Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-04-2011, 6:53 PM Reply   
the problem here in Texas is that the smoking ban isn't state wide. I did experience a loss in business in my Arlington restaurant a few years ago. It is close enough to Grand Prairie that the smokers just went there to eat. A state wide ban is the only way to go.

I for one, would outlaw cigarettes entirely
I do offer a smoking room in my Irving store, but have to maintain a filter system....it's a pain in the a......
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/06/04/s...ecial-session/
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-04-2011, 7:43 PM Reply   
Wisconsin went state wide and I love (not a smoker though)... I know my aunt/uncle that own a bar noticed a little drop at first but everyone came back .... they have a large outdoor patio area which is fine in the summer but winter here people kinda get the shaft.


Another local bar added a room with 4 big garage doors than can be opened allowing enough airflow to make it legal, then people are done they just close the garage doors
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       06-04-2011, 7:55 PM Reply   
Blows me away this is still going on.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       06-05-2011, 5:55 AM Reply   
Can't happen fast enough.

Was at a restaurant a while back and a group came in - they wanted to sit on the patio even though it was raining. I couldn't figure it out until we were walking out and one guy was standing outside in the rain with his drink and a cigarette.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-05-2011, 3:21 PM Reply   
As a smoker I don't go out to eat, drink, bowl, shoot pool anymore. It's pretty rare and on order of a couple times a year. I do enjoy having a lot more money to spend on constructive things vs. going out and being wasteful, so in that regard it gave me a reason to tame my recreational spending. Personally I wouldn't mind the ban so much if NJ didn't categorize electronic cigarettes as illegal to use anywhere smoking is banned. Nothing harmful about PG or VG and there is little or no smell, though any smell is typically unoffensive, such as cinnamin (one of my favorites), apple, grape, etc.

My personal thoughts and actions regarding the matter aside, this is a decision that should be left to business owners. Pre-ban in NJ most places segregated smoking vs non smoking, and there were many smoke free diners, restaurants and other places. Anything less than a complete choice for business owners is a terrible infringement on individual liberties. just because you don't like something never gives you the right to infringe upon someone else's right to their own property.
Old    Small Light (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       06-05-2011, 8:39 PM Reply   
Cory, think about how much money you would save if you stopped smoking.

I remember when I was a kid and CA had smoking sections, I was too young to think about my individual liberties. But as an asthmatic, I was able to tell when the smoking "section" was overwhelming and I couldn't breathe. Smoking is a choice, take it outside.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-06-2011, 5:11 AM Reply   
Quote:
I do enjoy having a lot more money to spend on constructive things vs. going out and being wasteful,
Quote:
ory, think about how much money you would save if you stopped smoking.

Thats what I'm thinking... I bought a pack for a friend who couldn't slip away from her job last week... it came to like $8 for a pack, crazy.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-06-2011, 7:24 AM Reply   
I only wish they had these same laws and all the other restrictive ones like it being against the law the smoke in the car with a child a whole lot earlier. I could of used all the help I could get as an asthmatic child growing up with two parents who smoked regularly.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-06-2011, 7:32 AM Reply   
"just because you don't like something never gives you the right to infringe upon someone else's right"

There's a difference of simply not liking something, and not liking something because it causes me and others bodily harm.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-06-2011, 8:54 AM Reply   
I am discussing the rights on property and business owners. No one forces you, as an individual, to patronize a particular business. Your choose to put yourself into any environment that may cause you bodily harm. The world is a big scary dangerous place in which you must make choices every day that may put you at a greater risk or minimize that risk. Only you are responsible for your own safety.

Pre-ban in NJ there were many smoke-free businesses, and even some bars that only allowed smoking on the deck/patio/etc. and not inside. Most of these places specifically advertised themselves as such. There was obviously a demand for smoke free places, and it was filled by those who marketed themselves as such. Customers and business having a choice is what a free market is. This is much preferable to government regulation and control for all parties involved.

