News-Record.com

Mr.Smith, If you can't wait thirty minutes to eat a meal before indulging yourself in a hedonistic activity, then choose to eat elsewhere (as in at home). Thoughtless people, who care for no one but themselves, have run amuck for too long polluting whatever space they are in with their nasty habit.

Your "concern" for the right of the restaurant owner is only a guise for smokers to be able to keep on assaulting nonsmokers. Your scare tactics re other "rights" being taken away are absurd. What if the owner decided to start burning tires in a pit in the middle of the restaurant? Would that be OK? What if they started substituting snake meat for chicken? Would that be OK? What if they admitted only Asians? Would that be OK? After all, it IS their restaurant.

Thank goodness responsible people are finally making a stand aganist those who have acted in an irresponsible way since the first cigarette. They have cared nothing for the right of the nonsmoker to enjoy an atmosphere free of that vile stench for all these years. Why should we concern ourselves now that they feel their "rights" are getting stepped on?

Alhtough I quit the nasty habit five years ago after smoking for over forty years, I agree with Mr. Smith. If I objected that much to a restaurant allowing smoking I wouldn't eat there. Unlike some folks I dont feel the need to start passing more laws. Folks just need to chill out sometimes, Yvonne. I,m sure there will be smoke-free restaurants for you. Respectfully, Fred Stanley

Mr. Stanley, Congratulations on kicking that nicotine addiction. I know it could not have been easy as I have watched family and friends go through the process. I thank God every day they were successful, not for my sake, but for theirs'.

I am not in favor of creating more laws that restrict the public UNLESS it is for the benefit of the majority. In this case I happen to think, since smokers are not willing to show any respect for the rights of others, this is the only option open to nonsmokers. We have come to this point because too many of us were just "chilling" for too many years. We were afraid to speak up, afraid we would offend someone. In the mean time, in all the years we were silent, I can remember only one person asking me if I found smoking offensive. Been there, done that (chill) and all it got me was stinking clothes, hair and allergic reactions. When I finally developed the nerve to say "As a matter of fact I am offended by smoking. Would you please refrain from lighting that cigarette until I leave?" I have felt a freedom I had not physically felt ever. And I shall keep on fighting to keep feeling that freedom, regardless of the number of smokers I offend.

I am an ex smoker and I agree with Mr Smith. Smoking should not be banned in restaurants. Yvonne talks of keeping her freedom but it is at the expense of other's freedom.

Non-smokers have the right to smoke in non-smoking sections. Some restaurants don't offer the best in non-smoking sections but that is the restaurants' fault, not smokers'.

This is probably just the food industry's way of getting out of having to pay for non-smoking signs all over their restaurants.

Personally, as an ex-smoker, I feel it is harder for me to deal with smoke than anybody who has never smoked. And I can handle it. All these other nonsmokers need to stop their whining. They walk on city streets and breathe exhaust from cars, factories, and god knows what else is being pumped in to the air. They go to these restaurants to consume fatty foods and alcohol. Do they really think a tiny fragment of smoke from across a restaurant is going to significantly harm them? Get real.

It isn't hard to avoid cigarette smoke if you want. I do it every day. I have yet to have a problem of cigarette smoke drifting across a restaurant and ruining my happiness. If I did, I would live with the one in a thousand chance of that happening rather than take other's freedoms away.

Thank you, Yvonne,
Nice to know we have you to run our lives, decide what's right and wrong, what's morally correct, and dictate to us how to act in a manner that suits you.
How long have you felt you were the only person on earth?
So smokers "assault" you while "running amuck?"
Escuse me, madame, but the vile stench of your cheap perfume is interfering with the aroma of my premium cigar. Would you mind waiting outside while I finish it?

Mr t, I said nothing about harmful or not harmful. In your haste to support the vile habit of the thoughtless minority you assumed I was talking about second hand smoke and it's properties ("a tiny fragment of smoke across a restaurant").

Give me one good reason why my right to eat in a restaurant free from that putrid smell is any less important than that of the smoker who is maligning me? Are smokers "rights" the only ones of value? The only ones to be given any consideration? How hypocritical.

