New York City: Restaurateurs: 'This Is Really Bad Timing'

newsday.com ^ | Tania Padgett

[SheLion]

There is never a good time to curtail freedom.

Exactly. Who needs Osama?

[templar]

This seems to ba a growing trend. I'm an ex sm0ker for 20 years ( 3 1/2 pack a day habit when I quit) and there is no one more opposed to smoking than I am, but this is going too far. First ammendment guarantees the right to peacable assembly (free association) to everyone, not just non smokers. If non smoking restaurants and bars can't attract enough non smokers to stay in business something is wrong (I avoid smoke filled establishments most of the time). I see no need to stop smokers from going to the establishments that allow smoking and non smokers to got tho those that do not. Those that don't care can go either place. This is no place for government to be involved.

[SheLion]

I am so tired of hearing about this proposed smoking ban. It seems to me that the owner of a business, be it a restaurant or a bar, should have the right to decide what goes on at his business. If you don't smoke, don't go to a place that allows smoking. If you don't smoke, don't work at a place that allows smoking.

[SheLion]

Not YOU! I was talking about non-smokers in general. heh!

I didn't mean for that to sound mean to YOU, templar. So sorry. But YOU know what I mean!!!

[JimVT]

"The majority of the workers favor the ban according to some industry surveys."

That sounds like the phrase the Dem talking heads like to use:

"Most Americans (want) (say) (agree)...."....fill in the blanks.

But nobody ever asks them to prove it or cite thier source. And if they do...it's usually: "Oh, the NY Times reported that."

[RGSpincich]

I don't quite know how to take your remarks so...

In July, the New York State Restaurant Association announced that it had dropped its long-standing opposition to a smoking ban. A survey of its members found most favored a ban. A member said studies showed restaurants won't lose business and that secondhand smoke is a clear threat to employees' health.

Source

[JimVT]

I wasn't challenging you. Your post was quite accurate.

But the source article bears out my point.....:Bloomberg says this:", "Bloomberg says that:"

"Cigarette sales went down x per cent in NY" Sure and bootleg sales and out-of-state sales, etc, probably went up by twice that percentage.

Didn't somebody think to ask the Mayor. "We'll if cigarette sales went down that much...does that mean that all those people quit smoking?" And: "Mr Bloomberg, how do you plan to replace the lost taxes.?" And: "Why shouldn't business owners be allowed to make thier own decision on smoking"? If workers and customers don't want to smell the smoke they have the right to work or eat or drink elswhere.

[RGSpincich]

I wasn't challenging you. Your post was quite accurate.

Thank you and so was yours. Merry Christmas!

[exmoor]

"Whats for supper honey ?????????????

[Great Dane]

That's no reason to apply a tyranny of the majority. Let those that desire a smoke free environment seek employment in smoke free establishments and those that do not act accordingly.

Too much logic there....... can't have that.

[Max McGarrity]

That's the problem, he did ask them. The majority of the workers favor the ban according to some industry surveys.

Do you have references for these industry surveys?

[RGSpincich]

Just the info at post #26.

[laredo44]

Too much logic there....... can't have that.

It's a little Christmas gift I allowed myself. I'm sure I'll be OK again by Thursday. ;^)

[laredo44]

I totally agree.

Well then, I totally agree with you!! ;^)

Have a wonderful Christmas and New Year.

[RGSpincich]

Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas, too.; )

[SupplySider]

I am so tired of hearing about this proposed smoking ban. It seems to me that the owner of a business, be it a restaurant or a bar, should have the right to decide what goes on at his business. If you don't smoke, don't go to a place that allows smoking. If you don't smoke, don't work at a place that allows smoking.

I could not agree more.Freedom would be better for everyone. Non-smoking eateries would pop up and everyone would be happy, except those trying to feel important by pushing other people around.

[Max McGarrity]

This seems to ba a growing trend.

It is growing, unfortunately. The anti-smoker cabal has become a slick, professional juggernaut, using the power it has to build more, even writing the laws that are passed by our civil serpents, often laws that add taxes passed directly into their own pockets to further grow their power.

In awhile, all tobacco use will be prohibited and recalcitrant smokers will join users of illicit drugs as hounded and loathed criminals. Neighbors and children will have tip lines to turn in their friends and family for a suitable reward, and smokers will be either fined, jailed or "treated." Teachers, doctors, librarians, and people on the street will be sniffing children and will call Child Protective Services for the lingering odor of tobacco smoke. Children will be removed from the homes of stubborn "hard-core" smokers "for their own good" and placed either in foster care or state run institutions. Few small neighborhood restaurants and bars will survive, but there will be plenty of national chains to take their place--and the entire country will be on a "level playing field," taking away all necessity for making one's own choice and all possibility of living the "American dream." NGOs (non-governmental organizations) will be writing our laws to legislate against anything that MAY be potentially harmful, since they don't have to prove harm but only a miniscule risk. And we'll be paying them to do it.

The "level playing field" will extend to schools where no one will ever be "better" than anyone else and everyone will have to perform at the lowest possible level so no one's feelings will be hurt. No "potentially harmful" games like dodge-ball, softball, football, hide and seek, leap frog, etc., will be permitted and if you play chess, you'd better not be good at it.

There will be no environmental tobacco smoke--or milk, or coffee or hot dogs or hamburgers--in any restaurant, and if bars survive at all, they'll be forced to serve only nonalcoholic beverages with NO risk attached.

There are those--even several Freepers--who think this will be a better world without all those nasty risks and pesky rights.

I believe we're raising a nation of wimps and whiners who are willing to trash everyone else's rights to accommodate themselves, to guarantee they need never be annoyed.

In case you think I've overstated the above, every single thing I've predicted is already in the works.

[Max McGarrity]

In July, the New York State Restaurant Association announced that it had dropped its long-standing opposition to a smoking ban. A survey of its members found most favored a ban. A member said studies showed restaurants won't lose business and that secondhand smoke is a clear threat to employees' health.

Ah, yes. Cleverly worded spin to make it seem that the majority of workers want such a ban, but that's not at all what they're really saying.

Yep, 70% or so of the restaurants which are members of the NYS Restaurant Association said they favored bans (which they've always had the absolute right to do if they thought it was such a great thing). They did not survey the employees.

[RGSpincich]

My source did not specify workers so..Why would the owners be in favor of such a ban?

[Madame Dufarge]

Why would the owners be in favor of such a ban?

Owners in towns where smoking has been banned that are contiguous to towns where smoking is allowed have opted to go the easy route by levelling the playing field and throwing freedom of choice out the window.

If they're going to lose customers to the towns that allow smoking, it's cheaper for them to demand that everyone buckle under to the jihad than to fight the criminal enterprise known as "anti-tobacco" advocates.