I’ve noticed that The Cupboard has a sign out front that says it’s gone non-smoking now, which is something we’ll be seeing more and more of as we move toward the restaurant ban in October. The Grove Grill and Boscos have both recently moved the ashtrays off the tables–and it’s a move that I welcome.
Still.
It’s been years since I quit smoking and I hate the smell of it. I hate to smell it around food, hate to smell it on people when they walk past me, can’t stand it that so many young people–including my 23-year-old daughter–smoke. I DESPISE the tobacco companies’ business practices and have seen the horrible effects smoking has on health in my own family members. And like I said, I’m glad the restaurant law was passed. I welcome the benefit I’ll personally reap, and almost all restaurateurs I’ve talked to (but not all) are thrilled about it.
But there is still something about it that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it’s the former smoker in me that remembers the old happy hours when a cigarette was in one hand and a drink in the other for nearly everyone around the bar. Maybe it’s my libertarian streak coming out–or maybe I’m just being a contrarian. I really can’t put my finger on what it is that’s keeping me from being 100 percent behind it instead of, say, 95 percent behind it. Help me out here.
Restaurant business
Responses to “Smoking”
July 19th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
While I’ve never smoked and hate being around it, nobody likes the government to control their behavior. While the law only affects me in a positive way, I feel for my smoking friends whose lives have once again been interrupted by the government.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:18 am
True. I don’t feel that the government should regulate what we eat, i.e. foie gras, drink, or smoke, but I personally don’t want to be subjected to anyone’s second hand smoke. There are smokers out there that has no regard or respect for anyone else around them. So I think banning smoking in restaurants is a positive thing.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:56 am
In my mind, it is not a civil liberties issue, it is a helath issue. The fact that secondhand smoke is worse than directly smoking a cigarette should be enough to make you 100% behind the new policies. Also, the restaurants are not being forced to ban smoking by the government. They have changed the policies of their own volition. I am happy that I can go somewhere and not breathe in the smelly disgusting smoke. I hate it when I have to change clothes the second I get home because I reek of cigarettes. Bravo to the Cupboard and other intelligent businesses that ban smoking.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Warning: I’m about to get on my soap box. So if you don’t want to hear it, then skip my post. Banning smoking in public places is a plus for me because I am hearing impaired, possibly as a result of second hand smoke when I was a child. I’ll never forget how devastated I felt when I read second hand smoke could cause hearing loss. It made me resentful toward my dad, who constantly smoked around me when I lived at home, when he was dying of lung disease. No matter how I tried to get beyond it, I was unable to do so. Smoking is a serious addiction, as evidenced by a friend who has resumed smoking after having surgery for a life threatening condition related to smoking. Anything that makes it harder for someone to smoke, including raising the prices of cigarettes & taxing them more, is a plus for those of us who choose not to smoke or be injured by other smoking around us. It is also a plus for them by refusing to enable them to force their addiction on others & limiting their access even for brief periods. I eat too much & smokers would be quick to point that out. But eating is necessary to life & smoking is not, so I rest my case. To spoil someone’s meal in a restaurant by smoking is not only rude, it’s injurious to their health as well. This is one of the few instances where government intervention doesn’t offend me a bit, because there is a lot more at stake than someone’s right to light up.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
As much as I dislike the government in everyone’s business, this one was easy for me to swallow. I’ve seen people go into asthma attacks just because the family wanted a meal out. For me, I sneeze for days after being around it. And, in the long term, studies have shown that second hand smoke can kill, and that there is no safe level. Period.
So, I see it much like driving drunk - we don’t let people do this because it puts the lives of others around them in danger. Although second hand smoke won’t cause immediate dealth or trauma like a car crash, it can still be deadly to those around it in time. I realize that’s somewhat of an extreme example, but the outcomes are the same. As far as I’m concerned, I have the right to go out in public without someone else harming my lungs. Smokers’ rights end at their own lungs. Not mine.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Remember, I’m glad I’m not going to have to endure the stink anymore, too. But it IS a law, Amy, although it doesn’t go into effect until October. The state has banned (and with much support from the restaurant community and the community at large) smoking in dining establishments that serve or employ anyone under the age of either 18 or 21 (not sure about the age, but I’ll look it up). Some restaurants are getting the jump on it, including Boscos and The Grove Grill–two of my favorite places, so it makes me happy. Like Todd said, it benefits me personally, but there’s just something about it that makes me uneasy.
And Carole, eating too much and smoking are not the same, so don’t let smokers tell you that! You truly aren’t endangering anyone else’s health, and it’s true that smokers do put the rest of us at risk. No doubt about that.
I’m puzzled a bit by my mixed emotions on this.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Second hand smoke causes cancer. Period. And a multitude of other health problems, as evidenced by Carole up there who has hearing impairments due to second hand smoke. How is this even a question in today’s society? It blows my mind that people stick up for smokers, smoking in public is not a right. You do not have a right to give me diseases and illnesses.