You are free to call it whining, stupid or uninformed (as others have already). No amount of name-calling alters the fact that public smoking is on the way out. Smokers have the option to retain some dignity and go gently into that good night or go out kicking and screaming (which is their usual persona).

You are totally wrong about being able to avoid smoking if one really wants to. Case in point, while standing in line to pay for a purchase, going into a non-smoking restaurants, going into a service station to pay for gas. (I do not give my money to those businesses who have such disregard for the paying public as to let their employees smoke behind the counter IF I know in advance. I avoid them like a plague often driving out of my way and paying more.)

Our hospital built a gazebo for smokers. On more than one occasion I have had to hold my breath while going into work because some thoughtless clod would not walk the thirty feet to the gabezo. Smokers have such a sense of entitlement. Therein lies the problem. It is not the non-smokers who are creating this problem but the self-absorbed smokers.

And just who are you to tell me what I go into a restaurant for? Again assumptions.

fyi: since new york city banned smoking in restaurants, business is up. it makes good sense that when people choose to spend their hard-earned money for an evening out, that they don't have to inhale nasty and harmful smoke. folks want to enjoy their evening, not tolerate other's smoke. face it, smoking is a stupid habit that kills. you do not have any right to impose that stupidity on others. none!!!

Ahhh, the anti smoking Nazis are at it again. Yvonnne, if you don't like cigarette smoke, don't go into the convenience store where they smoke, stay out of restaurants where smoking is allowed, hold your breath when you go by the gazebo or walk around it.

Like you, I am a nonsmoker, can't stand the smell of the stuff, and agree it is a vile habit. The majority of restaurants that allow smoking have adequate separate sections and I never smell smoke when dining there. If I do, I will leave, plain & simple.

Some restaurants don't serve alcohol, some do. Some serve healthy food, some don't. Some are closed on Mondays, some are not open for breakfast. These are business decisions made by the owner based upon what they feel is best for their business. If he/she wants to allow the consumption of a legal product on their private premises, that is their choice, not the choice of you and the rest of the do gooders who want to impose your wishes on everyone else.

I've gone into curb markets with the cashier who smokes. Don't care for the smell, but I'm only there for a minute and it's no big deal. Just pay at the pump or go to your favorite non smoking stores and restaurants. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm so sick of this topic. And so sick of the fascist mentality of the legislators who want to tell private property owners what they can and can't do with their property.

I find it interesting, Dan, that you would accuse me of making a mountain out of a molehill but express no such accusation toward Mr. Smith(who wrote the letter to which I was responding). In fact I find it interesting any time a woman states an opinion with which you do not agree you dismiss it as trivial.

Are you intentionally missing my points or just playing instigator? I refer to the thoughtless clods who are standing at the entrance of the hospital, an entrance that is clearly posted as a restricted area. When I bring it to their attention they are always rude in their response. I make it a point to never put myself in a position to be anywhere near the smoking gazebo.

Same for non-smoking restaurants, grocery stores and convenience stores. The employees who smoke and the customers who smoke congregate around the entrances to do the dirty deed. If I could pay with cash at the pump I would. Unfortunately, I know of no such business.

My last point is smokers have abused the privilege of public smoking for so long, with no thought for anyone else, they deserve to lose that privilege (to smoke in public), in my humble opinion.

My privilege to smoke does not cancel out your privilege to avoid it. We can exist side by side.
If it bothers you that much, just use a different entrance to your hospital. You have right to inconvenicne me just because you don't like what I do. Who made you the rule-keeper? Sounds like nazism to me.

Mr. Trulove, As I have clearly stated several times before, I am stating my opinion. If that is nazism, then I guess we have differing opinions as to the meaning of that also.

Incidentally, the entrance I use to GO TO WORK is the only one unlocked after five PM. Any other suggestions as to what I should do to avoid thoughtless clods?

Yes, Yvonne, I do have a suggestion.
Suck it up and quit trying to run other people's lives.

