THERE ARE PLENTY OF SMOKE FREE RESTAURANTS IN cALIFORNIA.

Yes, there are plenty of smoke free restaurants in California. I lived ther for some time and it was really nice to be able to enjoy my meal without being forced to breathe in cancer causing smoke.
I only hope that NC gets in line and abolishes smoking in all public restaurants, including bars.

There are plenty of smoke-free restaurants in NC. Heck, most of them are smoke-free in Greensboro. Because the restaurant owners made that choice to have their private property smoke-free. Not the government.

There's one thing everyone needs to understand. Restaurants are NOT public property. They are private property. The owner of his property may allow his visitors to do whatever they wish.

I, too, would love to see smoke-free restaurants. But I have absolutely no right to use the government to force a restaurant owner to forbid smoking on his private property. If I want a smoke-free environment, it is up to me to boycott restaurants that allow it. If all other nonsmokers would do this, we could really accomplish something. When they start losing business left and right, they will most likely VOLUNTARILY forbid smoking. And then we can all sing "Kumbaya" together.

I agree that restaurants aren't public property, but we can also look at this issue from another angle. The angle of the waitress or bartender that has to endure second hand smoke on a consistent basis. Yea, they could just go find other employment, but that's not always so easy to do.
And while we're at it, why don't we abolish smoking outside gov't buildings. I had to go to court for a traffic ticket the other day and had to run the gauntlet of twenty people smoking at the entrance way and door to the courthouse. Why should I HAVE to breathe in second hand smoke in order to pay a fine?

It's a trade off for living in a society of free people. Some people smell bad, others say nasty things, and still others smoke cigarettes. Yes, you have to endure it in a free society.

Great point Rusty,
but when things others do interfere with my health, I tend to want to change that.

Paul, restaurant owners know when they apply for a permit there are government regulations they are going to have to adhere to. They also know their place of business is going to have to be open to all, non-smokers and smokers alike. The only way to avoid this is to make your business a private club/restaurant. Then, and only then, do they have the right to discriminate aganist non-smokers.

It's fairly clear to me if I, as a restauant owner, want to allow smoking, I should make it private or forget about it!

Our government has a responsibility to protect ALL the citizens of our country, not just smokers. That is what we, non-smokers, are trying to achieve; an enviornment that is healthy for all. If forcing a complacent smoking public into waiting an hour to indulge themselves through government control, so be it. It is for the common good.

Gee while we're at it do gooders, let's prohibit restaurants from serving fatty foods or too much alcohol. Those are bad too.

One may argue the other guys fatty food and booze don't affect you like second hand smoke does. Yes they do, too much fat leads to obesity and health problems, which drives up health insurance premiums and taxes for Medicaid. Too much booze leads to accidents, which again drive up health care costs and auto insurance, not to mention the risk of getting killed by a drunk driver.

By the way, I'm not a smoker, hate the things. But if I don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, I sit in the non-smoking section or go to a non-smoking restaurant. It should be up to the market and the owner to allow or ban smoking, not the nanny state.

Brian is against cigarettes and women, what a man!

Brian,

If you're that concerned about your health I hope you never go outside. There are lots of things that people do that make for less than ideal conditions for your health. Driving cars is one of them. But I wouldnt' advocate outlawing cars because you may walk by one and start coughing.

If there was a CLEAR, discernible case for 2nd hand smoke DIRECTLY causing poor health effects, I'd say the anti-smoking nazis have a case. But I haven't seen it.

I find it interesting that while these smoking bans are fought tooth and nail everywhere they pop up-- in EVERY city, state, and nation where they're being enforced (New York City, California, and the whole of England or Scotland) restaurant, bar, and business owners report that after the ban went into effect their business increased substantialy.

Right, wrong, or indifferent-- with statistics like that you can be sure they're coming. After all, business owners will always vote their pocket books.

Just curious how many of you drive over-polluting SUV's?

