News-Record.com

If the owners are satified with their clientle, satisfied with their income and like the set-up the way it is why should they make changes?

Not being able to eat there is the price you pay for being intolerant to cigarette smoke.

"Not being able to eat there is the price you pay for being intolerant to cigarette smoke."

I suppose the opposite could be said of smokers who won't be able to eat at non-smoking resturants.

The writer goes to a fish house where the odor of fried fish, fried hush-puppies, french fries permeates the air, sticking to anything within the confines of the place, especially clothing, and he is complaining about smoke that he passes through on his way to the table sticking to his clothes? I suggest he go to Long Johns drive-thru so as not to be offended by the smoke or so that his clothing does not smell of stale fish fry odors. The writer must have a selective sense of smell as well.

you're right bishop. the smokers who are intolerant of nonsmoking restaurants dont eat there. however! there is that lovely invention called the parking lot. stand outside by the car, smoke, go inside and have a seat, once the meal is over they get up and go outside to stand around the car and have another smoke. this also works well in expediting tables. if smokers cant smoke, they rarely sit there for 20+ minutes after the meal is over conversating.

6stringsamurai,

There's no way that would work. It makes too much sense.

6strings:

Exactly! For years, I've said it seems the logical solution is simply for smokers to get up and go outside to have their cancer stick.

It seems, though, that many smokers would prefer not to be inconvenienced.

hugh,
you make it sounds as though a person being intolerant to cig smoke is a choice one makes...is that what you are conveying? ......respectfully

smoking does not belong in restaurants. i left nc 10 years ago and the state i live in now does not allow smoking in restaurants, bars and most public places. when visiting nc, i avoid eating at restaurants that permit smoking. not only does this filthy habit harm the people with the habit, but their 2nd hand smoke is more toxic than the crap they suck down their throats. here, since restaurants and bars banned smoking, business has increased.

I'm not surprised that the nanny state government in Ca. has placed the wishes- nay, the DEMANDS- of the smoke nazis above the PRIVATE PROPERTY owners rights. Typical of that left coast 'worker's paradise'.

buz, If you don't like smoke, stay away. Pretty simple concept.

"since restaurants and bars banned smoking, business has increased."

Restaurant owners should be the ones who decide how to run the business end, not government.

hugh,
we usually avoid smoking establishments when possible - but you didn't answer my question.

"Restaurant owners should be the ones who decide how to run the business end, not government."..........

i challenge you to reread the lte and tell me where this individual states anything about government control. he simply stated the owner might rearrange the seating to accomodate everyone.

"For years, I've said it seems the logical solution is simply for smokers to get up and go outside to have their cancer stick."

At least until the anti-smoking fanatics decides THAT needs to be banned too.

Don't laugh. Outside smoking is already banned under many circumstances across the country. Next on the agenda is forbidding smoking in the privacy of one's own home. Don't laugh-- an ordinace to that effect was introduced in montgomery County MD a while back. It failed.....for now.

For the record, I am an ex-smoker who sits in non-smoking sections at restaurants these days, so I have no personal axe to grind.

Bubba,

"under certain circumstances" like what? If those circumstances are outside at say a concert where large numbers of people would have to breathe the smoke, then yes, it should be banned. Why is it such a big deal to simply expect smokers to smoke away from people who don't smoke? All they have to do is get up and move away from the crowd! Not only do some people want to avoid breathing the smoke, some don't like the smell, and some are physically affected by second-hand smoke.

As to controlling what smokers do in their own home, I think you know as well as I do that will never happen.

"'under certain circumstances' like what?"

First Horizon Park..... Bank of America stadium in Charlotte, or many other outside stadiums.

How about "no smoking" zones in perimeter areas of many buildings, and on sidewalks in some cities?

Here is more:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06041/653215.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Outdoor_smoking_bans

Key point:

"The advent of outdoor smoking bans has been seen as one of the final frontiers in the anti-smoking movement."

********

"As to controlling what smokers do in their own home, I think you know as well as I do that will never happen."

I know no such thing, and neither do uou.

There are looney toon anti smoking people who would like to do just that. Enforcement by close circuit camera in homes was one proposition that was being bandied about by the nut cases.

Here is the first step toward that end:

http://leaningstraightup.com/2006/03/18/california-smoking-ban-bans-smoking-in-some-private-homes/

Buz, the thread has morphed into gov. regs against smoking, etc.

In Washington State one may not smoke in their own cars, while waiting for the ferry. Some California cities have passed laws stating that one can not smoke in a vehicle carrying children.
Arkansas has a simular law statewide. There have been attempts in 6 states, California of course being the leader, to ban smoking in homes. And you think it is not possible? A Manhattan Apartment complex banned all smoking within the complex even though the apartments are privately owned. And you think it can't happen? Leave it to a handful of anti-everything groups and it will happen. Of course that would lead to prohibition on tobacco products and those who have read history know what that brings about.

No , I do not smoke.I don't believe I have the right to tell you where you can and cannot smoke with the exception of in my own home. Just thought I would throw that in for those who would ask.