HB, it should be up the the owner, just that simple.

 

So, all health hazards should be left up to the discretion of the owner?

It's flat out greedy to make all restaurants non-smoking. Smokers aren't infringing on anyone unless they smoke in a non-smoking section.

 

Or you have to walk through the smoking section to get to the restroom or the non-smoking section.

Why cant non smokers go out side and dine?It's environmental friendly...I think...

 

Let's see, thunderstorms, ice, snow, rain, sleet, etc, etc.

 

This is a simple case.

 

It is about a person's choice (smoking) that enfringes on another person's choice (eating out). It does.

 

Non-smoking restaurants, there is no health reason why a smoker cannot enjoy a meal.

 

Smoking restaurants, there are health reasons why a non-smoker cannot enjoy a meal.

 

It is a very simple call.

Let's see, thunderstorms, ice, snow, rain, sleet, etc, etc.

 

This is a simple case.

 

It is about a person's choice (smoking) that enfringes on another person's choice (eating out). It does.

 

Non-smoking restaurants, there is no health reason why a smoker cannot enjoy a meal.

 

Smoking restaurants, there are health reasons why a non-smoker cannot enjoy a meal.

 

It is a very simple call.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. :thumb:

Not all restaurants are owned by individuals first of all.

 

Secondly, it isn't a big deal to me either way. I don't care if they pass a ban or not, but I'll enjoy the smoke free restaurants in places they do.

There is still someone at the top making the decisions based on their customers, the way it should be.

 

I will too, I don't like eating around smoke either but I'll be reasonable about it and leave it up to those own the restaurant.

 

Haven't smokers been hoarding them all up until recently? I mean sure they had "smoking sections" but that obviously wasn't doing any good.

 

Smokers can go outside to smoke. Non-smokers, if smoking is allowed, are forced to sit in a room filled with smoke that they don't want to be around.

I've been to plenty restaurants with perfectly fine smoking sections. As I posted earlier, there are ways to make smoking sections better. A restaurant can easily install an air curtain to separate smoking from non-smoking sections, the air discharged from the unit will prevent smoke from drifting to unwanted parts of the building. There are also smoke eaters that can be installed. I would have no problem with making it mandatory to install these in all restaurants that allow smoking.

 

So non-smokers should have to stay at home because people want to fill the air with cancerous smoke? Or should they just have to suck it up and suffer for other peoples bad choices?

 

Answer me this. Why is it such a big deal for smokers to simply get up and walk outside to smoke? Is it laziness?

 

I enjoy Richmond restaurants right now even more than I ever have. Same with Lexington. When I leave the restaurants now I don't smell like I've rolled around in an ash tray for a few hours.

They can simply go to many, many restaurants that are already smoke free.

 

Answer me this, why do you have to have all the restaurants non-smoking? What's so special about the non-smokers that they should have it all their way? Is it greediness? Is it a sense of self importance? Does it give them some sort of power trip?

 

If you seriously believe that having smoking vs non smoking sections in a restaurant works...then I don't know what to say. :lol:

 

Any restaurant owner who is smart would go to a smoking ban anyways. Something like 2/3 of this country are non-smokers who probably do not want to be around the smoke atmosphere.

 

Here's a very long list of restaurant mangers/owners who have benefited from banning smoking.

As I said, I've been to plenty that have very workable smoking sections, Rio Grande for instance. For the third time now, a restaurant can easily install an air curtain to separate smoking from non-smoking sections, the air discharged from the unit will prevent smoke from drifting to unwanted parts of the building. There are also smoke eaters that can be installed. I would have no problem with making it mandatory to install these in all restaurants that allow smoking.

 

That's fine with me so long as it's THEIR choice.

 

Again for those on your list, that's fine with me so long as it was THEIR choice, you know, the American way.

Yet another horrible analogy, you're talking about stuff that doesn't impact people on a daily basis. Smoking does every day. I think the smoking ban isn't good for business, but I completely disagree with the arguement that you're supporting.

Of course, it's not something that falls in line with what you agree with. So all across this great country people aren't grilling every day and not to mention with their children standing right there putting much more smoke to inhale in one occurrence then any ten trips to a restaurant that allows smoking? :lol:

 

One story,.... You're talking about one story. Thousands of people are diagnosed with cancer, which is linked to second hand smoke. You're stretching with all of these "examples" it's hard to stomach.

Have you ever read the statistics of those diagnosed with cancer from secondhand smoke? With everything that's supposed to cause cancer these days it's a bit hard to actually pinpoint that anyone got cancer from eating in a restaurant. In fact, I've yet to read of one single case that was linked to eating at a "smoke friendly" restaurant.

 

Yes we're killing you softly with second hand smoke, so it's not a big deal. What you're speaking of are accidents or mistakes. That's life, those kinda things happen, but the smoking thing is a different story. Some people, especially children don't get to choose whether or not they're exposed to second hand smoke.

Again, if you don't want you or your children to be exposed to secondhand smoke then just go to the smoke free restaurants, it's your choice. You shouldn't have the right to tell others that can't have a choice.