There are certain place where smoking is not acceptable.
May I ask, do you smoke when you go to your place of worship? NO
Do you smoke when you go to the doctors office? NO
There is a time and place for everyone and in a public restaurant is not one of them.
If one must smoke do it in the privacy of you home

"Give me one good reason why my right to eat in a restaurant free from that putrid smell is any less important than that of the smoker who is maligning me?"
--Yvonne

You do not have a right to eat in a restaurant, Yvonne. You have the PRIVILEGE of eating in a restaurant as long as the owner allows you to.

I DON'T THINK YVONNE HAS ENOUGH TO DO. IF YOU FEEL THIS STRONGLY ABOUT THIS SUBJECT PERHAPS YOU YOU COULD PUT YOUR TIME TO BETTER USE BY VOLUNTEERING FOR THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY.

Mr. Trulove, Would you mind explaining how stating my opinion is "trying to run other people's lives"? You certainly are free with your opinions. Does that mean you are trying to run my life? It would seem so, based on your statement.

Paul, As long as it is a public restaurant, yes I do have the "right" to eat there. To exclude me would be discrimination and that is aganist the law. If you are referring to a private club, then you are right in saying it would be a "privilege".

And to RJ, Who died and made you God? Your post is so full of assumptions about me and my life it really does not warrent a response.

I find it of great interest that all you "Men-folk" delight in attacking me but you were remarkably quiet when another man posted similar views re public smoking last week. I am referring to Dr. Lentz. Rusty Sheridan was the ONLY man who had the committment to post an opinion challanging Dr. Lentz. Although I do not agree with Mr. Sheridan regarding public smoking I admire the fact he speaks up for what he believes regardless of gender.

Most of you have veered off the subject just to attack my stated opinions. You offer nothing to the discussons except to make sweeping generalizations about me, my time and my intent. If all you care about is trying to insult me you have failed. You should use your time for more productive activities. Perhaps you could volunteer to help Hospice with their terminal lung cancer patients or in a long term care facility where they have patients on ventilators (because that's the only way they can breath). NOTE I am not trying to tell you what to do, just offering a few suggestions.

People smoke at my Church. They don't smoke IN Church. There are no signs to prohibit it. People just don't feel right doing it. People obviously don't feel the same way about restaurants.

I'm sorry that certain non-smokers are so offended by the smell of cigarette smoke. I happen to think it smells good. (Except for the occasional cheap cigarette)

Notice I said 'certain' nonsmokers. I didn't generalize. So many of the comments are very demonizing to smokers. They put all 'smokers' in the same bag and make all these assumptions about who those people are. My grandfather smoked and he was a wonderful man. He had respect for others in every way. Of course, when he was alive people weren't so easily offended. They had more things to worry about in life. Like heating the home, feeding the children.

Smoking is an enjoyable thing for some people. Just like alcohol, sweets, fattening food, etc.
Smoking goes great with food and alcohol. It fills a void in people's lives.

What I think we need to ban are cell phones. They are the new cigarette. People have to have one at their ear wherever they go. And these cellphones may cause brain cancer. I don't want to die of second-hand cellphone exposure.

If they get rid of cellphones in restaurants, I'd be willing to get rid of cigarettes.

Yvonne--when you start paying the restaurant owners' mortgages, then you can tell them what to do. While I am not wild about cigarette smoke, if it bothered me so much, I'd ask to be reseated in another area (which I have done on occassion). And please, don't play the "women-card" when you feel that the guys' arguements are besting yours. If you write your opinion on a blog, expect it to be debated.

Because there is a law about something does not make it a "right". Rights do not spontaneously exist when they are written by an authority. Rights are innate. Rights simply exist.

Individuals do not have a right to enter others' property. They have only a privelege granted by the property owner. A restaurant or building that is "open to the public" does not mean it is public property. It means the private property owner is willing to do business with people from the public. However, that property owner still reserves the right to deny usage of or entrance on their property. Sometimes property owners post a sign that says something to the effect of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at the sole discretion of the manager". This is true. They have that right. Those rights may be infringed upon by legislatures attempting to regulate private property, but the right still exists.

