News-Record.com

Although I agree that most smoker's don't mind occasionally dining in a smoke free restaurant I can't think of a single one among my aquaintances that woulld actually "prefer" it.

Sieg heil.

"does not mean the organization wants to make its relationship with smokers adversarial."

You can keep living in lala land if you want, Julie, but when you start taking away people's freedom then the relationship becomes adversarial. You wanna dine in a smoke-free restaurant? Go right ahead.

The problem comes in when you try to push your will on others, especially private property owners.

Here's my advice to smokers:

Raise hell! These anti-smoking nazi's are setting up for a major battle. You better scream like the dickens if you want to be heard. Otherwise, restaurant owners and others will think you are okay with them taking away your right to smoke outside your home.

I don't smoke (used to) but I'll raise hell for you cause I think it is the right thing to do.

Jan,
How many restaurant patrons do you think would "prefer" to be forced to breathe someone elses filth while they dine? Do the friends you speak of "prefer" to be injected with 43 toxic chemicals due to someone not being able to go one hour without lighting a cancer stick? Would they mind if I stood on the table and urinated on their head while they tried to eat because I had to drink a beer for lunch?
Congratulations on your new project Julie.
Where do we sign up to join?

My Dear Misguided Mr. Wilkins,

Can't you see that the combative and condescending attitude so obviously portrayed in your post is EXACTLY why people such as Nitpicker are often quite justified in portraying those like yourself as anti-smoking nazis?

Additionally, and to demonstrate that it takes no talent to rudely sink to your level of discourse, if you would take the time to learn how to read - believe it or not there are courses available - you'd understand that my post was referring to the "smokers" among my aquaintances.

In contrast to the lte writer's statement, I will say once again that I know of no smokers who would "prefer" smoke free dining.

Feel free to stand on my table and urinate as I dine, I applaud you for your willingness to become an organ donor.

I said it jokingly earlier this morning, but this time it's dedicated especially to you:

Sieg heil.

The real thing I have an issue with is the term Public Place. I was right there with the LTTE until this term was used and then they clarified it by referring to dining. IMO, unless someone is "dining" in a court house or another such taxpayer owned place I think it poor logic to think of it as a public place. After all, the owner of these "privatly owned businesses" should be the ones who have the final decision.

I will not get on board with the smoking ban in privatly owned businesses, especially if they are establishments where one chooses to go. Hospitals and the like may still be privatly owned, but in most cases one can not choose to go there, they have to.

Also, I love when people start talking about people "being forced to enhale someone elses smoke". In my mind all I can think about is people being led in to restaurants in hand cuffs and being forced to eat while restrained to the chair next to someone with a stogie!

tonywilkins,

You can urinate all you want over there in the non-smoking section. I doubt you'll hit me and I doubt any smoke will reach you at most decent restaurants.

I choose to sit in non-smoking when I have my children with me. When I don't, I sit in the smoking section. For one thing, it seems to be easier to get a seat over there. For another, the people are almost always friendlier. (With the exception of those two rude smoking biddies at Arby's) What's the worst is seeing folks like my parents who have the same views as you say 'first available' just cause they don't want to wait in line.

Actually, I'm a smoker who prefers smoke-free dining, unless it's a bar. Beer without a cigarette seems pointless.

The annonying thing about this letter to me is that it replicates the fundamentalist "hate the sin, love the sinner" logic from the perspective of the nanny-state left, which, like the church lady, always knows what best for you and isn't shy about sharing it. Let the market decide.

Brian, you are not a sinner, rather a powerless victim of the eeeeevvviiilll tobacco companies and their govt. lobbyists and cronies. They have control over your life. The nanny state left is there to save you from yourself (because you are too stupid to take care of yourself) and those evil entities who have victimized you.

As a former smoker (not touched one for over six years now), I didn't like to be around smoke while dining. I sat in the non-smoking section and would wait till dinner was done and then go outside.

Nit, I rarely am bothered by smoke in restaurants that have both sections, they are ususally far enough apart or separated by a wall.

I'm with Budda, privately owned businesses should be the ones who decide to decide smoking policies not the nanny state.

What i think will most likely happen is that tony wilkins will join Julie and then run her out of her position. Under Tony's leadership, a militant wing of smoke-free guilford will go out and attack smokers by either heckling or public humiliation. Then one day, one smoker will have had enough and punch tony or one of his "True Believers" in the nose. All hell should break loose after that.