...
Thomas wrote:I don't smoke, but I didn't vote because I missed the option: "Depends on who does the banning". I'm fine when the government bans smokers from its own offices, airports, and other closed rooms it owns itself. I'm fine when restaurant owners imposes a smoking ban in their own establishment, seperates the smokers from the non-smokers, or comes up with some other arrangement they expect to be workable.
But when the government bans smoking from privately owned places, it interferes with a decision that isn't its business, and which it is incompetent to make. I oppose this kind of intervention.
Thank you, Thomas, for illuminating the other side of the issue. My mother is a health professional who has recently lobbied to have a smoking ban implemented in my state (Oklahoma USA).
I, on the other hand, am a former restaurant manager. It seems my mother had never considered it a business rights issue, not to any extent. To her, the issue was solely one of the health effects of second-hand smoke on the non-smoker.
We had many talks about it, and I like to think we both came closer to the middle ground. At the time, I was a smoker (I quit about 20 months ago). Still, I maintain my stance to this day. I'm not entirely against the provision, but I got a glimpse of the public support for the ban in my area.
The restaurant I worked for turned non-smoking the day that the ban was announced, despite the fact that all businesses were given until 2006 to comply. Our sales plummeted.
During that month (we went back to offering a smoking section after a month), I received comment from a handful of non-smokers, thanking my business for choosing to eliminate smoking in our store. However, the reason I had time to sit and receive the compliments was that the damn restaurant was EMPTY, save for the few non-smoking tables.
When we switched back to smoking, I began to get negative comments from the patrons who supported our early implementation of the ban. The would ask, "Why have you chosen to ignore us and to all smoking again?"
My response: "You, and other non-smokers, did not vote with your dollars. You did not sufficiently support our business while we tried to cater to your wishes. On the other hand, the smokers most certainly voted with their dollars; they stopped coming in. "
I would then point out that if non-smoking restaurants were supported better by the non-smoking public, then we would not need legislation to make the ban take place. Good, old commercialist economics would prompt the change if it were good for business.
Now, I recognize that my store was the lone non-smoking store in a sea of permissive restaurants (permissive of smoking). If ALL restaurants are forced to disallow smoking, then the playing field will be leveled.
At this point, I'm a fence-rider on this issue. I would not want the government to dictate personal behaviour, but I strongly believe that cigarette smoking is one of the great evils that I've faced in my life. I would that I had not had to deal with it at all. I'm delighted that my nieces and nephews are not exposed to it like I was (I remember getting candy cigarettes as a child).
Sorry, I got a little long-winded there.