Eating too much does cause cancer also, just FYI. However, people do that to themselves, unlike smoking which subject innocent people and children to health problems.
July 20th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I’m thrilled about the smoking ban because I’m sick of having to walk through the smoking section of a restaurant to get to the non-smoking section. Actually I dislike everything about smoking, especially the fact that someone else’s habit can hurt my health. One other thing that I thought the ban would allow me to do was go to clubs to hear some of our great local music. However, I heard that if an establishment declares itself to be “all-adult”, i.e. no one under 21, they are exempted from the ban. So much for adding to my social life!
July 20th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
The law doesn’t stop people from smoking, just from smoking in oublic places where second-hand smoke will affect other people. Smokers can smoke in their houses and yards, in the houses and yards of their smoker friends, in their cars and so on. Eating certain substances may lead to cancer (or conditions susceptible to cancer) but that occurs within oneself, not to other people. Smoking is different, a public danger to others.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I just don’t understand why Boscos is taking the entire patio non-smoking. It is not included in the ban. I am a non-smoker, and I don’t enjoy eating with smoke in my food, but a lot of my friends are. Boscos was always the compromise place we could sit out on the patio and they could smoke and I could get fresh air and we could all enjoy our drinks.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Jennifer, maybe you are thinking how you would have felt if this smoking ban had been happening while you were still a smoker, & that’s why you can’t buy into it completely. At least if someone is smoking in the yard or other open area, the wind carries some of the smoke away. Wonder how many of the restaurants that are voluntarily complying early with the no-smoking ban are deep cleaning the former smoking sections to remove what they can of stale smoke smells & residue on tables, chairs & booths? Is that measure included in the new law? It has been my experience in hotels when I’ve stayed in a smoking room that the odor lingers on, despite diligent housekeeping efforts to the contrary. Even worse than cigarette smoke is the odor of a stale cigar - yuck!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:39 am
I guess I’m what you could call a very, very social smoker, so the new law won’t affect me that much. That said, as a big property rights guy, I have a really hard time swallowing the idea of a state or local government telling a property owner that he or she can’t allow something that is legal and that said government taxes (granted there are some exceptions).
Obviously actual owners of places like Bosco’s and The Cupboard have every right in the world to make their places smoke free.
Consequently, I did notice the venerable P&H Cafe now has a sign on their door, saying “Must be 21,” exempting them from the smoking ban.
July 24th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
To me, it’s a free market issue/property rights issue. I am not a smoker (except for the occasional cigar), however I have friends who do enjoy to smoke, especially in social situations (bars).
Look, there are plenty of places that have banned smoking on their own, and that’s great, I rather enjoy those places, especially when I have my kids in tow. That said, this whole hysteria over the danger of second hand smoke is hard for me to buy. I’m not referring to unfortunate children who are exposed to second hand smoke day in, day out. If you are spending that much time in a bar or restaurant, and you’re not employed there, you are probably either pickling your liver or expanding your waist line, causing far more damage than the occasional exposure to second hand smoke. As for those who are employed at bars or restaurants, they chose to do so. Ask any restaurant or bar owner how difficult it is to stay “staffed up” and it is pretty clear to me that there are options out there for the wait staff that would prefer an non-smoking environment. In fact, I would argue that there are quite a few wait staff (especially in bars) that are a bit concerned about the economic impact on them with the smoking ban.
How many of you smokers out there have lingered for one more drink (or another or another) over a cigarette? That one more drink equates to more tips for your diligent server. I can’t imagine that a smoker’s visit to a bar or restaurant won’t be cut a little short if they can’t enjoy a cigarette with “one more drink”.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
If cigarettes are so evil, then make them illegal altogether. Until then, if you don’t like smoke, do as I do and don’t go where there is smoking. A restaurant is *not* a public place. It is a privately-owned business. You are not required to go there. You are not required to spend your money there.
There shouldn’t be smoking at the DMV, the courthouse or the library, but those are public places. Taxpayers pay for them and sometimes are required (against their will) to go there.
If you feel so strongly about a restaurant’s smoking policies, tell the owner that the reason you don’t eat there is because of the cigarette smoke. Let the market decide. Don’t use tyranny to force a private enterprise to do what *you* want.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Restaurants may be privately owned businesses, Annette, but they are public places because they make their profit by inviting the public inside to eat and drink. Otherwise they would be exclusionary private clubs.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Kudos to all those who helped ket the ban on smoking in restaurants passed! I am a nonsmoker but was raised by two parents who smoked like chimneys on a bitter cold day. Our house had a constant ‘blue haze” and I always reeked of smoke. I was plagged by ear infections, sinus infections and respiratory infections my entire childhood. Now I suffer from COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) due to me breathing second hand smoke. For years I have obstained from going to places where there was alot of smoke including the Rendezvous because going either makes me have an immediate asthma attack, or makes me feel ill for days. It will be emancipating to be able to go to any restaurant in the city and enjoy a meal without concerns of inhaling second hand smoke.