No one is causing you bodily harm by smoking Jeremy. You choose to patronize any place that allows smoking. It's the property owner's right to decide whether to allow or disallow smoking, and if he chooses to allow smoking it is his right to choose where to allow it and how he will segregate smoking and non-smoking, if at all. Anything less is a terrible infringement upon the rights of property owners.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-06-2011, 9:34 AM Reply   
^So if a guy that owns an auto shop chooses to dump used oil onto the ground, that should be his right? All exclusive property rights is a BS argument.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-06-2011, 10:47 AM Reply   
I don't really want the government telling what to do. The man telling a restaurant that they can't serve bad -for- you foods is ridiculous. What makes this situation difficult is the area that we live in. DFW has so many different cities. When 1 city passes laws that allow or prohibit things, it does effect the adjacent cities. So, I wish that the man would either butt out, or make state wide decisions.
I know that isn't really taking a stance, but sometimes you just have to fight the battles with the weapons that you are given......
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-06-2011, 12:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^So if a guy that owns an auto shop chooses to dump used oil onto the ground, that should be his right? All exclusive property rights is a BS argument.
Completely different situation Jeremy. In your example, the dumper of motor oil would be adversely affecting ground water supply and neighboring properties with the quantity of the dumping that would be occurring at an automotive shop. If this dumping were occurring, it would eventually be noticed and there would be a legitimate grievance that would be resolved in the courts. One man's rights end where another man's rights begin, or in this case, where another man's property begins.

Pollution of another man's property or water supply is not at all like a business owner deciding for himself whether or not to allow smoking on his own property in his own establishment.
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       06-06-2011, 12:30 PM Reply   
I am a non smoker and really like not smelling like an ashtray after a night at the bar. That being said I kind of agree with Cory. If a bar or restaurant wants to allow smoking, us as non smokers have the right to not frequent that establishment. It would basically open up a whole new market where there would be business owners that allow smoking and others that don't. Then smokers and non smokers alike get the choice of which business to support. It is like the government passing seat belt and helmet laws. Why are we trying to save the people that can't save themselves. It doesn't hurt anyone else if a motorcycler get hit and his/her brains end up on the frigging highway. It was their choice and they are paying the consequences. People that smoke know they are killing themselves and they have absolutely know one to blame but themselves. It is a choice. We don't need the government making choices for us that don't affect others.

I do however walk my dog at parks from time to time and smell cigarettes and I kind of wish they would pass a law to make it illegal to smoke in a park or natural setting. i love getting fresh air, walking my dog, enjoying the sun and then the smell of a dirt nasty cigarrette.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-06-2011, 12:51 PM Reply   
Cliff, that's the problem with government intervention and infringement of private property rights. It artificially adjusts the value of certain locations, businesses, services, etc. Those regulations in your case mean less business since it decreased the value of your location and artificially inflated the value of neighboring locations. This is a violation of your rights as a business owner.

If smokers are part of your target audience and you find serving that target audience profitable (even after losing some amount of your non-smoking customer base), then you should be able to serve them in whatever manner you see fit. You will do whatever it takes to keep that customer base if you find it profitable compared to eliminating or reducing them as customers. In the case of a government ban, you lose that customer base. They go elsewhere or they simply stop patronizing any of your type of business if none allow smoking. Or perhaps they patronize your business less frequently. Either way, sales go down due to government intervention.

Clearly the best solution here is less government intervention. More government intervention to artificially deflate neighboring properties to the same level is a race to the bottom, hurting all business owners equally and reducing income and profit to all of those businesses by similar levels. A free market solution maximizes options for consumers and profits for business owners.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-06-2011, 3:17 PM Reply   
"Pollution of another man's property or water supply is not at all like a business owner deciding for himself whether or not to allow smoking on his own property in his own establishment."

So cigarette smoke cannot be classified as pollution?
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       06-06-2011, 3:18 PM Reply   
I generally side with less government regulation. I also think that both smokers and non-smokers should simply vote with their checkbook and frequent the places that cater to them.

However, i think the issue is the perception of smoking by society. Its one of those things that its preference isnt up for debate. Its universally bad, even among smokers. I've never met a smoker that liked the fact that they smoked (I'm sure they are out there, and prob someone one here). Most I know hate the fact that they smoke and have tried to quit on numerous occasion. I think the general disdain from non-smokers and smokers alike is what drives this kind of thing.