My son, a NYC'er, said that after the ban went into effect, he's having much more fun, the bars are crowded and his dry-cleaning bill has reduced substantially. The dire predictions were, well, wrong.

Steve,
I'm not agains all women, just the dumb broads. (98%)

Rusty,
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_2_1x_Studies_Highlight_Dangers_of_Secondhand_Smoke.asp

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3020445

Billy,

With all due respect, that's a load of hogwash. If it were true that non-smoking restaurants made more money, why wouldn't the business owner make their restaurants non-smoking? They don't need the government to enforce a law. They can just do it. There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants, and they weren't created by an act of legislation.

Brian,

Thank you for those links.

Yvonne,

Those governmental regulations that every new restaurant owner knows about when starting his business are violations of rights. You seem to be saying that because those laws exist, they are ok. They're not.

And then you say that if an owner wants to allow smoking, then he needs to make it a private club. It IS private. I know what you mean. You're talking about getting membership cards for the patrons and so forth. But that's completely arbitrary. I don't have to give out membership cards to determine who I allow inside my house. You may try to say that's different, but it's not. I can hold a block party or something with my house as the base and declare it open to the public. In doing so, I in no way lose my right to evict anyone who shows up whom I happen not to like, whether it's because they smoke or because they're complaining about others smoking or because I simply don't like their looks.

LCS, Very few people know first hand, better than I, the harmful effects of alcohol. My own dear father, the one remaining parent, was killed by a drunk driver. My father was 49 and I was 19. My mother died at the age of 33 so my father was all the more precious to me.

I, myself, was hit head on by a drunk driver (7 prior DUI's) in 2001. I continue to suffer the ill effects of the wreck but by the grace of God I am alive. (I refuse to call it an accident. When some inconsiderate slob gets tanked up and gets behind the wheel of a 2000 pound weapon, it is no accident. The scumbag who hit me had hit another woman seven months prior to hitting me.)

As a health care provider, I deal with obesity and the subsequent effects almost on a daily basis. I come home exhausted from pulling, tugging, lifting and repositioning people who are too rotund to do it themselves.

Even with these experiences, I content the harmful effects of second hand smoke are more likely to "do me in" than fatty foods or alcohol. And we spend a great many more tax dollars on the treatment and care of people who smoke and the ones they affect by way of second hand smoke than we do on the obese and alcoholics combined.

Paul, didn't see your post until after I submitted the one above.

I am not saying all laws governing public places are nessarily right. What I am saying is that what I stated is fact. A business owner, whether they are restaurant owners or landlords or realtors or what have you, are bound by certain laws. Like it or not, that is fact!

Why should anyone care if you choose to discriminate in your own home? I certainly don't. But just because you open your home up for the public for a block party, etc, does not automatically make it a public business. My views are in regard to private businesses who open their doors to the general public and accept money from said public. When they do that, they have a responsibility to everyone, not just smokers. Big difference. I'm sorry you chose not to see that.

There would be no need for government intervention if smokers would just show a little respect and delay oral gratification for an hour or so (until they get away from the place of business door or into their own cars or in their own homes). Too bad those considerate smokers are few and far between.

Yvonne,

Ok. Great. You admit that a person may do whatever he wants in his private establishment...unless he sells somebody something. The logical consequence of this is that if you trade with someone on your private property, it's no longer private property. Please explain that one to me.

Perhaps it's this mars/venus thing, Paul, but I never said the government had a right to enter people's private residences (key word, residence). My contention was and is what happens when a person decides to open a public BUSINESS to the public and charge for a service provided. If you can't (or won't) comprehend the difference between a private HOME and a public BUSINESS, there is nothing else for me to say but so long.

Yvonne,

You really need to let go of this hangup in comprehending private property. Because a restaurant owner chooses to let people from the general public in, that DOES NOT mean they have public property. Public property means taxpayers or the community at large owns the property. Restaurants are owned by private individuals.