Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

[RNR]

I think it should be up to the owner, and would even be willing to have it up to the owner if you have to be 21 to enter. City wide is bullshit IMO

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by kstater

I've stayed out of this because nobody's mind is going to be changed in this debate. But this has got to be the dumbest argument for a smoking ban I've ever seen. A business owner is private property(in a public place). He has the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses as long as it isn't a protected class(minorities, etc.). A smoker would have no legal right to sue for not being allowed to smoke in a business. It goes along the same lines as clubs with dress codes, or convenience stores that require shirt and shoes.

What's hilarious here is that you have no idea how wrong you are.

Shirt and shoes are public health code laws and are enforceable because they're actually laws.

You bring up "clubs"...which has been the cornerstone of my responses in this thread. A club IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE! It is private...membership restricted...and as such operates differently.

A restaurant or bar owner has no legal right to refuse service to anyone as long as they (the patrons) are not breaking the law. Pre-legislation a smoker wasn't breaking the law...therefore a business couldn't refuse them service legally.

God you people are idiots.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Hilarious. You're actually dense enough to think that sign has any legal basis or standing? Guess again. That sign was there in an attempt to scare/intimidate you into doing something. Had anyone actually challenged it they would have kicked ass in court.

Ok, then how did all those restaurants have non-smoking sections to them and actually enforce such a thing? By your reasoning they could not have gotten anyone to not smoke anywhere in the place.

I am being good and not letting this become a name calling, personal attack issue. Please be man enough to do the same.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Oh well Im not really surprised. One day you ar off on this rant, then another day on another. What was it you said here not long ago that your team is the team and all others are the enemy?

I took out the irrational faux screaming and profanity but that is what you were saying.

But if you are now jumping on the support for the division, then welcome.

I'm sorry you're such an easily offended little crybaby pussy, HonestInnerwoman. Maybe Good Housekeeping has a BB for you.

And the Colts have caused us much more grief than the Chargers; certainly in the playoffs. Seeing them lose at home was a pleasure. Most people would be smart enough to realize that.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

Ok, then how did all those restaurants have non-smoking sections to them and actually enforce such a thing? By your reasoning they could not have gotten anyone to not smoke anywhere in the place.

I am being good and not letting this become a name calling, personal attack issue. Please be man enough to do the same.

Because they offered service to everyone. Smokers were not denied service. And the whole smoking/non-smoking sections...totally arbitrary and completely unenforceable in the absence of legislation. If a smoker had made a stink about it (hah!) there's no way the restaurant owner would have prevailed in court. Period. It was all based solely on the goodwill of a smoker to actually sit in a non-smoking area.

Pure intimidation/BS on the part of the establishment.

(apologies for the namecalling)

[Mr. Laz]

as soon as smokers recognize my right to not smoke i'll recognize their right TO smoke.


keep your smoke to yourself and you can smoke anywhere you want.


forcefield?


until then you won't get much sympathy about the bans.

[Stewie]

I don't care about the smoking ban. I don't smoke and I don't frequent places that allow it. That being said, there's a bar/grill by my house that's allowed smoking (after it was banned where I live) and they also hold the distinction of being a business that dumps an excessive amount of grease into the sewer system. Just sayin'.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

A restaurant or bar owner has no legal right to refuse service to anyone as long as they (the patrons) are not breaking the law. Pre-legislation a smoker wasn't breaking the law...therefore a business couldn't refuse them service legally.

You're wrong here. This is from California, but Federal Laws apply and I'd be willing to bet that most states' are pretty similar.

"The Right to Refuse Service: Can a business refuse service to Someone because of appearance, odor or attitude?
Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is . . . it depends.

Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability."

http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-artic...icle13721.html

It goes on to say that a restaurant can refuse services to people not in a protected class as long as it's not overly arbitrary. You'd be hard pressed to find a jury to say that if a business owner didn't allow smoking, it is arbitrarily refusing service.

[JohninGpt]

Originally Posted by Laz

as soon as smokers recognize my right to not smoke i'll recognize their right TO smoke.


keep your smoke to yourself and you can smoke anywhere you want.


forcefield?


until then you won't get much sympathy about the bans.

