| |
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by redliner1989
on Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:47 pm |
|
Quote: Drinking in excess is a horrible thing . Drinking and driving is damned dumb, but ya know Red, When drinking & driving was really looked at in late 70's early 80's ( and yes, mainly by MADD org.) I heard many folks saying that monitoring THEM and thier drinking was an infringment upon thier rights............... and maybe to a point you have to say Yup,, .
I think we are closer then you think. It is this very logic, FROM smoker and non-smoker alike that drives me crazy.
Look, there are "risks" in life. The ordinary citizen feels that 17,144 lives taken by the habit of alcohol consumption is an acceptable number of deaths to keep this product available for the consumer. Yet, our local governing body feels that a product that kills far fewer by it's second hand effect (if any) should be banned.
It is ironic, in my estimate, that this is a debate at all.
I am a Commercial Real Estate Broker (Shopping Malls). I have 2 short stories.
I once managed a small Mall, across the street from a Giant center. The Giant Center opened as a smoke free facility, while mine had a smoking section (very well ventilated). The impact of the opening of the Giant was about an 8% loss in business. 18 months later, the Tenants demanded a "smoke free" policy in the Mall, which the Owner finally approved. The impact was immediate, 32% loss in business. For us, our niche was a well run smoking section that made everyone happy, smoker and non-smoker. It was lost because of political correctness and many lost their jobs.
Today I spoke with a gentleman who owns several restaurants in town. Two years ago he decided to take a successfull Restaraunt and make it smoke free because of the pressure on him from some of his better customers. His sales are down 15%, and have been since the day he started this. If this local ban fails, he is going back to a smoking section. If it passes, he is closing this facility.
I know the experience in the restaraunt was upsetting. I think though that we get back to the question. Is the owner of the business responsible for providing the environment that pleases everyone (impossible) or is he simply responsible for providing an environment that reflects his mindset.
If I am alergic to Cat dander, maybe not deadly alergic, just to the point that it makes me uncomfortable, should I expect pet stores not to handle cats.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are MANY smokers that could use some lessons in manners, but again, that is no more the responsibility of Owner of the business, then it is the Governments.
Your thoughts? |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by C716
on Wed Nov 12, 2003 12:01 pm |
|
I have heard some folks say there is loss of business in smoking ban. I dont deny that it may happen in some venues. That is one main reason I am not against smoking in Bars. MOST ( like maybe 80% ) Smoke whilst they drink.
Now, in a mall or store, I am not sure how a group which comprises of 1/6 of our population can make sales drop so drastically. Bottom line, there are MORE non-smokers. I know here in Florida, ( the tourists state ) have NOT suffered . Even if SOME eateries did iniially, they are not now. Of course, when the smoking ban hit, we ( florida) were NOt in an economic boom, so yeah, sales were simply naturally down. Smokers & non-smokers have to eat, even those smokers who declared they would never go back to a non-smoking facility, in fact DO go back.
For a long time, most people who didnt smoke, simply didnt gripe about having to leave a restuarant smelling like a cigarrette. Like many majorities, we were quite, we dealt with it, we comprimised. Then, more outspoken groups popped up and said enough.................. They mad the smoking minority MAD with thier demands of non-smoking. How dare they?? Well, yes, some non-smoking groups have been annoying. Like many who have strong feeling about a subject, you are going to have those who can get plain insulting. Its not the end of the world, but folks tend to get angry when change is suggested.
In a more simple way to look at things, If I am in a room, a smoker would and do light up and expect me just to deal. BUT, if I ASK them not to.... wow,, WWIII...................... I know this is kinda beside the point, but its attitudes. If folks TRY and work out differences,, it is MUCH better. Calling me a Nazi , or an A-hole or other names, ,kinda takes discussions to a new LOW.
I have seen people on here say it should be up to the business to enact or enforce a smoking policy.
YET, When LOWES did that for thier property, lord, suddenly they say government should be the one to enforce it.
When the government DOES do it, suddenly they are taking rights away from the individual.
BUT,, when the individual VOTES FOR non-smoking policy,,,............... well it goes back to the business should own making the decision,,,,,,,,,
It never ends nor is right unless smoking is allowed.....
Have you seen this here Red?? And please,, your thoughts too... Thanks for your time |
|
|
C716
Toker
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 83
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by BWilliams
on Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:30 pm |
|
C raises a good point - many drinkers like smoking. That is why we have so whole-heartedly supported the decision for bar owners to decide for themselves whether a bar should be smoke-free or not.
Malls, restuarants, etc. - it would be better if they had a smoking section, but bars are the number one priority right now in lifting the ban. |
|
|
BWilliams
Site Owner
Joined: Jun 05, 2003
Posts: 1077
Location: New York City
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Tom
on Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:03 pm |
|
| Voters are not suspose to vote on public questions like this. Public questions are meant to be about govt increasing taxes and spending on public things This would never be up for public vote here in NJ or at the national level. I thank God for that, because there's always a majority against personal hobbies, and if they were all put to public vote, we wouldn't be able to do anything. |
|
|
Tom
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Aug 24, 2003
Posts: 961
Location: The Kingdom of New Jersey
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by redliner1989
on Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:31 pm |
|
Quote: BWilliams Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:30 am Post subject: Smoking Allowed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C raises a good point - many drinkers like smoking. That is why we have so whole-heartedly supported the decision for bar owners to decide for themselves whether a bar should be smoke-free or not.