The funniest thing I've seen with smokers here are these lil corrals outside designated for the smokers. In the middle it has a thin metal black structure for getting rid of butts. Upon said structure reads "Smoking Pole". It seems every time I'm outside on the patio some kid drives by with his head out the window and screams, "look at all the guys smoking pole!"
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-06-2011, 3:54 PM Reply   
People work in restaurant/bars and smoking is considered a health hazard. For that reason it should be banned. People who smoke should be happy that cigarettes are legal and they are able to purchase them, smoke in private, and suffucate their helpless children in the home and automobile.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-06-2011, 4:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"Pollution of another man's property or water supply is not at all like a business owner deciding for himself whether or not to allow smoking on his own property in his own establishment."

So cigarette smoke cannot be classified as pollution?
No more polluting than a wood fire or many other things. Man has an affect on the environment. But you are going after a fallacious analogy yet again. Smoking does not affect neighboring property. Contaminated water supply and diffuse smoke are completely different things. Exhale and the smoke dissipates quickly and in a short distance, causing no harm to neighboring property. The same for a wood fire, burning coals for a grille, or anything similar. The same cannot be said for water contamination from thousands of gallons of oil dumped on the ground.

All that aside, waste oil has an inherant value. Many shops save waste oil for winter heating and waste oil heaters to heat the shop in the colder months. It's an economical way to heat a shop when you have an essentially unlimited supply of waste oil. Heck, I used to heat my garage with it for a few years and it worked great.

Jeremy, perhaps you should give up analogies and address the issues at hand here, property rights, individual liberty, and free markets.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-06-2011, 4:39 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
People work in restaurant/bars and smoking is considered a health hazard. For that reason it should be banned. People who smoke should be happy that cigarettes are legal and they are able to purchase them, smoke in private, and suffucate their helpless children in the home and automobile.
The fact of the matter is they aren't, as more and more restrictions are being places on smoking. People cannot smoke freely on their own property if it is a business. I could make the same argument you did, using the exact same words, but replacing smoking with running an internal combustion engine. Perhaps internal combustion engines should be outlawed!
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-06-2011, 4:45 PM Reply   
"individual liberty"

Look guy, the second those toxic fumes from your cancer stick leave your mouth and enters my nostrils is when your individual liberty ends and mine begins.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       06-06-2011, 5:17 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"individual liberty"

Look guy, the second those toxic fumes from your cancer stick leave your mouth and enters my nostrils is when your individual liberty ends and mine begins.
On your own property you would have a valid argument and I would gladly put out my cigarette or leave your property. Any smoker I've ever met will always ask before lighting up in another person's home, car, boat, wherever, or if there are kids around will stay a away from the kids while smoking. I've never met a smoker who was not respectful of non smokers and keeping distance if it bothered anyone.

As for you coming into a smoke filled bar where the owner allows it, that's your choice. If you don't like it you should leave as it's not your property or your rules. Be respectful of the property owner.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       06-07-2011, 5:34 AM Reply   
I dont think its a personal property issue until you deem it "commercial". At that point the governing powers put many standards in place, always have. The owner does not get to determine capacity, fire code, or service limits. A smoking ban is simply another one of those standards. Should it be legal for capacity limits to be ignored if its the owner who is shuffling people in?
Old    Chris Butler (xistential)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-07-2011, 7:19 AM Reply   
I thought smoking had been outlawed across the US. It has in Europe. Maybe not all of Europe yet but probably 90%. In the UK it is forbidden to smoke at train or bus stations as well as football stadiums. The result - hundreds of English pubs up for lease desperate for somebody stupid enough to want to run one. Are you going to go stand outside and smoke in sub zero temperatures just so you can have a pint?? You are not even allowed to smoke in a company car and if the government had their way they would send spies into your home to stop you there if they could.

I don't smoke so I don't really care but I just feel in a lot of these instances it's more about government exercising as much control over your life as they can as opposed to having your welfare at heart.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-07-2011, 7:33 AM Reply   
Quote:
No one forces you, as an individual, to patronize a particular business. Your choose to put yourself into any environment that may cause you bodily harm.
What about the people who work there? .... and don't make the arguement "just get a different job..." because its not that easy.

I can smell if someone around me is smoking a cig on the interstate...so a small space such as a bar is awful. I think its terrible for the smoker and anyone around them and fully support the ban.
Can you tell me what the point of smoking is?! What purpose does it serve?
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       06-07-2011, 7:44 AM Reply   
"I can smell if someone around me is smoking a cig on the interstate..."

