CP Pay Raise

If only Michigan voted on this one?

Many restaurants like CP's have started to apply this rule without the law being in place. I don't care if the barrier between sections is the entire kitchen or decorative plants, my clothes still smell of smoke when I walk out.

Why should the government be able to tell a private business what it can and can't do?

If they don't get any customers because they allow smoking, then they'll change their practices to attract business.

^Would less people wait for a ride at CP if smoking was allowed? I don't so.

Maybe not, but I'm sure you'd see the complaint level rise.

If you don't like your clothes smelling of smoke after visiting an establishment that allows smoking, then don't go there. No one's forcing you to inhale secondhand smoke. If TGIFridays allows smoking and Bob Evans doesn't, go to Bob's and quit trying to force government to ruin it for the rest of us that like to smoke and drink simultaneously.

Ideally in our economy, the customer base dictates the practices of business. It's sort of a capitalist democracy where the majority ultimately rule. If you don't like smoking, don't visit smoking establishments. If enough people do this, smoking businesses will see a decrease in sales and ban smoking too. If people don't do this, then businesses will see no reason to ban smoking.

Bottom line, you have an obligation to put your money where your mouth is. The free market will do whatever customers dictate. If you fail in this obligation, visit smoking establishments anyway, and then whine to government to fix it, you've done a disservice to economic liberty. Even if I didn't smoke, I would oppose all smoking bans on this principle. Bars and restaurants are privately owned, the public is INVITED to come inside. If you don't like what goes on inside, don't go inside.

When Toledo banned smoking, I started going to Maumee and Sylvania to eat. Now that Ohio has banned it, I'll stay in Michigan and put my money where my mouth is.

As the non smokers gradually out number the smokers by so much, the government will run like it's supposed to, majority rules.

Both sides have their arguments, I clearly have mine and Jeremy has his.

Even if 99% of the public didn't smoke, my reasoning still stands. Government should have no say over the smoking policy of a private business. No one holds a gun to the non-smokers heads and forces them to visit smoking establishments. Non smokers are free to eat whereever they like. It's a private issue that government has no business in.

If the majority of the public disliked Chinese food, would it be reasonable for the government to ban Chinese food in Chinese restaurants? Would it be reasonable to force them to serve food the majority desired? This is rediculous, yet smoking bans follow the same flawed logic.

"Mister Legislator, I'm highly offended. I visited a restaurant and they had CHINESE FOOD! Can you believe it? How dare they jam a menu in front of me and force me to ingest that garbage! You should introduce a bill to stop such horrific practices! I should be able to walk into any restaurant and order a hamburger! Force them all to offer me hamburgers!"

This is the essence of liberty: If you like Chinese food, go to a Chinese restaurant. If you don't like it, then don't. If you like smoking, go to a business that allows it. If you don't like smoke, then DON'T.

*** Edited 11/9/2006 3:44:10 AM UTC by Jeremy Sell***

First of all the ratios are so much more different. You're acting like this is religion or something.

Normally, I'm all for the government staying out of people's lives and not telling people what to do. If this issue was a bill passed through state legislature, I'd be much more opposed to it. However, this was handed to the people, and the people overwhelmingly voted in favor of the ban. Obviously different people have different views, and no amount of arguing is going to change that. It just comes down to whether you believe in the so-called "smoker's rights" or if you believe in "non-smoker's rights". In the end, the ban will make it more inconvenient for smokers, but everyone will adapt to the new rules and people will move on. Similar bans have worked out just fine in California and New York.

I will have to say that I don't think it's the governments place to say if someone can smoke or not inside a restaurant. Seriously, if you don't like being around it, don't go there.

I don't typically like being around drinking. I'm going to suggest they ban alcohol in bars so I can go enjoy the big screen TV's.

If I were a smoker, I'd boycott. That'll show everyone just what that stick of tar, rat poison, and many other things will make some people do.

I'm not a health nut, I just like the air I breath not ruined by the guy at table 3.

And no, I will not pass ten of my favorite restaurants to get to that all non smoking Ma and Pa Diner.

*** Edited 11/10/2006 6:14:25 AM UTC by Gomez***

Then sit at table 9 instead. Gomez, if it's your favorite restaurant, then the smoking can't bother you that much, now can it?

