waiting for you, but you never showed, whats up with that. ?

[supercat]

I have almost never read anyone here questioning the right of a restaurant owner to ban smoking in his restaurant.

Seems like you haven't read a whole lot, we have always said, if the owner choose to go smoke free there is no problem, but keep the darn government out of it.

Almost always. There have been a few people now and again who regard as fascists business owners who decide to ban smoking in ther own establishments. You and I, however, seem to agree that businesses should be free to permit or ban smoking as they see fit.

[MeekOneGOP]

I saw this movie. Crazy! LOL!

Not my kind of smokes, though. heh!

LOL ! I saw it too. Not mine either. And....

I'm smoke-free since 1983 when I quit cold turkey.....

[Max McGarrity]

Banning cigarette smoking in public places in Los Angeles has been a godsend. It is amazing the difference. I travel and when on the road, I am always amazed when I get back to the hotel and reek of smoke -- it is only then I truly realize what I was exposed to.

I'm sure those small business owners who were forced to close their doors when they lost 30% of their business agree that the draconian ban here was a "godsend." Who wants to be in business anyway? BTW, do you realize what you said in this last sentence? Sheesh. Grow up.

[Max McGarrity]

Seriously, if you and I were to be eating in the same restaurant and you light up,

If I light up, it's in a restaurant that welcomes smokers. Why are you there?

tell me can you keep the second hand smoke to your table only? No, I suspect not.

Proper ventilation systems make the pollution level in smoker-friendly establishments LOWER than in smoker-hostile ones without ventilation. Why aren't you lobbying for better ventilation?

Name for me one act that I can do at my table which would interfere with your dining experience the way that your cigarette smoke with interfere with mine.

Having unruly, disrespectful children. And ventilation doesn't help that.

That is the difference between you and me--I don't want to mess with the air you are breathing in the restaurant but you seem to have no qualms spreading your second hand smoke around the room. I don't care if you smoke--go ahead but please don't think that a seperate section or partition segregates your habit from those who don't smoke.

Without good ventilation, you're right, but that doesn't change the fact that you're there willingly and if the place welcomes smokers, you have the choice to go elsewhere. Separate BUILDINGS do a far better job of segregation than partitions. Don't you agree?

[TheOtherOne]

Yeah right there are no restaurants in Los Angeles, they all went out of business. They all lost 30% of customers - the supermarkets are making a killing right? Cry wolf somewhere else.

[TheOtherOne]

By the way, why don't you agree with me that any bar or restaurant should be able to get a permit to allow smoking as they do to allow drinking alcohol?

[Max McGarrity]

Loss of a right? You can still purchase cigarettes and smoke them outdoors, we non-smokers, are just asking you to please not smoke in public rooms.

Define "public." The rights lost here are those of the business owner to cater to his market, to make a living off his own labor, to permit a legal activity on property HE/SHE owns, not the government and not nonsmokers. Nonsmokers have always had the absolute right to open an establishment and set a nonsmoking policy. But smokers and other astute businessmen no longer have the right to cater to smokers if they so desire. That's wrong, and it's a right lost.

I don't think you get it and you run to the "loss of rights" as a cover for your fear of not smoking for a short duration inside a restaurant.

Oh, bullshit. Get off that anti-talking-points crap. It has never been true and it just makes you sound idiotic.

Do you fly commercially?

Not for recreation.

Do you attend church?

Not for recreation.

Do you spend any time at your children's school?

Not for recreation.

These are all places where your rights and mine may be abridged. Should we allow smoking in these places?

We who? Airlines are private businesses; they should set their own policies. Churches and schools are different, but I certainly wouldn't go postal if they permitted smoking in specific areas.

[Max McGarrity]

Yeah right there are no restaurants in Los Angeles, they all went out of business. They all lost 30% of customers - the supermarkets are making a killing right? Cry wolf somewhere else.

What's that term that describes carrying something to a ridiculous extreme?...oh, yeah, reductio ad absurdum. Won't work here, bud.

No one ever said or even implied that ALL restaurants and bars and casinos and bingo halls and bowling alleys go out of business when smoking bans are imposed by the heavy hand of government, but it's a flat fact that SOME do. These are usually the mom and pop neighborhood places that work on a slim margin of profit and cater to a particular clientele. These are REAL people who work hard for their living and the elitist jackasses who pass sweeping laws like these stomp them into the ground while jerks like you cheer.