Yvonne,

Granted the people who smoke at an entrance where there are no smoking signs are thoughtless clods. There are also thoughtless clods who park in the fire lane in front of the grocery store, who pull out in front of you when you are travelling at 60 mph and drive at 30 mph. There are thoughtless clods who talk loud on cell phones in public as bigmouth stated. The world is full of thoughtless clods and you seem to think you can regulate everything they do. This will lead to a life of frustration.

Ask the security to enforce the entrance rules better. Otherwise, do like I do and hold your breath for the 5 seconds it takes to walk past a smoker. Life will go on.

Agree with Stop Crying, please spare the woman bashing bit. I don't care what sex, color, ethnic background, religion or whatever else you are.

Yvonne, your comments are all about "ME! ME! ME!"
You bash others when anything they say or do "offends" you and demand that they change their way of life or beliefs to suit your petty, fragile, self-important world. It's as if you want the whole world to revolve around you and what you like, want, or think, because you are RIGHT in everything you say, do, and think, and so everyone should be just like you.
Where's your tolerance for other's views or way or life? Where's your respect for diversity of lifestyles and cultures? Where's your sense of human decency that allows others to live their lives as they allow you to live yours?
You remind me of a nightmare mother-in-law who sits on her high horse and denigrates anything her daughter's husband does or says. And makes his life miserable.
Quit tryin' to run everybody's life.

I find it interesting, and puzzling, that no one here has raised the issue of the health effects of secondhand smoke. Even if the death figures are nowhere near as high as the government has stated, its contribution to problems such as asthma (especially in children) is undeniable. Drinking, perfume, etc., do not cause these same health problems in other people, so one can't logically compare smoking to them.

So: What do y'all say on this subject with this additional issue thrown into the mix?

If one is against smoking in restaurants they should ask to be seated in the smoking section when they eat there thus elemiting one more smoker while they are there.
Think before you act. There is always a solution to every problem, the key is to find it.

Big Mouth you will do what the owner say if you eat there

Though I understand the dangers of second-hand smoke brough forth by Lex, I still must agree with Mr. Smith's original letter and opinion that folks are not required to frequent a restaurant in which they feel that smoking (or second-hand smoke) will bother them.

Restaurants are privately owned and operated. I think it's a mistake to allow legislators to preclude a legal product in a privately-owned business.

Mr. Lex, the effects of secondhand smoke are still "up in the air" (excuse the pun) when it comes to research. It depends on which study and by what research group you choose to believe.

Yvonne seems to have backed off her original statement "there oughta be a law" and now says she is not trying to tell anybody what to do, just stating an opinion. Yvonne, honey, lobbying for a new law IS trying to tell other people what to do. That's what laws DO. If you don't know that, read any good civics textbook.

Mr. Trulove, Thank you. You proved my point much better than I could have done(the personal attacks that add nothing to the topic at hand).

To Stop Crying, If any one of you wish to disagree with my opinion, I have no issue with that. As you stated "If you write your opinion on a blog expect it to be debated". If I might be so bold, I would like to point out there are grave differences between debating a topic and attacking someone personally. "Nice to know we have you to run our lives and dictate to us." "How long have you felt like you were the only person on earth." "Anti-smoking nazis." "Sounds like nazism to me."Suck it up and quit trying to run other people's lives."

And to YZ Cracker, Honey, I am not lobbying for a law to tell people WHAT they can do. I am in favor of a law telling people WHERE they can do it (or in this case where they cannot do it).

If people had sex on their front lawn, are they entitled to do that? After all, it IS their property. Or if someone made kiddie porn in their own home, would that be OK? After all it IS their property. Or if someone made bombs in their home, is that acceptable? After all it is their property. All these activities are governed by a law even though we are talking private property here. And if you have ever owned rental property, even though it is your own and you are making the mortgage payments on it, you still have to abide by laws. So don't tell me that just because business owners have private property they can do anything with it they like. It doesn't work that way.

