Smoking in Restaurants

[Wuptdo]

I was wondering what you good people thought about a "No Smoking" ordinance in Cary restaurants (similar to what NYC has implemented).

Wuptdo B-)

[Karen]

What exactly is the ordinance that NYC has implemented???

Karen

[Wuptdo]

Miss Karen,

It would be too long to post; please see attached.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/smoke/tc1.html

Interesting, to level the playing field, the State of New York, implemented a ban statewide.

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

Smokers are dragged to the curb and shot in the back of the head at close range. Unless they quit smoking and celebrate leveraging some diversity in an inclusive and safe manner of course.

[Wuptdo]

Whoa! I do an opinion poll and it gets on the front page of the Cary News a few days later. Maybe the council people really do read this forum. :lol:

Non-smokers, let the council members know your view on this matter. For me, I would love to be able to eat (like I really need too! :? ) at Bob Evans and Waffle King, again.

Wuptdo B-)

[kellyc]

Im cool with banning smoking in resturaunts but not bars. I do prefer eateries that are smoke free, and so do my clothes.


Kelly

[Don]

So define what makes an establishment a "bar" and what makes one a "restaurant". Chilis, Outback, Lonestar, etc.... all have both. So if you banned smoking at resturants but not bars, could you still smoke at these establishments?

Personally, I believe the establishments should have the right to decide whether to ban smoking inside or not, NOT the town. Sounds like more micro-mangement to me.

And Wuptdo, if the smoke is preventing you from upping your cholesterol at the waffle king, they probably offer take-out. :wink:

[kellyc]

I dont know Don. I consider Woody's and Harrison's a bar. I think smoking in a bar area is cool as long as it is seperated very well. But your probably right....I guess rather than the town make the laws let the patrons / customers dictate who gets the money.

Kelly

[Don]

I dont know Don. I consider Woody's and Harrison's a bar. I think smoking in a bar area is cool as long as it is seperated very well. But your probably right....I guess rather than the town make the laws let the patrons / customers dictate who gets the money.

Kelly

More of that darn free market economy theory. If customers won't patronize an establishment because of smoke, the owner may be inclined to ban smoking. If the owner is doing well as is, he/she should be allowed to function as is.

[SteveG]

My lungs react badly to cigarette smoke; if exposed to it I eventually become unable to breathe. I believe that this sensitivity problem is a result of my parents smoking around me as a child.

I used to carry an emergency inhaler, but by avoiding all possible exposure to cigarettes and by engaging in regular aerobic exercise to improve lung capacity I have been able to avoid these attacks for several years, and so I don't carry the inhaler anymore. Obviously, I must avoid patronizing all bars and restaurants that do not keep smokers penned up in an area with a separate ventilation system. I also hold my breath when entering and exiting buildings where smokers congregate outside.

Banning smoking from all eating establishments would make more destinations accessible to me as a patron, but personally I'm not interested in most of the destinations where smoking is allowed now. Given the public knowledge about the hazards of smoking and the majority of the public's displeasure with it, those establishments that embrace smoking reflect cultural values that are different from and somewhat incompatible with mine and my family's. I see a growing segregation of our culture: the smokers and the nonsmokers, i.e. the health-oriented family-friendly types versus the self-involved and/or self-destructive individualists. I didn't hang out with the smokers in high school and I'm no more interested in doing so now.

If I were a restaurant-related service professional, however, the health hazards of second hand smoke would be a serious occupational hazard for me. I suspect the future of smoking bans will revolve around workplace health issues rather than the preferences of patrons.

-Steve Goodridge

[Cathy]

I attended last nights Special Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee. Evidently the "smoking ban" is something that had been previously discussed by Council Members days before the article.

It seemed that this idea for the Town to ban smoking was something that Nels Roseland wanted to advance. He raised the issue at the end of the meeting, citing other states and municipalities that were way ahead of Cary in enacting this type of ban. He also mentioned that he had decided to advance this issue on the basis of receiving ONE email from a citizen about it.