I smoke, but I'm inclined to agree with you. I can't stand cigarette smoke while I'm eating. I always sit in the non-smoking section at restaurants and don't light up until I get outside.
I also quit smoking in my house 13 years ago when my wife got pregnant with our first child, so walking outside to have a smoke really doesn't bother me no matter where I am.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by kstater

You're wrong here.

You probably should have read a bit more of that article:

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

In other words, the restaurant owner would have to prove that the smoker effected the safety, wellfare and well-being of other patrons. Good luck with that.

FWIW, my g/f is a lawyer and she assures me that a restaurant owner (in the absence of specific legislation) would likely get laughed out of court for trying to bar a smoker from his/her establishment.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

You probably should have read a bit more of that article:

In other words, the restaurant owner would have to prove that the smoker effected the safety, wellfare and well-being of other patrons. Good luck with that.

FWIW, my g/f is a lawyer and she assures me that a restaurant owner (in the absence of specific legislation) would likely get laughed out of court for trying to bar a smoker from his/her establishment.

Just curious, a bartender can cut off someone who is obviously drunk. They don't have to be causing an issue for this to occur. How does this compare to our discussion of smokers? I know the bartender can be held liable for a drunk person actions after leaving the bar (another bunch of nonsense, IMO) but I don't know that there is a law specifically allowing them to stop serving someone.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

I think it should be up to the owner, and would even be willing to have it up to the owner if you have to be 21 to enter. City wide is bullshit IMO

Totally agree. I don't see how tobacco can be legal and not let a business owner decide if he wants to allow it in his establishment.

Next it will be you have to get on a scale when entering Hardee's to see if you're eligible for a Monster thick burger.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

Just curious, a bartender can cut off someone who is obviously drunk. They don't have to be causing an issue for this to occur. How does this compare to our discussion of smokers? I know the bartender can be held liable for a drunk person actions after leaving the bar (another bunch of nonsense, IMO) but I don't know that there is a law specifically allowing them to stop serving someone.

I suspect that since they can be held liable that gives them the legal right to refuse to serve them alcohol. But IIRC it's fairly narrowly defined (you are allowed to refuse someone only if you can see they've had too much) and you can refuse them alcohol..but not coffee, food, etc. (unless they're violating one of the other standards that would allow you to boot them entirely...starting fights, etc.).

Alcohol impairs judgement and contributes to death via drunk driving. Smoking cigs doesn't impair judgement that I'm aware of, and it does not have the same immediate cause-effect relationship to deaths that drunk driving does.

*when the g/f gets back from the gym I'll ask her about the "don't server the drunkard" thing.

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by frazod

Again, you presume to speak for everybody. That's horseshit. You confuse non-smokers with those who are completely unreasonable and intolerant about smoking. Not every non-smoker is a jerkoff about it like Honest****face. I don't smoke every bit as much as you or him(her? I wonder). I don't like the smell of smoke. I'm actually happy to eat without smelling smoke, and quite frankly, always was. But I don't feel the need to enforce my personal choice not to smoke upon others. There's your fascism. Using misinformation and scare tactics to manipulate the ignorant into thinking your way is another pretty good example of fascism, too.

As much as I hate to agree with Frazod, he is right on this one. I have been shouting from the rooftops about this for 40 years. I first started driving in 1957. At the time you didn't need a seat belt or insurance and you only needed one headlight and one taillight. You didn't need proof of registration. You could just get in your car and go. Now they even stop you for a cracked windshield. I have watched the gubment slowly erode our freedoms. Keep voting to restrict the rights of others and you just might find it come flying back in your face.

[alanm]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Totally agree. I don't see how tobacco can be legal and not let a business owner decide if he wants to allow it in his establishment.

Next it will be you have to get on a scale when entering Hardee's to see if you're eligible for a Monster thick burger.

No one over 250lbs will be allowed to buy one.

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by alanm

No one over 250lbs will be allowed to buy one.

The gubment should definitely regulate fat people. They are a real strain on our health systems. We need more laws.