No E-Books Allowed in This Establishment

[Penforhire]

Well, a bit OT but I dispute the idea that most restaurants had adequate ventilation for a non-smoker (me) to enjoy a meal with anyone else in the room lighting up. So, not such a dope rule to me.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Well, a bit OT but I dispute the idea that most restaurants had adequate ventilation for a non-smoker (me) to enjoy a meal with anyone else in the room lighting up. So, not such a dope rule to me.

Well, I've spent over 40 years as a nonsmoker dining out, and rarely had a problem.

One of the interesting side effects of smoking restrictions was that they seemed to make everyone who didn't smoke - myself included - more smoke sensitive. Sometimes the very act of reducing the incidence of a problem seems to magnify people's perception that the problem exists.

But it's still a dope rule. It doesn't matter how you feel about the outcome. Dope rules are about the process, and the deliberate elimination of discretion in enforcing the rule.

[brecklundin]

the only support I have for the no smoking rule is NOT for the benefit of customers but the employees, even if 99% of food service workers seem to smoke like chimneys.

However, I have been in cigar bars where their exahust systems are so good you could not tell the person sitting 2ft from you was firing up a big fat stoggie, even the more "earthy" cigars...and in the cigar world "earthy" means "tastes like dirt the tobacco was grown in"...yum...but not for me.

And when eating, even though I don't smoke, I was never bothered...ever...people with hyper-vigalance disorders as well as genuine asthma OTOH derserve the respect to honor any request to discontinue smoking if it's requested as I don't feel it is right to cause such harm to other people. And lemme tell you, when asked to put out a $30 cigar, hell even a cheap $5 cigar, is a hard thing to do because cigars taste like crap on relights and allowed to cool down inbetween sessions...might as well just throw it away because the taste is ruined.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Because they are rules which eliminate the exercise of discretion. A business owner is not allowed to decide that he can make more money by providing smoking and non-smoking areas within his restaurant. He must enforce the ban totally.

There's no reason that both smokers and non-smokers can't be accomodated in most places. We did it for years before the anti-smoking campaign finally succeeded. But of course, there were situations where a non-smoker's table was right next to the smoking area, so someone would have to make a reasoned decision about whether some smoker was violating a non-smoker's air space to the point where he should put out his cigarette.

Much easier to have a dope rule: "no smoking, anywhere."

There are other dope rules imposed by government. Take speeding laws, for instance. Technically, if you go one mile over the limit, you are in violation. The police have the ability to treat such violations strictly. In practice, they enforce them selectively, which is one of the dangers of having dope rules. I was on the highway this weekend, exceeding the limit by about 5 mph. So was a taxicab right in front of me. The cop passed me to pull the cab over. Cops are not dopes, so dope rules don't constrain them.

That may be the way it is in Chicago but in AZ and CA, restaurants have the discretion to have separate smoking areas. Most find it more cost effective to have the smoking area outside instead of having separate rooms with separate air handling systems. Just having a smoking area on one side of a room and and non-smoking on the other side isn't enough to protect non-smokers (especially those with allergies or other respiratory diseases; if you had my allergies, you would be singing a different tune) from smoke, no matter where people may be seated. One of the downsides of living in societies is individual rights end at the point they start to infringe on the rights of others. If people in society don't respect that, then rules (such as laws) have to be made and enforced to ensure those rights. If you don't like it, then become a hermit.

[sabredog]

In Western Australia, smoking is banned in all restaurants and entertainment venues. The only exception being portions of the Casino, due to the high number of international visitors using the facilities.

In regard to allergies. My youngest daughter (16) will have an asthma attack if she breathes smoke passively.

[Kumabjorn]

Leaving smoking aside, I believe the original posting was about reading at your table and that an E-book - being a reading device - was treated as a computer. E-books haven't really dissipated into society to the point that they will be immediately recognized as a reading device. I don't know enough about café establishments in the US, but it is, in my experience, very common in Europe to offer free newspapers for your reading enjoyment while you consume you triple shot low-fat latte with chocolate sprinkles. Some cafés are even decorated as reading rooms in a library with lots of books that you are allowed to read while perusing the establishment. If I was told not to read on my Kindle in an establishment like that, I think the utter confusion would simply amke me leave.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I never used to go into pubs here in Britain because they were full of smoke, and within a minute of going in, my eyes would be watering, and my throat sore. Now they are smoke free they are much more pleasant places.

While they will have gained a few customers due to the ban, it is a fact that pubs lost customers due to the ban and there should have been some flexibility to allow them to provide smoking areas as long as they were isolated from the main areas as it benefits neither smoking nor non-smoking drinkers if their local ends up closing down.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Crowl

While they will have gained a few customers due to the ban, it is a fact that pubs lost customers due to the ban and there should have been some flexibility to allow them to provide smoking areas as long as they were isolated from the main areas as it benefits neither smoking nor non-smoking drinkers if their local ends up closing down.

In AZ, certain cities were the first to enact smoking bans and bars and restaurants did experience a loss of business as smokers moved to other cities. But when the smoking ban went in statewide, the establishments that lost business regained it and, overall, business increased because potential patrons that had previously avoided bars and restaurants because of smoke began to go to them again. The smokers eventually adapted.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Well, a bit OT but I dispute the idea that most restaurants had adequate ventilation for a non-smoker (me) to enjoy a meal with anyone else in the room lighting up. So, not such a dope rule to me.