The issue had already been given to the Town Attorney to research and he told them that State Statute enacted in 1993 prohibited any municipality from enacting a more stringent regulation of smoking than was already in place at the time. Private businesses can decide for themselves what their smoking policy will be, and this is as it should be!
Perhaps Nels should consider opening his own non-smoking establishment if he feels that there is such a overwhelming demand for this.

Michael Joyce was totally opposed to adopting such a ban and said that he did not think that the Town should do anything like this that may hurt small business owners.

Julie Robison very diplomatically explained that she did not think that imposing a ban was something that the town should venture into at this time. She felt it was unclear how the majority of citizens felt about it and that it would be a very complicated issue to pursue.

[Brent]

Smokers are dragged to the curb and shot in the back of the head at close range.

Doesn't quite sound like the Libertarian position! :lol:

[johnb]

I was parodying the NYC position. That yahoo Michael Bloomberg is quite the anti-smoking Nazi.

[Brent]

Thanks for the good summary, Cathy.

At the risk of agreeing with Michael Joyce :) this would seem to be unfriendly to existing businesses. Let the business owners decide what environment they want to provide and the customers decide what places they want to patronize (our impact fees are driving people to neighboring municipalities, we're told...might this do the same thing?).

I'm going to write Nels an e-mail stating that I think we should ban high-fat foods in Cary restaurants. Also any kind of music I don't like. No Red Rider BB guns should be sold in Cary either (you'll put your eye out!). And Frantz should not be allowed to fix any cars that don't have a stellar safety record. :lol: :roll:

[johnb]

Quick! I'll get the bulldozer and you distract him Brent!

[Brent]

Quick! I'll get the bulldozer and you distract him Brent!

Hey, Don, look over here! A boss Camaro and one sweet Harley! Pay no attention to that man on the 'dozer!

[Cathy]

Thanks for the good summary, Cathy.

At the risk of agreeing with Michael Joyce :) this would seem to be unfriendly to existing businesses. Let the business owners decide what environment they want to provide and the customers decide what places they want to patronize (our impact fees are driving people to neighboring municipalities, we're told...might this do the same thing?).

I'm going to write Nels an e-mail stating that I think we should ban high-fat foods in Cary restaurants. Also any kind of music I don't like. No Red Rider BB guns should be sold in Cary either (you'll put your eye out!). And Frantz should not be allowed to fix any cars that don't have a stellar safety record. :lol: :roll:

Thanks,
And I think your email to Nels is an EXCELLENT idea. Why not highlight the absurdity while you can?

[Don]

Hee Hee! Funny guys. Unfortunately you all aren't too far off. Greasy food causes high cholesterol so why shouldn't we ban that? I agree that smoking is bad, causes cancer, offends non-smokers, and makes your breath stink. But it is still my legal right to smoke, just like it is to eat fatty foods. It is also, IMHO, the business owners right to decide whether to ban the smoking, the food, or country music.

[Anonymous]

If someone owns a business it should be their right to decide whether to allow smoking or not. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it then don't go there. Its that simple. I just read the article in the Cary News and am very disturbed at Nel's attitude. One person sends an email and this guy tries to get legislative permission to ban the whole town. What a joke.

[kellyc]

Hee Hee! Funny guys. Unfortunately you all aren't too far off. Greasy food causes high cholesterol so why shouldn't we ban that? I agree that smoking is bad, causes cancer, offends non-smokers, and makes your breath stink. But it is still my legal right to smoke, just like it is to eat fatty foods. It is also, IMHO, the business owners right to decide whether to ban the smoking, the food, or country music.

I guess the difference here is that a person can choose whether or not to eat a greasy burger. Its not so simple when it comes to second hand smoke. There are few places that are completely smoke free, and I will admit that many resturaunts do a decent job of seperating smoking from no smoking sections, but in some it really is poor.

Kelly

[SteveG]

I guess the difference here is that a person can choose whether or not to eat a greasy burger. Its not so simple when it comes to second hand smoke. There are few places that are completely smoke free, and I will admit that many resturaunts do a decent job of seperating smoking from no smoking sections, but in some it really is poor.