I like to compare smoking to wearing a seat belt. Studies showed that wearing seat belts saved lives so the government had car manufacturers make cars where either wearing a seatbelt was all but necessary and passed laws making it illegal to drive or ride in a car without buckling up. Similarly, numerous studies have proven that smoking and inhaling second smoke cause cancer and all sorts of respiratory illnesses and yet virtually nothing has been done to curtail or stop smoking until now. Finally those of us who have chosen not to smoke are not forced to inhale another’s smoke. I think cigarette smoking should either be banned or that cigarettes should be taxed so highly that people can’t afford to smoke. I’m all for a law that makes smoking in any public place, which includes outside of buildings, on the sidewalks, in the parks, restaurants, etc. illegal. If you must smoke, then smoke in your own home.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Frederic,
A restaurant may be public in the sense that it serves the public, but it is not public like a taxpayer-funded enterprise where customers/users have no other options. A government-run operation is usually a monopoly — users do not have a choice about where to get the services provided and hence are “forced” to use the government service, such as the post office, a school or the library. In that case, it is perfectly appropriate for the government to make rules for the comfort of the majority of the patrons. I myself wish there were laws about not cranking the air conditioning and keeping obnoxious undisciplined children from public places, but I am not queen yet.
A restaurant, in addition to not being taxpayer funded, is not a forced option. Consumers have a multitude of options for eating: cook at home, go to a drive-through restaurant, or eat at any sit-down restaurant available. Should the demand for no-smoking restaurants be strong enough, surely there is someone enterprising restaurateur who will convert of his own free will. The purpose of a private business is to make money for the owners by selling people what they want to buy. If they want to buy a meal at a restaurant where there is smoking, so be it. If the consumers take all their business to no-smoking restaurants, the smoking restaurants will figure it out quickly enough.
Smoking is legal. It should be up to the business owner as to whether smoking is allowed or not. Government should stay out of it.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Serving steak in a restaurant is legal, too, but we still have several levels of govt inspectors to make certain that the meat is not tainted or that the kitchen conforms to sanitation standards. Again, I’ll say that no one is saying that smokers may not smoke, because, as you say, cigarettes are legal, just that they can’t smoke in enclosed public places were non-smokers can inhale secondhand smoke. Consuming alcoholic beverages is legal too, but restaurants and bars can be held accountable for serving drinks to an inebriated patron, and there are also laws against drinking and driving. In a democractic society, there must be constant adjustment in the balances between freedom and responsibility and in the delicate spheres where everyone’s wants and needs collide.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Restaurants are also work places for servers, cooks and other staff. Do we ignore their possible wishes to work in a non-smoking environment or do we claim that they knew what they were doing when they got the job? Slippery slope there.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I’d like to reply to Annette’s posts. Restaurants are public places and I as a free American should have the right to go there and not be worried about someone smoking and causing me harm to my health. I suggest you look up the definition of a public place. I have asthma and smoke is a trigger that causes me to have an attack. For years I’ve avoided certain restaurants because of the smoke - Pete and Sams, The Rendevous are just two examples of places I would like to be able to go and enjoy a meal with my friends and family. Have you ever not been able to breathe? I mean, not just have the feeling of suffocating, but to literally be suffocating? I have and trust me, it’s very scary not only to the one who can not breathe but to others who are there to witness the attack. What you are suggesting is that those of us who do not want or in many cases cannot subject themselves to smoke to become reclusive and stay at home which is a violation of our rights. The government has a responsibility to protect the masses and prohibiting smoking in public places protects the masses. Smoker’s have the right to smoke as long as their right does not infringe upon the rights of others, and smoking in public does just that. Smokers should smoke only in their own home where their smoke damages no one but themselves.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:31 am
I do totally agree with Annette on this question.
Amy, I sympathize with you feel bad for you having health problems, but what you’re talking about is very one-sided - we the smokers are normal, adequate human beings, and have rights ourselves. You’re saying, eat-at-home is not an option for you - you want to go out - so, why do you say smoke at home only should be the option for me? I do want to go out and smoke while I wait 20-40 minutes for my order, and to have a cigarete with Irish coffee right after the meal. I realize it harms some other people - and I totally support smoke-free sections and existence of smoke-free restaurants. And yes, I won’t go to a smoke-free restaurant as I like to smoke during a meal, as I said above - so those would be closed options for me, just like Pete&Sams and Rendevous are for you - so… too bad, but I choose to smoke - and I only go to places where I can do it. You can’t smoke and can’t stand smoke - so go to non-smoking place, simple as that.
I know it’s a pretty bad example - but it makes my point clear. Not everyone has a physical ability to skyjump, but I bet almost everyone wants to try it. So what - skydiving should be banned for everyone just because you can’t do it and envy others who do?
22 comment.