Malls, restuarants, etc. - it would be better if they had a smoking section, but bars are the number one priority right now in lifting the ban.
My point has always been that a ban on smoking in a bar is actually bizarre. As my math proves, those workers, who these bans are supposed to protect, are actually at a greater risk of harm by the product that they serve (alcohol), when they come to, or leave the bar, then by the environment within the bar.
How much sense does that make?
In the population that is included in my calculations, the workers are twice as likely to die from drunk drivers then from ETS (if there are any ETS deaths).
Just last night I had a Council person call and agreed completely with my statistics, then went on to tell me he would still vote for the ban!
He flipped out when I said, then I will have to bring up, during your next campaign that the child that dies on its bike from a drunk driver is less important then the business man stopping by "Jim's Bar" for a beer after work.
After twenty minutes I think I opened his eyes to the truth. |
|
|
redliner1989
Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2003
Posts: 133
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Rick
on Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:54 am |
|
C716 wrote: Smokers & non-smokers have to eat, even those smokers who declared they would never go back to a non-smoking facility, in fact DO go back.
Yes, I will give you that. Smoker's and non-smoker's do have to eat. But guess what? If I find out a place is entirely non-smoking, than I will get the order to go (if that is the only restaurant around) and eat at home. This means loss of additional revenues to the owner by way of me not lingering with a drink, or a desert. Most importantly, it hurts the waiter/waitress because it is lost tip money. Restaurants do not have to pay their wait staff min. wage, because of the assumption that most people tip (which I DO, when I dine in). When I get it to go, they loose their tip money.
If you want to put it into cause and effect terms: Waitstaff (majority of who are in college or younger folks) may lose out on tips, therefore causing them to look for higher paying jobs elsewhere. This in turn ultimately hurts the business owner because as the GM or sole proprietor, it's his/her job to keep it running - someone calls in sick or quits they need to find someone to fill in or do it themselves. Now, what if 40% of tips are lost because of getting orders to go? I know if I was a waiter in that business, I'd start looking for another job. Soon word gets around not to work at that restaurant because of crappy tips and you can't pay it on the wage they pay their wait staff. Pretty soon, customer service goes down along with the quality and people stop coming altogether. You see how the ball gets rolling?? |
|
|
Rick
Smoker
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 124
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Tom
on Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:36 am |
|
| I know I leave when I don't get the choice to smoke or not. About a year ago, I was at a diner in Rockland County, NY, and found there was no smoking section, so me and my friend drove a couple of minutes to Mahwah, NJ. I never gone dining in Rockland County, New York or the city since then. |
|
|
Tom
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Aug 24, 2003
Posts: 961
Location: The Kingdom of New Jersey
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Fri Nov 14, 2003 2:53 am |
|
Well, in regards to "Smokers DO go back to eat," I've NEVER stopped shopping in a supermarket. I'll ALWAYS buy my food from there as a smoker, because I DO need it. I don't have a problem with lighting up outside of a store.
However, fast food restaurants is a different story. I did go to a KFC recently in a Chicago suburb, and that KFC had a room where I could eat and be permitted to smoke. The smoking room at the KFC had ventilation, and it was an enclosed room. You know, a room with windows that are used as walls and a door that closes firmly shut? Even with the ventilation, that room wasn't really full with smoke. So if a group of nonsmokers decided to eat in there, they wouldn't be able to whine about smelling smoke then. The ventilation makes the smoke from my exhales dissipate (sp) fast. As well as the smoke from the burning end. Even I couldn't actually smell the smoke. That's how "hard" the ventilation in that smoking room was.
That KFC makes a good role model for other restaurants. If totally smoke-free restaurants want to bring the smokers back (and make more money off of us in the process), how about building an enclosed smoking room with good ventilation? Anti-smokers wouldn't be able to whine about a smoking room in a restaurant. Since it's an enclosed room, they wouldn't be able to smell smoke (coming from the smoking room) in the restaurant. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 489
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Rick
on Fri Nov 14, 2003 8:58 am |
|
I agree wholeheartedly with your post Jay. However, what surprises me is that a fast food franchise, such as KFC could afford such a reasonable accomodation for smokers and non-smokers. I say if a lower overhead (I worked at Popeye's one summer, which is better, but the process is still the same) restaurant such as KFC can provide it, why not the fancier places? I've noticed too, that some places will have smoking sections, but do not allow cigars. Well, with such a ventillation system in place, the more upscale restaurants could bring back the smokers (both cig and cigar) and make more revenue (especially from cigar smokers).
Do any ANTI's have any objection to this idea? I'd love to know your comments, for/against - and if against, WHY??? You can't be that heavily brainwashed by organizations like tobaccofreekids and others, now can you? |
|
|
Rick
Smoker
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 124
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Tom
on Fri Nov 14, 2003 9:29 am |
|
| This McDonalds in Mahwah, NJ has a smoking section with ventilation. There's a big fan that filters the air remarkably well, unlike the smoke-eaters of the 80's. It's so great that some non-smokers actually sit in the smoking section to breathe the freshly filtered air. |
|
|
Tom
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Aug 24, 2003
Posts: 961
Location: The Kingdom of New Jersey
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