If I'm not satisfied with the degree of isolation a hostess provides me from cigarette stench, I ask to be moved. If they cannot find a location that meets with my satisfaction, I politely leave. I don't care if they have already taken my order and somebody lights up while I'm waiting - I simply refuse to subject myself to that.

Fortunately, there are enough good restaurants around that I don't have to put up with the stench of the bad ones if I don't want to. And, I only spend a few hours (at most) a week in restaurants. Restaurant and bar employees, however, don't have the option of refusing to wait on a table of smokers. They may have to breathe the smoke all day long. It seems to me that most of the successful attempts to ban smoking have come from employees who demanded healthy workplaces. The restaurant industry may plead that smoking bans hurt business, and that this will hurt employees, but the employees may prefer to take that risk rather than continue to expose themselves to smoking. The economics and health tradeoffs aren't much different from any other workplace health issue.

Meanwhile, as smoking continues to decline, more of the people who want to linger at a restaruant and bar will be non-smokers, many of whom are currently chased away by smoke. I suspect they may eventually become more profitable to the restaurants than the smokers.

[Anonymous]

Again, noone is being forced to work in a restaurant that allows smoking. They are free to find a different job. It's supposed to be a free country. I'm not a smoker myself but government intervention in everyone's life has got to stop somewhere.

[dhyatt]

Again, noone is being forced to work in a restaurant that allows smoking. They are free to find a different job. It's supposed to be a free country. I'm not a smoker myself but government intervention in everyone's life has got to stop somewhere.

I sort of loathe being in dense cigarette smoke and I agree totally that there's too much government intervention in our daily lives. Seems to be getting worse all the time.

[johnb]

If I'm not satisfied with the degree of isolation a hostess provides me from cigarette stench, I ask to be moved. If they cannot find a location that meets with my satisfaction, I politely leave. I don't care if they have already taken my order and somebody lights up while I'm waiting - I simply refuse to subject myself to that.

Emminently reasonable.

[johnb]

It is also, IMHO, the business owners right to decide whether to ban the smoking, the food, or country music.

Hmmm.....

or country music.

Gassing that dozer up now for sure. 8-O

[Wuptdo]

This was a great thread. Good arguments from several points of view!
I must admit that I was a former smoker; but now reformed. My view was just to ban smoking period, and let the chips fall. However, after reviewing your various arguments, I see the error in my opinion.

Therefore, as my right as a consumer, I will continue to eat in only restaurants that are either "smoke-free" or have a good "Non-smoking" sections. (I will miss that chicken fried steak & gravy at Bob Evans). Let free market conditions prevail. Thank you all for your inputs.

Wuptdo B-)

Nothing...is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man.
Thomas Jefferson (1824)

[Cathy]

Thanks to all the "Free Marketer's" speaking up here!!
The fascist minority has run amuck long enough!
And the Free Market minded folks (smoking or NON smoking) really need to fire back at Council ASAP and shore up the other Council members who have been trying to talk Nels down from this crusade he's trying to start.

I've been listening to the Public Radio stations and it is kind of odd that I have heard several programs and commentaries in the last couple of days where the topic is smoking, and how far we've come to change public perception and how far we have left to go to eliminate it. "Weird" is all I have to say about that.

[SteveG]

Again, noone is being forced to work in a restaurant that allows smoking. They are free to find a different job. It's supposed to be a free country. I'm not a smoker myself but government intervention in everyone's life has got to stop somewhere.

The same argument could be made about any preventable workplace health problem. Nobody is forcing people to work in factories with barricaded fire doors or with noxious chemicals in unventilated environments. Yet such working conditions are illegal. What makes workplace smoke different from other health hazards that have been eliminated from workplaces via legislation?

-Steve (whose parents owned and operated a seafood restaurant in New Hampshire)

[Karen]

First, a belated "thank you" to Mr. Wuptdo for the link on NYC's smoking ordinance. :)

I agree with the responses that it should be up to the bars and restaurants to decide on their own smoking policy. I understand Steve's concern about his breathing as my son has asthma and I certainly don't want him to be in a smokey environment. However, I make it a point to try my best to make sure he isn't. I usually request that we be seated far from the smoking section. So far no problems. I feel too strongly that if there is a smoking section smokers have every right to light up if they want to. And I can eat elsewhere if I don't like it. And I find, with exceptions of course, that most smokers I am friends with are very considerate to non smokers.

