Restaurant smoking ban in Baton Rouge

I can't speak for others, but myself personally, I don't smoke in restaurants, other peoples homes or cars, in my office at work etc. etc. etc. I can possibly understand banning it in restaurants. I know of a few dinning places that do not allow smoking at all, and are quite successful. I also know of many that do allow smoking and are also quite successful. My only point is if I owned a restaurant or bar, I would like to be able to make my own decision as far as what is and isn't allowed there. Take Chilli's for example: I know several people who sit around after their meal smoke a cigarette or two and BUY a few drinks, while wathing a ball game on the many TVs in the place. If smoking weren't allowed, those drinks probably wouldn't have been sold.

 

I don't necessarily agree. I was a light smoker for a short time, and I never bought drinks according to how many cigs I smoked. In fact, it was usually the other way around. Chances are, you're done with the smoke before you the server actually makes it back to the table. And what about the people who leave early because they don't like being exposed to the smoke?

 

That was my point, they would not have bough those drinks if they could not smoke along with them. They prefer to smoke while they are drinking. And I do understand your point about non-smokers leaving early. But in my opinion, it should be up to the owner of the establishment. He/she should be able to decide what's more profitable, those drinks the smokers buy while lighting up after a meal, or the non-smokers leaving early because of the smoke. One way or another, a group of people will be upset. The guy that owns the place should have a say so in who he p***es off.

 

who forced him to work there? was he aware that people smoke in casinos when he got the job, or was he suprised by that fact? why did he keep working there if the smoke was so dangerous? who is he to dicatate what people do at the casino? he didn own the place. he can deal with the smoke, or he can quit.

private citizens own restaurants, and other private citizens have the right to choose which restaurants to eat and work in. people shouldnt use the force of the government to force their will on others.

i have mentioned this before: when nyc banned smoking in bars, it was the greatest thing that ever happened to the bars in hoboken NJ. so the owners of the places in new york lost business because they have less freedom than they should have.

would you think it was fair if you ran a bar in new york that went out of business because your customers decided to drive to hoboken instead?

i dont smoke, but i support the rights of free individuals to do what they please in their privately owned homes and businesses.

nobody ever wants to be personally responsible for anything. nobody wants to let anyone else live their lives, they have to use the government to force their goddamn will on everyone else.

i dont smoke, but for damn sure i am not gonna tell a businessman what he can let his customers do, his bar is his, not mine, and he makes the rules, not me.

 

It's not the diner that leaves early. IT's the diner that doesn't show up.
I saw a report done by the CDC after a ban was done somewhere in Texas I think. Doesn't really matter. They used tax revenue as the measuring stick and saw no difference before and after.

 

i dont smoke, but when my friends visit i usually let them smoke, although a couple times the stank lingered so i banned it for a while.

yunno, my house my rules, simple as that. that shouldnt change if i hire people and start selling food. my guests play by my rules. the rules are dicated by the owner of the place, not the government.

in my house, you will breathe the air in my house or you have the right to leave. you dont come into my house and dictate to me what my other guests can do. if i say they can smoke, they can. stop forcing your will on things you do not own.

 

You may be right. Every non-smoker who was subjected to second hand smoke between 1865 and 1875 is dead.

 

See, this is the fundamental problem. Non-smokers should have the right to work wherever they damn well please without having to compromise their well-being because of the weaknesses of others. You don't think very practically sometimes. People who hold jobs in certain industries for so many years can't just up and switch to something else completely different mid-stream, especially with a family to support.

Then how do you explain other laws that establishments are forced to abide by, such as a legal drinking age. I mean, that's bad for business, right? And what about other health standards that these restaurants have to comply with, like food contamination and sanitation? Those things cost money to keep up with. Should that also be up to the individual owners as well? Point is, this isn't the only legislation that restaurant owners have to comply with it, and it is long overdue.

Well, according to your logic, no one forced the owner to have the bar in the first place, right? It's my understanding that many people in NYC don't own cars anyway. So I would think that a lot of business generated by certain establishments would be from patrons that live in the neighborhood. At any rate, if all the bars in NYC have to comply, then the playing field is level. I doubt it would have enough of an impact to single-handedly destroy a business. If the bar owner wasn't sly enough to lure business in some other way, then tough titties.

I should also mention that I think that anything which makes it more difficult for people to smoke around others is a step in the right direction. I think that people should be allowed to smoke as much as they please. But I don't think that they have the right to make it other peoples problems. And, oddly enough, I think that lawsuits against tobacco companies are asinine. Everyone is well-aware of the fact that cigarettes are bad for your health. It's not Phillip Morris' fault that you're too weak to break your own addiction, or that you were too impressionable to resist whatever clever ad campaign they came up with.

 

But, that's the thing. Business owners simply aren't going to stop people from smoking if other places allow it. Yes, there are a handful of places that do it, and some can afford to without the risk of losing business. But why would run-of-the-mill joints start doing it if they know it's going to hurt their business. With a state-wide ban, it levels the playing field.

 

children do not have the same rights as adults. there is a different set of rules when dealing with children.

there is an expectation that when i purchase food it is made in a uncontaminated and sanitary place. it is fraudulent of the restaurant to sell me food that doesnt meet that unspoken expectation. the job of the government is to see to it that business arent secretly screwing us cutomers by making filthy ass food. not the same as smoking, which never suprises anyone.

employees take jobs voluntarily, nobody is forced to work anywhere or to hire anyone. this issue can be managed without forcing your damn will on anyone.