They outlawed smoking in grocery stores before they outlawed smoking in restaurants, FYI. That was too long ago for me to remember anybody chain-smoking in the produce department, though.

Wow. it didn’t even occur to me that people were once allowed to smoke in grocery stores. Well color me ignorant!

I think it’s interesting that you seem to be ok with the fact that smoking is banned in restaurants because it suits you to eat in a restaurant without smokers, but something about this new law offends your sensibilities. In my opinion, the proposed law is much more just.

Outlawing smoking in public areas like parks and city squares is perfectly reasonable. Public areas should be run the way the majority of people want them run. In that sense, I have no problem with the people voting to outlaw smoking in them. I wouldn’t vote for it, but, hey, them’s the breaks in a democracy.

But bars and restaurants are private businesses. Whether to allow smoking should be up to the owner of the bar or restaurant. As I recall, the vote was cast as one of protecting the health of employees of the bars and restaurants, which struck me then and now as bullshit. The effects of second hand smoke have been greatly exaggerated.

The reason i’m “ok” with smoking being banned in restaurants is because if you’re sitting there eating, and someone sits down across from you and lights up a cigar, I don’t want my kids trapped in a place where their asthma could act up, etc.

If we’re at the park and the similiar thing happens, there is normally a breeze that will move the smoke, instead of have it hover over our heads. We can move to see the ducks on another part of the lake.

In both of these situations, yes, we could get up and move. But when you’re in a restaurant where famlies, elderly, sickly people tend to visit, and you’re paying money to be there, you shouldn’t have to chose between “fresh” air or your food.

Most bars for example won’t let kids in – and normally elderly/more fragile people don’t go in either. So people smoking in there won’t affect those more vulnerable than the rest of us. As far as employees of the bars dealing with the smoke, that’s tough and there’s no easy answer to that.

In an proposal like this, I think it should go to the voters to decide, not to a panel of council members, since this would affect so many people.

That’s not a fair comparison. If you don’t want to sit next to a smoker in a restaurant, you can either sit in the nonsmoking section or go to a restaurant that doesn’t permit smoking. You could also ask to be moved to another table. So, not only do you have the option to move in a restaurant, you have the option to choose a restaurant in which smoking is not allowed.

That’s actually more choice than you have in a public area. You can’t choose to go to a park that doesn’t have smoking (unless this passes).

In an proposal like this, I think it should go to the voters to decide, not to a panel of council members, since this would affect so many people.
I claim that this law would actually affect far fewer people than the average law enacted by the city council. Don’t they decide tax rates and police funding and fire codes and things? Those affect everybody. Plus, is there even any mechanism for a direct vote of the people on city law? I can’t recall that ever happening before.

Every restaurant I’ve been in, that has had smoking and non-smoking sections, there is no actual difference between the two. The concept is nice, but the implementation is always flawed. Anyone who has ever been to Las Vegas, or any eating establishment in New Jersey, will know that it matters not where someone sits, or what section they opt for, the smoke will migrate over to you if it hadn’t already worked its way across the room by the time you walked in. I’ve yet to see a restaurant with a wall and door that separates the two sections.

Yes, you could choose to go to a restaurant that does not allow smoking. But in areas that allow smoking in restaurants, why would an owner willingly chose to reject the legally allowed habits of a large number of potential patrons? It’s because they’ll lose business like crazy.

I still say you have more freedom to move around and avoid smokers in public than you would in an enclosed bar, restaurant, library, movie theater, whatever. Now, if their reason for banning smoking in parks was due to the potential for fires, that I could understand, respect and probably support. But it’s not and in my opinion their reasons aren’t good enough.

If places could find ways to keep the smoke from wafting over to the non-smoking sections, then I’m all in favor of restaurants allowing smoking. The problem is that the owners are usually cheap and don’t make any real efforts (none that I’ve experienced that is) to provide above-average ventilation.

And yes, there are a large number of issues the city council decides on our behalf that I think should be left up to the voters. This being one of them.

Yes, you could choose to go to a restaurant that does not allow smoking. But in areas that allow smoking in restaurants, why would an owner willingly chose to reject the legally allowed habits of a large number of potential patrons? It’s because they’ll lose business like crazy.

I’m not totally convinced of that argument. After all, there are many people who would obviously prefer restaurants that prohibit smoking. You and I, for example. And at least 50% of the population of CA.

But, for now, let’s assume it’s correct. What gives us the right to make a law against a legal activity in a private establishment, especially one that will negatively impact their business? Why shouldn’t everyone who objects to smoking in restaurants just not go to restaurants that allow smoking?