Me too! It's amazing how you can drive by another vehicle and instantly smell the cigarette smoke. Now just imagine you were trapped in the same vehicle with tha person. No Thanks!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-07-2011, 8:53 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
The fact of the matter is they aren't, as more and more restrictions are being places on smoking. People cannot smoke freely on their own property if it is a business. I could make the same argument you did, using the exact same words, but replacing smoking with running an internal combustion engine. Perhaps internal combustion engines should be outlawed!
They've finally got rid of smoking in the workplace and I'm happy they did. The only exception here is in bars that serve less than a certain alcohol to food ratio (unless that's changed too). Personally I don't see the point of such an exemption because a bar is a workplace as well. Quite frankly I would prefer the only exemption be a store specifically for tobacco and smoking related items. I don't believe smokers should have any rights regarding smoking in public. There are far too many things that people should have rights to that they don't to even think about smoker's rights.

I remember back when smoking was legal in the workplace and going to meeting was an obnoxious pain in the a$$. I don't see why a waitress should have to endure it if the rest of us are finally protected from those annoying people.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-07-2011, 9:00 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
The fact of the matter is they aren't, as more and more restrictions are being places on smoking. People cannot smoke freely on their own property if it is a business.
I didn't say "thier own property". I said in private. You can't run around naked or have sex in a bar (usually), but you can in private.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
I could make the same argument you did, using the exact same words, but replacing smoking with running an internal combustion engine. Perhaps internal combustion engines should be outlawed!
Yes you can make that argument. And the next time I'm in a bar or restauant with a engine running and choking people on carbon monoxide, I'll tell them that it a health harard and they should stop. But if I see a guy sucking on a cigarette reving his engine in the parking lot I'll just walk on by.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-07-2011, 9:13 AM Reply   
Quote:
Yes you can make that argument. And the next time I'm in a bar or restauant with a engine running and choking people on carbon monoxide, I'll tell them that it a health harard and they should stop.
HAHA.


I look at it like this - it only takes ONE person in a place smoking to ruin the night for 25+ people, which just isn't right. Public health and safety benefits from the smoking ban, there is no disputing that.
Old    Small Light (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       06-07-2011, 9:55 AM Reply   
Being in CA, it is quite nice because we do have a statewide ban. Every single business is on equal footing. You have plenty of people that live here and guess what?!?! People still go to restaurants and bars!

My community has taken it a step further and outlawed smoking in parks and public places. It's not as noticeable but our Farmer's Market has gotten better. Presently the only building you can smoke in is the cigar shop, but cigarettes aren't allowed.
Old    A-dub (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       06-07-2011, 10:13 AM Reply   
like it or not, it is proven that businesses do not lose money when smoking bans are implemented, at least long term. More people don't go to an establishment if it allows smoking than smokers not going someplace because they can't smoke, therefore businesses will actually see an increase in patronage once a ban is put in place. I just moved to Texas, and am astonished at how many people smoke here still, and the accommodations that are still made for them to do so. Just at the PWT this past weekend I had to leave the area I was in because of smoking in the area. The best was a chick blew her smoke out, and it didn't happen to directly in my face that time, it hung around her and she started wafting at it and coughing! And the amount of young females that do it in general, so unattractive. I did appreciate seeing a sign at an intersection that said even cigarette butts are considered littering, now that's a step in the right direction!
Old    Kat Laird (wakekat15)      Join Date: Jul 2005       06-07-2011, 11:16 AM Reply   
I'm a non-smoker and do enjoy no longer smelling like an ashtray after going out to eat, to a concert, bowling, etc. In restaurants, I had options pre-smoking ban to sit in a segregated section. If I wanted to go to a bar or bowling however, there were no options....still, I had a choice to avoid the environment. All of that being said, I tend to be against the government getting into our personal lives. Smoking is a little different since 2nd hand smoke has been proven to be harmful. I guess I'm saying that I don't know what my stance is!

Also, I find it interesting to see many of the people in favor of the ban are some of the same folks saying the government shouldn't infringe on our individual rights by forcing us to wear life jackets, ban school prayer, outlaw dancing, etc. It makes me feel better about not knowing what my stance is! LOL
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-07-2011, 11:31 AM Reply   
Quote:
some of the same folks saying the government shouldn't infringe on our individual rights by forcing us to wear life jackets, ban school prayer, outlaw dancing, etc
I look at some of these issues differently than smoking for the same reason you state above - 2nd hand smoke is harmful to others.