As far as smoking in bars...I get more irritated by the obnoxious drunk than the smoker... :evil:

Karen

[Wuptdo]

Last month, we were eating at the Golden Corral in Roxboro, N.C. One side of the GC was for smoking, the other for non-smoking (and it still blows to NS side). Anyway, a van load of Seniors arrived and split into two camps (NS v. S). My youngest son is very curious and has no problem asking people questions. Several of the senior gentlemen were carry around those portable oxygen devices. My son ask one of the gentleman what the machine is for? He tells him that it helps him breath. Now he follows the gentleman back to his table where several other men who also have the machines, and begins asking even more questions. He asks things like why do you need the machine to breath, how does it work, how many batteries, etc., etc. The seniors are very nice to him an answer his questions (once he gets going, it is hard for him to stop). About this time, we go looking for him. I found him on the "smoking" side of the GC, talking to these seniors. Did the polite parent thing, got a "no problem" from the seniors and took him back to his seat. However, about 30 seconds after we get into the van, my wife notices that both my son and I stink of smoke. My son had to take two baths to get the smell out of his hair. Oh well.

On the drive home, he talks about the breathing machines to his brothers. He surmised that the machines help the "old people" smoke better. Out of the mouth of babes! Our Medicade dollars at work! :roll:

Wuptdo B-)

[Anonymous]

Come on Steve..not quite apples to apples there. Why stop there? You could break a wine glass and bleed to death....you could trip, fall and break your neck...Hell, why should yoube allowed to ride your bike around? You could lose control, dump off in frontof a car and cause a chain-reaction wreck that injuries others. Why don't we just make it illegal to leave your house and go anywhere or do anything?

Why don't you help control overpopulation and ride your bike to a smoking restaurant and eat a forty-ounce rare steak :lol:

If you don't like something that you are NOT being forced to do and it has zero effect on you then what is the freaking hangup about other people doing it? That is my single biggest problem with BOTH political parties.
You should have no say whatsoever in ewhat I do if it doesn't effect you.

"The same argument could be made about any preventable workplace health problem. Nobody is forcing people to work in factories with barricaded fire doors or with noxious chemicals in unventilated environments. Yet such working conditions are illegal. What makes workplace smoke different from other health hazards that have been eliminated from workplaces via legislation?

-Steve (whose parents owned and operated a seafood restaurant in New Hampshire)"

[SteveG]

If you don't like something that you are NOT being forced to do and it has zero effect on you then what is the freaking hangup about other people doing it? That is my single biggest problem with BOTH political parties.
You should have no say whatsoever in ewhat I do if it doesn't effect you.


I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't think that non-employees are going to successfully promote bans on workplace smoking. However, if actual employees were to promote such bans, I think they could be successful, as they have indeed been in other places. If I were in a decision-making position in government and I were being lobbied by workers for restrictions or outright prohibition of smoking in their workplaces, I would be inclined to support them.

[johnb]

"What makes workplace smoke different from other health hazards that have been eliminated from workplaces via legislation?"

Probably the lack of scientific evidence that so called second hand smoke actually causes lung cancer or other serious ailments. Being unpleasant is not synonymous with increased mortality.

[Don]

It is also, IMHO, the business owners right to decide whether to ban the smoking, the food, or country music.

Hmmm.....

or country music.

Gassing that dozer up now for sure. 8-O


Cleaning that gun again! :wink:

[Brent]

Why don't we just make it illegal to leave your house and go anywhere or do anything?

Good point, TC, but it doesn't go far enough. Household accidents are frequent. We'll also need to ban showering, cooking and other hazardous activities. But first, Nels will need to do a study to seek legislative authority to do so. :roll:

[Don]

Why don't we just make it illegal to leave your house and go anywhere or do anything?