According to a recent survey of 300 California bars and taverns, conducted by KPMG Peat Marwick, the employees could do with a little less help.

* Since Jan. 1, 1998, 60 percent of California's bars have lost business.
* Of that group, the average decrease in business has been 26.2 percent.
* 50 percent report increased fights and customer complaints.
* Almost 30 percent have had to lay off employees or cut working hours and shifts.
* 65 percent report a loss of regular customer business.
* Employees in 59 percent of the establishments report losses in tips.

And 40% or more of the bars are flaunting the law. Now the state nannies are scrambling to get the money to figure out how to staunch that little rebellion.

California ain't no poster child for the success of smoking bans, no matter how much you wish it were so.

[Max McGarrity]

By the way, why don't you agree with me that any bar or restaurant should be able to get a permit to allow smoking as they do to allow drinking alcohol?

So it's not about the "health" of the workers after all? It's just another money grab? What would be the requirements to get such a license? What would it cost?

[Great Dane]

Almost always. There have been a few people now and again who regard as fascists business owners who decide to ban smoking in ther own establishments. You and I, however, seem to agree that businesses should be free to permit or ban smoking as they see fit.

Yes, it sure works well in the Granville Ohio area, due to demand, over 50% of establishments are smoke free, the marketplace will work, if we let it.

[supercat]

And 40% or more of the bars are flaunting the law.

How are they flaunting the law? Are you suggesting that they've switched to being employee-owned so they can proudly point to the part of the law which exempts employee-owned bars? Or are you saying they flout the law and disregard it altogether?

[TheOtherOne]

I think the health reasons are primary. I have not really thought it through, but I would think some madatory written warning to employees - - no employees under 18, etc. I think there are certainly some reasonable things the state can do to protect the citizens from the dangers of smoke.

Your claims of money grab, 30% loss of sales, restauants closing, are pathetic straw men or just crying wolf.

[austinTparty]

Let the market decide

Ahhh, but there's the rub! Many so-called conservatives are merely authoritarian statists who have a deep-seated mistrust of that uncontrollable thing called the "free-market". They simply don't trust us common folk with too much liberty.

[TheOtherOne]

I live here and it is great. I hope they do it everywhere.

Now, I happen to also think business owners should have the choice to allow smoking, but I think the default should be non-smoking. When people like you have some problem with reasonable restrictions I could care less about joining any fight to make that an option everywhere. It is the stringent claim that you have a right to smoke anywhere that will cause you to lose that right almost everywhere.

[A CA Guy]

A new restraunt that was in the red the first year went under in the second. There are stories like that all the time throughout America.
Why is that news here due to a smoking ban? 95% of new businesses fail, what made these people different?

[A CA Guy]

restraunt = restaurant

[Leisler]

Stop using big words, you are posting to VRWC_minion you know.

[Max McGarrity]

I live here and it is great. I hope they do it everywhere.

So do I live here, and I'm really glad you're happy with it. I'm active in the Chamber and know many businesses that were hurt and never recovered.

When people like you have some problem with reasonable restrictions I could care less about joining any fight to make that an option everywhere. It is the stringent claim that you have a right to smoke anywhere that will cause you to lose that right almost everywhere.

Whoa, pal. I've never said any such thing. I have no problem with "reasonable" restrictions, and if a standard showing permissible levels of pollutants were set by OSHA, I'd be fine with that, too. The free market would respond to supply what the people want but antis won't allow it. That's wrong and anyone who doesn't see that private property rights and individual liberties are being attacked here isn't paying attention or is letting his/her hatred of smokers blind him/her to the truth.

[Max McGarrity]

Flaunt/flout. Whatever. They're thumbing their noses at the nannies and permitting smoking in their bars because that's the only way they can stay in business. This was written up in the SF Chronicle a couple weeks ago. I can probably find it if necessary. In addition, this is California, and much of the state has mild weather year round. That makes outdoor patios very comfortable and virtually all of them welcome smokers.

The market WILL adjust. But it won't adjust the way the antis want it to and that won't help those people who put their hearts, souls and life savings into small restaurants and bars and lost it all because of this jihad.