Ben (and The Others ( ;) ) who share his opinion) are right. If smoking inside a restaurant, bar or amusement park bothers you that much, make a statement by not going. Better yet, tell the manager of the establishment why you will no longer be going there. Do this enough, and voilà! Your message will be heard, loud and clear.

Or, instead, you could continue to go to the place whose policies you hate so much, each time giving them more and more of your money to buy more and more ashtrays. Then, you can complain about how it's so not fair that those evil smokers are ruining your meal. Talk about hypocrisy.

Government has no place telling a business what they should and should not allow, regardless of a silly proposal.

Well I could understand why the government wouldn't allow some things, but those typically fall under other laws (IE: underage brothel, etc)

I am hardly ever bothered by Cigarette smoke in a restaurant. Most of them suck it out pretty well in the smoking section.

Yeah, I thought about clarifying that statement when I wrote it. But then, I thought, "Nah. No one would be that anal to point out something that was obviously implied."

;)

Let's make something else clear...you have no "God-given Constitutional right" to visit any restaurant you desire. As I said, restaurants are private businesses where the public is invited to visit. It's not like a government building, where people are compelled to visit involunarily (to pay fines, appear in court, etc.). Additionally, a majority-voted ban on smoking in government buildings would be acceptable, since they are truly public places. Restaurants are not. A restaurant offers food, atmosphere, and a set of rules for patrons. Customers visit them based on those criteria. If you don't like the food, atmosphere, or rules, don't visit. It's really simple.

The reason why I get worked up about this issue isn't because it's about smokers rights versus non-smokers rights. It's about liberty, which is the core of America. I firmly believe the statement "the right to swing my fist ends where the next man's nose begins". To that end, you could argue that smokers infringe on your freedom by introducing smoke into your lungs. This is true. If a smoker came into your house and smoked in your face, that would be wrong. But it's wrong because they're invading your private space. In a restaurant, you willfully choose to introduce yourself to smoke, not the other way around. As such, it's not being forced on you. Essentially you're willfully moving your nose into the path of the other man's fist and then complaining when it hits you. You know the danger, if you don't like it, exercise your God-given right to liberty and choose not to subject yourself to it.

Going back to the original post, the same liberty concept applies to minimum wage standards. If a person doesn't like what they get paid, they should either work harder, ask for a raise, worm their way into management's pocket, or get a new job. There are a lot of ways to increase your station in life, and they all revolve around your voluntary actions. There's too much "I deserve everything for nothing, and everyone should just give me what I want". People are free to choose where to eat, and free to choose where to work. If you don't like something, don't do it.

*** Edited 11/10/2006 1:16:23 PM UTC by Jeremy Sell***

Well said, Jeremy.

Luckily for those of us who do not want to breath in smoke and do not want to have to stay locked up in our own homes, the majority of the people who count (aka the people who vote) believe that we should be able to live and work in this state without our lungs being polluted. You guys can take your stand now. We took our stand on Tuesday.
*** Edited 11/10/2006 1:34:09 PM UTC by Krafty***

If you think that you're walking around all day - even without smokers - and not being polluted, you're clueless.

Why didn't you guys ban automobiles, electricity and textiles if you're so concerned about your lungs?

Krafty, the scary thing is that you're saying majority rule overrides fundamental aspects of our nation such as liberty. You're saying if the majority voted to deport every African American person to another country, it would be okay.

You already were free to live and work in Ohio without your lungs being polluted. If there was smoking at your job, you could get a new job. If there was smoking at a restaurant, you could choose a new restaurant. The key word here is FREE...you've always been free not to subject yourself to smoke. Just as bars and restaurants were always free to make their own rules. The only difference is now you're still free, but you've managed to take away the freedom of bar and restaurant owners.

Denying liberty to individuals based on majority rule represents what Thomas Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority", where 51% can enslave the other 49%. For majority rule to function without oppression, accomodations have to be made for the liberties of the minority. Liberty is the one aspect where majority rule should have no say. If it did, then logically it would be theoretically acceptable for white people to ban being black, Christians to ban being Jewish, and straight people to ban being gay. It's regressive, and it's counter to everything America was founded on. Banning smoking in private businesses represents the same kind of authoritarianism, and the same denial of liberty.

*** Edited 11/10/2006 2:02:22 PM UTC by Jeremy Sell***

Benjamin Franklin
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

It still holds true in all situations (not just when complaining about our president).