CALIFORNIA: 5-year-old ban in bars leaves owners, customers fuming

Appeal-Democrat.com ^ | 5 January 2003 | Scott Bransford

[DoughtyOne]

I have spoken to a number of waitresses and bartenders about this. To a man/woman none of them were sad to see the smoke go. If your experience is different, so be it.

[DoughtyOne]

You and I want to frequent the same establishment. If I sit next to you I'm not going to bother you. You with bother me. Why is it that you think the owner should be deprived of my business so you can smoke?

[Madame Dufarge]

You stink up the place.

The stink of nanny-state is wrapped around you like a cloud.

[Protagoras]

So anotherwords in your perfect world you have every right to demand you get your way rather than accept that your actions have a negative, unhealthy and unacceptable impact on others.

(I'll take these one at a time as time permits. So many goofy things and so little time,,,,)
I don't demand my way, I demand my rights. Property rights. It is you who is doing the demanding.

You have the right of free association as well as the right to deny that to others.

Wrong, I have it and so do you. Stay out of places where you don't choose to associate with smokers.

You have the right to the persuit of happiness but nobody else does.

You have no "right" to be happy about violating my rights.

[Protagoras]

In your world everyone is equal, it's just that some are more equal than others. Is that about it?

Everyone has equal rights to run their business as they see fit in the absence of force or fraud. You want to be "more" equal. You want to have the power to usurp my rights.

[DoughtyOne]

If you read the other two presentations, why do I have to remind you that when all restaurants allowed smoking, we had to grin and bear it. They didn't lose business. We patronized them because there was no choice. I don't know of a single non-smoking restaurant that appeared before the smoking bans in either individual counties or the whole state.

[DoughtyOne]

Bzzzt, all you want to do is force others to breathe your smoke. Not able to control your own addiction, you find it easier to force others to deal with it.

[Protagoras]

Then no right to take a dump in the middle of your table is necessary either, right?

Childish and crude, I rest my case on your personality.

[Gabz]

Take a moment to think about what the ultimate result would be for an owner to fail to comply with this law, or any law. Sure, first offenses would be minor, but if they persisted, eventually some government official is going to force them to comply at the point of a gun.

Truer words have never been spoken.

No where in the legislation of the Delaware smoking ban is the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission (ABCC) mentioned.

Yet 3 weeks after the ban went into effect, and one establishment had already been cited for non-compliance 2 times - the ABCC was quick to state that any repeat violators of the smoke ban were in danger of losing their liquor licenses.

[saminfl]

You stink up the place. You expose me to carcinogenic smoke. You prevent me from smelling my meal. You prevent me from tasting my meal. You cause me to have to send my clothes to the cleaners. If I happen to have a wife, I get to pay for cleaning her clothes as well. If we have children, we get to clean their clothes as well. A family of four is exposed to your smoke.

You can't be that dense. You do not have to go to a place where smoke is allowed. No one forces you to do that.

[DoughtyOne]

Check out some of my replies to Jefferson. I appreciate your arguement, but I've already addressed it.

[stylin_geek]

You may be entitled to your opinion, but you are still wrong. I find it interesting you talk and talk about opinions as if they are facts. So, no chance you want to take a long hard look at where you stand in regards to property rights? Opinions are great, and should be a place to start a discussion, but wrong is still wrong.

[Protagoras]

You see sometimes government does have a reasoned interest in controling certain things in society. You pretension that it never does is absurd.

Your charge is the absurd thing. Strawman again.

The government has an interest in defending rights, nothing more. They should "control" behavior that violates rights.

[Max McGarrity]

Very well said.

[Gabz]

They understand their business and their clientele far better than bureaucrats or do-gooders who would never condescend to visiting such a place to begin with.

We've got a PRIZE WINNER here!!!!!!!

[DoughtyOne]

You folks simply refuse to accept the fact that there were NO non-smoking restaurants or bars until the bans went into effect. Choice? What choice? I appreciate your arguement, but there has to be some basis in fact for it to work.

[Protagoras]

You've made the case that government has no place whatsoever governing anything at all on private property.

I never said that, you lied. They are to rightfully govern actions which violate rights.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm equated with Hitler, and you think I'm the one who should start thinking.

[Protagoras]

Oh I see, Barnie Jefferson carries the same weight as Adolf Hitler in your eyes.

I merely pointed out that you were the one who started the name calling. Its a fact.

[GrandMoM]

I have spoken to a number of waitresses and bartenders about this. To a man/woman none of them were sad to see the smoke go. If your experience is different, so be it.

....WHO, WHEN & WHERE....at your local spa?

....most bartenders/waitresses are smokers themselves and find it quite annoying that they have to go outside to smoke.

Why is it that you think the owner should be deprived of my business so you can smoke?

....It is a wide known fact among wait people & owners that smokers spend more money, are alot more fun, and tip better!

....truth be told, they really don't care for boring non-smokers.