To those who felt I was playing the woman card, I invite you to read responses posted by men who are addressing another man. In 99.9% you will find them to be respectful and polite, whereas if they are responding to a woman (especially if they are in disagreement with her)these same men will be disrespectful, condesending and rude. Or treat her like she's so dumb her opinions have no value.

Yvonne, Honey, you DEMAND that laws be passed to force people to act in a manner that YOU approve.
Where's the respect for me doing something perfectly legal (smoking) in a perfectly legal manner in a place in which it's allowed?
You imply that just because you personally don't like something I have the right to do you feel the government has an obligation to force me to conform to your idea of what I should and should not be doing.
Ain't gonna happen...

Yvonne-

I invite YOU to re-read the following posts authored by you:

1. Your 3/1 post in response to Dan Mulligan’s letter entitled “President's critics spreading innuendo. You wrote, “The real reason for your concern was revealed when you just couldn't pass up the opportunity to try to stick it to the Democratic Party.”

2. Your 3/1 post in response to the letter entitled “Editor’s Note on Letter was inappropriate” You wrote, “My own opinion is he abused his position as editor.”

3. Your above 3/1 post reponse to Mr. Smith in this very topic. You wrote, "Mr.Smith, If you can't wait thirty minutes to eat a meal before indulging yourself in a hedonistic activity, then choose to eat elsewhere (as in at home)."

So, in the "World of Yvonne," it's OK to infer that Dan Mulligan has an agenda to "stick it to the Democratic party"; that the editor "abuses his position," and that Mr. Smith is pretty much an impatient guy who should eat at home, because he wants to "indulge in a hedonistic activity." (which, by the way, is legal)

And you think that these are NOT PERSONAL ATTACKS?
Pardon the "personal attack," but I'm kinda thinking that you're a hypocrite. When YOU throw the shots, it's OK, but when folks respond--all of a sudden it's a "personal attack."

But, of course, if that arguement doesn't fly, you can always fall back on the Men Are Treating Me Like I'm Dumb Because I'm A Woman theory.

If you are so very sensitive on the subject of personal attacks, then perhaps you should not be "dishing it out."

And by the way, lest you think that this post is from yet another man who wants to personally attack women's opinions, I wanted to let you know that I am a woman.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sorry about that -- I got so riveted in my point that I forgot to sign in the above post

It's me--Stop Crying.

Stop Crying, I fail to see the comparison between stating someone has an agenda, is abusing their position or calling someone impatient and being called a nazi (more than once), a dictator, selfish, self-centered, petty, a basher, a hypocrite and lacking human decency. I did not attack Mr. Mulligan, the editor or Mr. Smith PERSONALLY. Therein lies the difference. Had I said Mr. Mulligan was stupid or Mr. Smith was a selfish bore then it would have been personal. To me, there is no logic to your trying to make disagreeing with one's position and attacking one personally one and the same.

Rather than people sticking to the subject at hand and debating the merits, or lack thereof, re public smoking the posts turned into a free-for-all. Even when Lex and Mr. Reid tried to reintroduce the original issue some of you refused to give up the opportunity to express your opinion about the subject in order to express your opinion about me. If this is your idea of intelligent discussions, so be it.

I will reiterate what I said in my first post; I am in favor of banning smoking in public buildings and around the entrance of public buildings. When 25% of the public (smokers) want to impose their wishes on 75% of the public (non-smokers) and that is allowed, it is not for the good of the majority.

Restaurants are not public buildings. Neither is my house or your house or the Rhinocerous Club. All are private property. This isn't a debate so much about smoking as it is about understanding what private property is.

yvonne made comments as to one's actions, not about the actual "person". many intelligent and exceptional people do and say things that may look otherwise. it's called being human. to comment about what is "said or done" by an individual does not constitute a "personal" attack.

i must say, though, that the level of disdain i see in these posting borders on mean. it's getting quite discouraging.

So, Yvonne, if 75% of the people want something versus 25% that don't want it, no matter if it tramples the rights of the minority, then the majority should rule?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, Yvonne.

I vote for KID FREE RESTAURANTS. Nothing ruins my meal like a screaming kid. *lighting up a cigarette*

Good times.....good times..