Me not wearing my life jacket, seatbelt, smoking in my own home - only puts me at risk. (While I think parents should be held accountable for any of those mentioned items if their child is under 18).

Dancing (protesting) won't physically harm me, but could harm the quality of a vacation of mine or something... I understand its purpose (demonstrating/protest - dancing doesn't really seem to do it for me though).


If my actions have an impact on others around me in a public place - then they should have constraints.... one person should not be allowed to ruin things for an entire group of people. The freedom of one < the freedom of many
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       06-07-2011, 11:42 AM Reply   
"like it or not, it is proven that businesses do not lose money when smoking bans are implemented"

Tell that to the bowling alleys around here that are dropping like flys. I think it has to do more with what type of business you run and what type of patrons you have.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-07-2011, 11:47 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakekat15 View Post
Also, I find it interesting to see many of the people in favor of the ban are some of the same folks saying the government shouldn't infringe on our individual rights by forcing us to wear life jackets, ban school prayer, outlaw dancing, etc. It makes me feel better about not knowing what my stance is! LOL
I'm against govt intruding into people's lives, but not enough to defend smokers. And laws against smoking are about the only thing the govt has done to improve our lives/safety without spending a fortune creating govt agencies to do it. People are more than willing to enforce a smoking ban themselves.

Smoking is very offensive to other people. Look out the window at every stop light and it's a cigarette dump. Smoke gets into your clothes and you end up trailing that stink until you change. Smoker's stink and they leave that stink in rooms where they smoke.

Banning it from the workplace was a blessing. Wearing contacts in a meeting of smokers at work was a pain. Not to mention breathing the second hand smoke. I pity the children of smokers. Young developing bodies are susceptable to far more complications from environmental pollution. When smokers talk about their rights I just laugh in their face.
Old    A-dub (behindtheboat)      Join Date: Aug 2006       06-07-2011, 11:55 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
"like it or not, it is proven that businesses do not lose money when smoking bans are implemented"

Tell that to the bowling alleys around here that are dropping like flys. I think it has to do more with what type of business you run and what type of patrons you have.
Paul, I would initially agree and understand, but also know that once a Non-smoking bowling alley opened in Topeka, they took over the majority of the market because everyone started going there. So much that some of the other smoking bowling alleys went non-smoking, at least on specific nights. If someone doesn't bowl anymore because they can't smoke, were they ever that really into bowling? I think it will open it up to more families and youth, plus that's one place that high schoolers would go because they could smoke, most of the time before they were 18.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       06-07-2011, 12:34 PM Reply   
Like I said, I think it has more to do with local markets. I have an Alley in OREO if you're interested.
Old    Kat Laird (wakekat15)      Join Date: Jul 2005       06-07-2011, 1:54 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I'm against govt intruding into people's lives, but not enough to defend smokers. And laws against smoking are about the only thing the govt has done to improve our lives/safety without spending a fortune creating govt agencies to do it. People are more than willing to enforce a smoking ban themselves.

Smoking is very offensive to other people. Look out the window at every stop light and it's a cigarette dump. Smoke gets into your clothes and you end up trailing that stink until you change. Smoker's stink and they leave that stink in rooms where they smoke.

Banning it from the workplace was a blessing. Wearing contacts in a meeting of smokers at work was a pain. Not to mention breathing the second hand smoke. I pity the children of smokers. Young developing bodies are susceptable to far more complications from environmental pollution. When smokers talk about their rights I just laugh in their face.
I am not saying I'm running a petition to make smoking ok, as I agree with you on most points, if not all. I am concerned, however, with how far the government can/will go into running people's lives. That's all I was trying to say, but there are many places (like work) that it certainly made no sense to allow smoking; for most of us, working is not an option!

My mother lives with my sister (who smokes 2 packs a day). When she visits, I take all of her clothes directly to the laundry room and sit her suitcase outside for a few days. It is truly disgusting & she's not even a smoker! And, I'm with you on the world as an ashtray. I really hate when a smoker throws a butt out (especially in this drought stricken state), but get especially irritated when it's in the lake!

THANKS, John for helping me figure out my stance on this! ;-)

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:08 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us