 

:thumb: I've been trying not to sound like an insensitive jerk in this thread, but it's not easy.

The ONLY insensitivity I see in this thread is coming from those that want it all their way only. The level of smugness truly amazes me.

So, all health hazards should be left up to the discretion of the owner?

Examples?

 

Or you have to walk through the smoking section to get to the restroom or the non-smoking section.

If that's a problem, complain to management, if they get enough complaints I'm sure they'll rectify the problem.

 

Let's see, thunderstorms, ice, snow, rain, sleet, etc, etc.

 

This is a simple case.

 

It is about a person's choice (smoking) that enfringes on another person's choice (eating out). It does.

 

Non-smoking restaurants, there is no health reason why a smoker cannot enjoy a meal.

 

Smoking restaurants, there are health reasons why a non-smoker cannot enjoy a meal.

 

It is a very simple call.

You know what's really simple? Choosing to go to a smoke free restaurant if you're that worried about secondhand smoke. See, that way nobody's forcing anything on you and you're not forcing anything on someone else. Pretty noble concept, huh.

 

Funny how you and others are fine with shoving smokers into thunderstorms, ice, snow, rain, sleet, etc, etc. Just allow some restaurants to be "smoke friendly" and the problem's solved. Everyone gets a choice, sounds fair to me.

Of course, it's not something that falls in line with what you agree with. So all across this great country people aren't grilling every day and not to mention with their children standing right there putting much more smoke to inhale in one occurrence then any ten trips to a restaurant that allows smoking?

Grill smoke is not lethal. Cigarette smoke is.

 

Have you ever read the statistics of those diagnosed with cancer from secondhand smoke? With everything that's supposed to cause cancer these days it's a bit hard to actually pinpoint that anyone got cancer from eating in a restaurant. In fact, I've yet to read of one single case that was linked to eating at a "smoke friendly" restaurant.

The deadly effects of second-hand smoke are well documented. To blindly deny that fact weakens your argument's credibility considerably.

 

Again, if you don't want you or your children to be exposed to secondhand smoke then just go to the smoke free restaurants, it's your choice. You shouldn't have the right to tell others that can't have a choice.

It's not just about restaurants. It's also about public gathering and working places all over the community. Why should those who respect other people be forced to limit their activities?

 

The ONLY insensitivity I see in this thread is coming from those that want it all their way only. The level of smugness truly amazes me.

Smugness? Wanting to be able to breathe and not be harmed by other people is considered "smug?" Yikes! :eek:

Edited July 14, 200818 yr by Birdsfan

Grill smoke is not lethal. Cigarette smoke is.[/Quote]The American Institute of Cancer Research disagrees with you. The high heat of grilling reacts with proteins in red meat, poultry and fish, creating heterocyclic amines, which are linked to cancer. Another form of cancer-causing agents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, are created when juices from meats drip and hit the heat source. They then rise in smoke and can stick to the meat. So just eating the grilled food can cause cancer.

 

 

The deadly effects of second-hand smoke are well documented. To blindly deny that fact weakens your argument's credibility considerably.[/Quote]What's well documented is the amount or level of exposure that can cause cancer. I stand by my statement.

 

It's not just about restaurants. It's public gathering and working places all over the community.[/Quote]And bars and private clubs and....

 

Smugness? Wanting to be able to breathe and not be harmed by other people is considered "smug?" Yikes! :eek:

No, telling people that ALL restaurants have to be smoke free is being smug and greedy. Why can't we leave it to those that know their customers? Why do non-smokers have to have every single restaurant smoke free?

Edited July 14, 200818 yr by Birdsfan

While smoking bans suck for people that smoke...

 

They're AWESOME for me, and in the end that's all that matters...

New England Journal of Medicine, published back in 1975, when smoking was rampant in bars and other public places. The paper concluded that the concentration of ETS contaminants in these smoky confines was equal to the effects of smoking 0.004 cigarettes per hour. In other words, you would have to hang out for 250 hours to match the effects of smoking one cigarette.

 

So, how dangerous IS secondhand smoke? The most reliable data would indicate that it is nowhere near as serious a threat as elements of the media (and their supporters within academia) would have us believe. In fact, ETS is, at its most extreme, far less dangerous than numerous other indoor air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, toxic mold, and radon

 

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest6.html

Should smoking be banned in strip clubs? Biker bars? Gay bars? Casinos?

So, you would support businesses have ZERO health standards to have to follow for their restaurant?

 

I wouldn't say Zero...The only thing a restaurant should be inspected for are Food Temperatures,Cross contamination,soap in the hand dispencers,towels soaking in bleech water,monthly exterminators and Hot Running water...

While smoking bans suck for people that smoke...

 

They're AWESOME for me, and in the end that's all that matters...

Elitist!

While smoking bans suck for people that smoke...

 

They're AWESOME for me, and in the end that's all that matters...

 

That's what I'm screaming...:thumb: