Ravenwood - 12/12/05 06:15 AM
Last week the Washington D.C. City Council voted to nullify the rights of property owners. Smoking will be banned on all accessable private property except for "cigar bars, hotel rooms, retail tobacco outlets, outdoor dining areas and medical research institutions" reports the Associated Press.
The anti-smoke nazis usually claim that prohibiting smoking everywhere actually increases business in restaurants and bars. But that message seems to be lost on D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, who's worried about the impact on D.C.'s night life.
Lighting up in restaurants and bars would become illegal in the nation's capital under a smoking ban approved Tuesday by the city council, a move the mayor warned would send residents and tourists across the Potomac River to dine in more lenient suburbs.So why not remain pro-choice and let the customers decide if they want to frequent smoking or non-smoking bars? In Chicago, anti-smokers are wrestling with the same dilema. They too want to tell people how to live their lives, but it's really hitting them in the pocketbook."We should not impose a blanket ban on all of our restaurants," Mayor Anthony Williams said in a statement. "To do so puts the district at a competitive disadvantage."
When I wrote about [bar owner Wendy Pick] in August, she was wrestling with her conscience. Should she continue to run a bar that abetted her customers in smoking themselves sick? Or should she forbid cigarettes, which might be as financially unhealthy as banning beer?Gotta love the holier-than-thou attitude. Someone who peddles booze looking down her nose at smokers. She's not at all concerned about heart disease, alcoholism, or drunken driving. On top of that Pick knows that her self-imposed smoking ban is hurting her business. She's hoping to hold on until July 2008, when Chicago will begin using the police power of the government to force everyone else to ban smoking as well.
She feared that without a citywide smoking ban to "level the playing field," her smoking clients would take their money, as well as their Marlboros, elsewhere...Ugh. Would you want to deal with this person? I bet if I ordered french fries she'd insist I eat steamed veggies instead. Working for her is apparently not much better.Since [she banned smoking], with clear lungs and a clean conscience, she's watched profits drop.
"We're not getting as many of the 'smoking's-not-going-to-hurt-me-I'm-young' crowd," she says. Some of the old-timers are gone, too, like the ardent pool player who complained about being forced outside to smoke in winter.
"I'm going to get pneumonia," he protested.
She thought he should be more worried about emphysema.
Meanwhile, her bartenders are looking for extra work and trying to appreciate the bright side of fewer tips.Remember, it's about property rights and freedom of choice."When you go home, your clothes don't stink, and your eyes don't burn," [bartender Matt Wilson] said Thursday night. Then he amiably excused himself.
"We just got a rush."
A rush?
"Well," he said, "one person just came in."
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (6) top link me
Why let some smoking-fanatics decide about others peoples lifes? The whole thing is about freedom of choice, and while smokers can smoke 100 cigarettes outdoors at any time, non-smokers and staff cannot stop breathing.
And if there were any tolerance from smokers there would be now law, but because smokers are almost fanatic and illiberal there is no a liberal and democratic law
Adults can decide by their own, they don't need the smoking-brigades for that.
So congrats for the smoking ban.
Posted by: Martin at December 12, 2005 8:53 AMThese smoking-nazis should simply stub out or walk to North-Corea.
Posted by: Klaus at December 12, 2005 8:55 AMMartin-Klaus,
I'm not sure why you commented twice under different names and email addy's, but you seem to be taking both sides of the issue. Freedom of choice means choosing not to be around smokers. You can go to Restaurant A which allows smoking or Restaurant B which doesn't.
What you shouldn't be able to do is force Restaurant A to cater to your non-smoking desires, just because you might want to eat there some day. If I owned 'A', I'd tell you to get bent and go some place else.
Posted by: Ravenwood at December 12, 2005 11:07 AMNew York banned smoking over 20 yrs ago.
They had to raise taxes 10 times to make up for lost the revenues.
Posted by: Andy at December 12, 2005 12:21 PMAs usial in washington D.C. they feel its up to them to take care of the citizens becuase they think the citizens are to dumb to care for themselves BIG BROTHER is in your homes and the health nazis are taking care of us all
Posted by: sandpiper at December 12, 2005 2:43 PMAs I've posted on other blogs regarding this issue, I just wish one of the tobacco companies would step up and tell the cities and atates that are so concerned with smoking that to show solidarity with bans of this type, the company will no longer ship/sell its products in that city state wherever.
And by the way, don't bother asking us to buy any more state, county or city TAX STAMPS for our products either.
Wait'll the anti-smokers get a load of their tax bills after a year of no tobacco taxes. It would be even better if there were sizeable Indian reservations in the state, heh, heh.
I don't smoke and wish my wife didn't...
(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014