I still say you have more freedom to move around and avoid smokers in public than you would in an enclosed bar, restaurant, library, movie theater, whatever.

Well, sure, within a given restaurant or theater. But you don’t have to patronize one that allows smoking. There are lots of restaurants out there. And restaurants aren’t the same sort of thing that public parks and conveyances are. The first ought to be private enterprises, and the second ought to be put to the use that the public desires.

And yes, there are a large number of issues the city council decides on our behalf that I think should be left up to the voters. This being one of them.

Just because, or is there something about it that makes it more worthy of individual attention? Why not just write your councilman?

Why shouldn’t everyone who objects to smoking in restaurants just not go to restaurants that allow smoking?

When you next travel to a state that allows smoking in restaurants (as an example) keep note of the ratio of establishments that prohibit smoking, to ones that allow smoking – then we’ll talk about patrons supporting the non-smoking places. From my experience, the non-smoking restaurants are extremely hard to find – if there are any at all – in those areas (I’ve spent over a month on the east coast and never found a non-smoking restaurant – I’m sure they exist, but they’re not making themselves known)

Just because, or is there something about it that makes it more worthy of individual attention? Why not just write your councilman?

I have written my council members about this. The reason I think this needs to be brought to voters is because here we have a situation, where taxes are often raised on a particular product. The members of society who purchase that type of product are slowly being ostracized from every-day life – and now being outside, in an open space, accessible by air flow is not good enough.

Some will consider this view as a “Just because” reaction, and that’s fine. I can live with them thinking that.

Counting on the voters around here is foolish. Didn’t they vote by a rather comfortable margin to ban safe & sane fireworks within the city limits based on nother but exaggerated stories about fires sparked off by illegal fireworks and fireworks used in already-prohibited areas? Put it before the Santa Rosa voters and they’ll probably opt to put a $0.05 tax on breathing.

When you next travel to a state that allows smoking in restaurants (as an example) keep note of the ratio of establishments that prohibit smoking, to ones that allow smoking – then we’ll talk about patrons supporting the non-smoking places.

We seem to be talking past each other here. The fact that there are few to no restaurants that prohibit smoking in the absense of a law to that effect is immaterial to my point. Note that in my last comment I didn’t say to go to a restaurant that probits smoking, I said not to go to a restaurant that prohibits smoking. If you don’t care for their business practices, then don’t patronize the establishment.

The thing is, as much as I’d like to go to restaurants that don’t allow smoking, I can’t conceive of a reasonable argument for why the state ought to force that arrangement.

I agree with you that society is coming down hard on smokers, but I don’t think that putting it to a vote of the people would make a difference. IIRC, many of the smoking bans in CA and other states have been passed by initiative.

Which brings me back to my original point: It is important to judge legislation in terms of the rights it involves, not in terms of whether you like like the outcome. We may both enjoy smoke-free restaurants, but there are few if any checks on the lawmaking process when minority rights can be cast aside because the majority would prefer things that way.

And, to clarify, by “rights” I don’t mean the right to smoke. I mean the right of the restauranteur to decide for himself whether to allow smoking in his establishment.

“I said not to go to a restaurant that prohibits smoking.”

Oops. That was supposed to be “I said not to go to a restaurant that allows smoking.”

I’m a little late in joining in on this conversation, but with me, it’s better late than never!

In any case, all of you are making some excellent points. As someone who has lived in an area that allows smoking almost everywhere (I lived in NJ for 15 years) and also has a health issue that can be affected if I was a smoker or around smokers/smoke often, I think there are definite perks to having such a ban. I do think there are advantages to putting the ban into effect for people’s health, the environment, etc. I think the part I’m unsure about is whether or not smokers have the right to smoke in ‘main’ outdoor areas, such as downtown and parks. On one hand they certainly pay their dues in taxes (both regular taxes that everyone pays and cigarette taxes) and most of the places that I’m aware of that the ban will affect are very public places, where more importantly their taxes are helping to keep clean and functioning. So with these things taken into account, I’m really unsure of how exactly I feel about the ban. I think I am leaning more toward opposing the ban simply because the average smoker is considerate and normally is not overly bothersome to me. My thinking is, in general, the less the government sticks its nose in everyone’s business, the better. My only hope is that more smokers will put their commonsense to use and will be more cautious about where they smoke and where the smoke blows.

I’m such an idiot… that was me who did the last post.. I keep forgetting my name isn’t Daniel.

Ok Children… kiss and make up… that’s right kissing a smoker sucks. LOL