Smokers facing more restrictions

Boston just passed a law which will take effect in May. No smoking in any indoor establishment unless 65% of it's revenues come from tobacco sales.

Personally, I'm all for non-smoking. Is it fair, I dunno.

Florida recently passed a law banning smoking in many public places, including restaurants. Although I am not a smoker, and hate smoking, I voted against passage of the law.

I believe that the marketplace takes care of itself, and that the government has no right to mandate personal behavior. Before the law was passed, most restaurateurs had realized that many people did not like smoking. For that reason, many had voluntarily set aside non-smoking sections for their patrons. It is good business to acquiesce to the preferences of your customers.

People always have a choice. If they do not like smoke, and a place is smoky, they are free to patronize another establishment.

This is another example of where the government is creeping into citizen's private lives, where they do not belong!

smokers have rights too.....at least i thought so. esp in boston.

there goes Teirnys pub now, along with the rest of them.

There will be 'smokers' bars' popping up

littlek
I am sure NY has Boston beat. I am not now a smoker and have never been what could be considered a heavy one. However some of the laws and restrictions being imposed could not be in anyway considered as protecting the health of the general public. They are being put in place only to satisfy the general hysteria about smoking.
Hotels now have nonsmoking rooms. Why should smoking in your hotel room not be allowed? When will smoking in your home become a misdemeanor?

It is amazing how easily unjust restrictions can be imposed when hysteria rules.

i hate it that i smoke now, i quit for a spell, ran my mile or 2 a day, but to each his own.

i'm out of the politics thread..........bp is rising, axe is to close to the computer, cat could use a good kick........and i got to go all the way to somerville tomorrow and bring the damn lobstermeat for tess and meet her at the Burren. least i can smoke there tho.

There are restrictions on how dirty a kitchen is in a restaurant and perhaps it is up the the individual how dirty their own kitchen is at home. Personally, I don't want to eat in a restaurant where the kitchen doesn't meet the local laws and I don't want to eat in a restaurant where people who smoke like a chimney at home can't put it away for an hour and leave the rest of us with clean air as well as clean food.

Sooooo, smokers shouldn't be impinged upon, non-smokers should be?

Mikey - take it easy, do some breathing. Smoking is the worst thing for that bp.

au, hotels have had nonsmoking rooms at least since 1995 when I started a road warrior job. This is because a lot of nonsmokers either don't like the smell or may be allergic, and it's very hard to get the smoke smell out of all of the upholstery and fabric in a typical hotel room (curtains, bed spread, dust ruffle, sheets, blankets, pillows and cases, carpeting, etc.). Nonsmoking rooms just smell cleaner. If one is a smoker and wants to stay in a hotel, all they have to do is ask for a smoking room, just like, if you are disabled and want to stay in a hotel, you can ask for a handicapped person's room (these have grab bars in the bathroom, wider toilet area, sometimes no tub, just a shower with a drain in the floor, etc.).

There are of course merits to these kinds of laws, but I agree with Phoenix that "the government has no right to mandate personal behavior." Should we restrict perfume-wearers because of the thousands (though small percentage) of people who have an allergic reaction to smelling certain perfumes? (I'm sure there are other better examples.)


Edited: typos

actually, some private businesses do restrict perfume use.

The change in Boston won't impact me much since I tend to avoid going into town like the plague anyway but it does seem to be a bit of overkill. There won't be any "smoker's bars" because the law specifically prohibits it which seems to be entirely stupid.

Why can't there be bars that are "smoker's bars"? I can understand that some places may want to be smoke free and that's their choice - no problem. But why is it that EVERY bar/resturant has to be smoke free just because one non-smoker may want to go in there?

If there were provisions for smoke-free and smoking establishments then both sides would have a choice in which one they want to patronize. IF smoke offends you then don't go to the smoker's bars. If you want to smoke then don't go to the smoke-free establishments...

Seems so simple...

I thought maybe there'd be an amendment to the law in which they'd offer a liscense to be a smoking bar, smoking would become (in another way) a source of revenue for the state.

Interesting. Nevertheless, a private business restricting perfume use or a restaurant who's owners have a no-smoking policy isn't nearly the same thing as requiring it by law.

fishin - there are very few non-smoking bars in the area (except in Brookline). I don't actually know of any, not that I've looked.

Monger - you're right about that difference.

I am not implying that all nonsmoking rules not needed. However, there is such a thing as overkill. Those people who are against smoking would like to make it illegal. Being unable too they will make it as uncomfortable for smokers as possible.
I have noticed that the most ardent advocates are ex smokers. I guess if they can't enjoy a cigarette no one else should. Selfish attitude don't you think?

Even Dallas, TX is considering a ban on smoking, but not guns of course. Now to really please me I would like a ban on cell phones in resturants, the movies, and while driving.