Then for you and those who say "clean air" it begs the next question: Are you willing to shut down all industrial activity in this country? Oh, and gas-burning engines? Because that stuff's harming the air a lot more than smokers.

 

Have belonged to a group called The Izaak Walton League of America for years and years. They/we take a common-sense approach toward protecting our country's natural heritage and improving outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans.

Agreed, that's why I say leave it up to the owner/operator, that way both have a choice.

 

Smoking restaurant, non-smokers allergic to smoke have no choice and cannot go out to enjoy a meal.

Non-smoking restaurant, both sides can go out and enjoy a meal.

There is a difference in an activity that adds a positive to the economy compared to smoking which does not AS IT RELATES to smoking in a restaurant.

If allowing smoking in restaurants did not benefit the economy, then restaurant owners would ban smoking on their own. Restaurants do not allow smoking for the benefit of customers - they allow it because they respect the rights of all of their customers and it is good for their bottom line.

If allowing smoking in restaurants did not benefit the economy, then restaurant owners would ban smoking on their own. Restaurants do not allow smoking for the benefit of customers - they allow it because they respect the rights of all of their customers and it is good for their bottom line.

 

And the national movement among many national chains IS TO BAN smoking at all of their franchises.

 

It is a misplaced fear that causes it.

 

Have the Reds/Bengals attendance been hurt because of the smoking ban?????

Smoking restaurant, non-smokers allergic to smoke have no choice and cannot go out to enjoy a meal.

Non-smoking restaurant, both sides can go out and enjoy a meal.

You're being selfish, you don't need to have ALL restaurants smoke free. As I've said, that's flat out greedy. If you're allergic, go to the numerous smoke free ones.

Smoking restaurant, non-smokers allergic to smoke have no choice and cannot go out to enjoy a meal.

Non-smoking restaurant, both sides can go out and enjoy a meal.

They can eat at home. They can open their own restaurants and ban smokers from entering the premises. They can wear filtration systems to breathe air cleaner than the driven snow. There are always choices.

And the national movement among many national chains IS TO BAN smoking at all of their franchises.

 

It is a misplaced fear that causes it.

 

Have the Reds/Bengals attendance been hurt because of the smoking ban?????

Impossible to gage that, they stink worse than any cigarette.

I'm saying it can be done.

 

Again is it about banning cigarettes or is it about clean air?

 

My wife is so sensitive to smoke that she can smell and actually starts to get sick if someone in the car in front of us is smoking.... I don't believe it can be done.

You're being selfish, you don't need to have ALL restaurants smoke free. As I've said, that's flat out greedy. If you're allergic, go to the numerous smoke free ones.

 

First, I do.

Second, smokers have been the selfish ones as they didn't want to give up any restaurants for the longest time. Now that their selfishness and lack of self-control have turned around to bite themselves in the butt (physical and cigarettal) they are upset about it.

My wife is so sensitive to smoke that she can smell and actually starts to get sick if someone in the car in front of us is smoking.... I don't believe it can be done.

 

My wife and daughter does if we check into a hotel room that has been used by a smoker.

 

NOT ALL, but many, many smokers are extremely insensitive to the health concerns of others as long as they are getting their fix.

And the national movement among many national chains IS TO BAN smoking at all of their franchises.

Good for them. It should be their decision because it is their business.

 

It is a misplaced fear that causes it.

That may or may not be true but that is not a determination that you should be able to impose on the owner of a privately owned restaurant or any other business.

 

Have the Reds/Bengals attendance been hurt because of the smoking ban?????

Don't know. Don't care. I have zero problem with businesses banning smoking, drinking, dancing, cursing, or any other activity that they deem sinful or unacceptable for any reason. I have a problem when people who have no stake in a business dictate unreasonable restrictions on the way that they manage their own property.

Good for them. It should be their decision because it is their business.

 

That may or may not be true but that is not a determination that you should be able to impose on the owner of a privately owned restaurant or any other business.

 

Don't know. Don't care. I have zero problem with businesses banning smoking, drinking, dancing, cursing, or any other activity that they deem sinful or unacceptable for any reason. I have a problem when people who have no stake in a business dictate unreasonable restrictions on the way that they manage their own property.

 

I believe it was the state of Ohio that led to the ban, wasn't it?

 

So, you think a business should be able to dump their sewage anywhere??? I think it is reasonable for me to expect that they cannot despite me having NO stake in their business.

Smoking bans are one of the current PC government trends, much like cameras on traffic lights. They really serve no purpose. No one forces you to go into a smoking restaurant or bar. And no, you don't have an inherent right to enter my place of establishment and dictate how I will do business. Let the businesses make their own decisions.

First, I do.

Second, smokers have been the selfish ones as they didn't want to give up any restaurants for the longest time. Now that their selfishness and lack of self-control have turned around to bite themselves in the butt (physical and cigarettal) they are upset about it.

I don't see how they're being the selfish ones, all they want is either a smoking section or some restaurants that allow smoking. It's the nannies, as usual, that are being selfish. There is simply no reason that ALL restaurants HAVE to be smoke free. Like I said, that's just greedy and self centered.

My wife and daughter does if we check into a hotel room that has been used by a smoker.

 

NOT ALL, but many, many smokers are extremely insensitive to the health concerns of others as long as they are getting their fix.

We stopped at a hotel recently, only to find out that our reserved nonsmoking room was a former smoking room. We turned around and went to another hotel. That's how you change business behavior. Not by making laws.