Good point, TC, but it doesn't go far enough. Household accidents are frequent. We'll also need to ban showering, cooking and other hazardous activities. But first, Nels will need to do a study to seek legislative authority to do so. :roll:

Yep, thousands to a consultant to decide whether the town should ban smoking. Kudos to Michael Joyce for bringing this to everyones attention.
You would think with stormwater problems, businesses leaving downtown, and a host of other more pressing issues, this would be way far down on the priorities list.

Apparantly Nels is looking for something to fatten that resume' for a run at a state seat. I also find it humorous that ONE email from a citizen justifies the commisioning of a study on this. How many emails did he get on the downtown issue or annexation? He didn't jump to high then. I guess maybe it's NOT the wishes of the citizens he represents, but those of his self. I wonder what restaurant he patronized that sat him too close to a smoker? 8-O

[johnb]

Apparantly Nels is looking for something to fatten that resume' for a run at a state seat. I also find it humorous that ONE email from a citizen justifies the commisioning of a study on this. How many emails did he get on the downtown issue or annexation? He didn't jump to high then. I guess maybe it's NOT the wishes of the citizens he represents, but those of his self. I wonder what restaurant he patronized that sat him too close to a smoker?

Wow, that Nels must be a real horse's rear huh Don? :twisted:

[Anonymous]

Hurry and order yours, Nels, while supplies last!

Florida Wildlife Federation comes up
with new clothing line.

SOUNDOFF Exclusive!

The advertisment:

http://www.cataction.com/images/ad.jpg


From today's NDN:

Quote:
"We seem to be almost going back to square one in terms of wildlife not getting the protection it deserves in Collier County," said Nancy Payton, field representative for the Florida Wildlife Federation.[/img]

[Wuptdo]

Funny, I just saw his royal highness David Price on the tube. He isn't looking so good these days. Wonder if he would step down, if Nels would stepped up. Actually, just for entertainment value only, it would be fun to watch Nels and Mr. Lang fought over the seat in the primaries.

Another observation. When I had to go vote for Mayor a second time, Miss Julie was outside talking to TV reporters. The one thing I really noticed is that Miss Julie was much older looking in person than her campaign posters. (Is this just me?) :o

While I at it (I'm avoiding yardwork). This would of been a perfect picture for the Cary News. Right after the election, showing Mayor Ernie holding up the previous weeks issue of "The Independent," which featured Miss Julie as "Mayor of Cary." (Like Truman holding up the "Dewey" headline). Oh well, just my sense of humor.

Wuptdo B-)

[Don]

Apparantly Nels is looking for something to fatten that resume' for a run at a state seat. I also find it humorous that ONE email from a citizen justifies the commisioning of a study on this. How many emails did he get on the downtown issue or annexation? He didn't jump to high then. I guess maybe it's NOT the wishes of the citizens he represents, but those of his self. I wonder what restaurant he patronized that sat him too close to a smoker?

Wow, that Nels must be a real horse's rear huh Don? :twisted:

Nah, he aint ALL bad, :wink: I was just angry. I have agreed with Nels on many issues, and disagreed with him on others. On this issue, I definitely disagree with him - and the sense of urgency here is disturbing to me.

[johnb]

No sense letting that wound heal....we can poke at it and cause it to fester and then maybe one or both you would say something truly regrettable....
8-O

[johnb]

"Another observation. When I had to go vote for Mayor a second time, Miss Julie was outside talking to TV reporters. The one thing I really noticed is that Miss Julie was much older looking in person than her campaign posters. (Is this just me?)"

No gathering of little children chanting "You're first in our hearts Miss Julie!" in the background was there?

[Wuptdo]

Actually, there was a bunch of kids (with signs and balloons) with their parents. Also, there were five or six SUV's all decorated with Miss Julie stuff all over them. This was over at the Cary Academy parking lot. I give her credit for earning those people's loyality.

Other note: I got to watch Thursday nites council session this afternoon. Miss Julie does look like she is much more rested and healthy, than when I saw her.

Wuptdo B-)