I agree. I always answered "Smoking or Non-Smoking?" with "As far as I can get from the smoking section please." It's kind of pointless to say non-smoking and then have the waitress seat you right next to the smoking section, as if there were some magical barrier that kept the smoke away.

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Well, a bit OT but I dispute the idea that most restaurants had adequate ventilation for a non-smoker (me) to enjoy a meal with anyone else in the room lighting up. So, not such a dope rule to me.

I want to add that until the smoking ban went into effect my son could not eat in a restaurant without having an asthma attack because of second hand smoke. About the only place I've ever seen that had (barely adequate) facilities for smokers was at the airport where there is/was a completely glass enclosed room for smokers. I have never seen a restaurant with such a room.

I'm an ex-smoker (quit years before I had children) and had a parent die because of smoking and another die because of second hand smoke so I'm pretty militant about smoking in restaurants.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

That may be the way it is in Chicago but in AZ and CA, restaurants have the discretion to have separate smoking areas. Most find it more cost effective to have the smoking area outside instead of having separate rooms with separate air handling systems. Just having a smoking area on one side of a room and and non-smoking on the other side isn't enough to protect non-smokers (especially those with allergies or other respiratory diseases; if you had my allergies, you would be singing a different tune) from smoke, no matter where people may be seated. One of the downsides of living in societies is individual rights end at the point they start to infringe on the rights of others. If people in society don't respect that, then rules (such as laws) have to be made and enforced to ensure those rights. If you don't like it, then become a hermit.

Not the way it is in Chicago. Of course, the "outside" option would be a little dicey in January...

As for your allergies, I'm sorry you have them but I don't think you have or should have a legal "right" to impose your problems on other people. We all have problems. I have a son who cannot eat more than about 10 foods, and it's a physical problem, not a psychological one. His body rejects most foods. There are many places he cannot go out to eat at all because they do not serve what he can eat. We could use a law requiring all restaurants to accommodate his needs, right?

That's not to say that I don't think that you shouldn't be accommodated. I just think that it is in the long run more damaging to achieve that outcome by law than by custom. For big things, we need laws. When we use law to regulate small things, no matter how discomfiting they may be for a few, we are turning over our lives to the government.

I don't think that the law should either ban smoking or require that it be permitted. I think that it is none of the government's business.

[cfrizz]

I'm sorry that your son has such a bad problem. However, your son's problem is just that HIS problem. He cannot pass it on to someone else sitting a few feet away from him.

Second hand smoke does damage not only to smokers lungs, but nonsmokers lungs as well. We all know it. Just like Jeannie, I have bad allergies, and there is nothing more disgusting then having my own nose, clothes, & lungs filled with the contaminants of someone elses cigarette. I don't like having to pop an extra pill, & shower to try to contain the backlash that my body puts forth to rid itself of the effects that cigarettes have on me.

No one is telling you not to smoke, we are simply telling you not to smoke where you can pollute everyone elses lungs as well as your own.

You are perfectly free to kill yourself, it's called suicide. You are NOT allowed to take anyone else with you, that's call murder.

It becomes the goverments (OUR) business since it is OUR money that has to be used for the medical treatments needed for smokers receiving care for lung cancer who are collecting disability/welfare.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Again, one's rights end when at the point they infringe on the rights of others. Until someone lights up, the air (pollen and pollution aside) was clean. No one is trying to take anything from you; they are just keeping you from forcing something on us. It's a price of living in society. If you don't like it, deal with it or leave.

[Kumabjorn]

Why does it have to be omnipotent? I'm a non-smoker with allergies, probably developed because both my parents where chain-smokers. From my POV it is delightful that there is a smoking ban in public establishment. However, smokers are also members of society, they don't do anything illegal, actually they contribute more to society's coffers than non-smokers. So shouldn't it be possible to have some establishments that cater to the needs of the smoking part of the populace? Maybe with strict requirements on ventilation, filtering of the air etc. Also, the need to clearly state that it is a smoking establishment so that non-smokers can decide whether to enter or not.
In my mind smokers has become the minority that it is accepted to discriminate against. And their own docility, kindled (I just had to use that word) by their bad conscience, brought it on.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I'm sorry that your son has such a bad problem. However, your son's problem is just that HIS problem. He cannot pass it on to someone else sitting a few feet away from him.

Second hand smoke does damage not only to smokers lungs, but nonsmokers lungs as well. We all know it. Just like Jeannie, I have bad allergies, and there is nothing more disgusting then having my own nose, clothes, & lungs filled with the contaminants of someone elses cigarette. I don't like having to pop an extra pill, & shower to try to contain the backlash that my body puts forth to rid itself of the effects that cigarettes have on me.

No one is telling you not to smoke, we are simply telling you not to smoke where you can pollute everyone elses lungs as well as your own.

You are perfectly free to kill yourself, it's called suicide. You are NOT allowed to take anyone else with you, that's call murder.

It becomes the goverments (OUR) business since it is OUR money that has to be used for the medical treatments needed for smokers receiving care for lung cancer who are collecting disability/welfare.

I don't need the lecture. Both my parent died of smoking based disease - my mother when I was 11. I don't smoke & I think that people who do are fools.

The "it's our money" argument is baloney. Nothing says that the government has to pay those medical bills. You don't get to volunteer to pay for them then control people's behavior on the basis that you are footing the bill. Although we are headed that way with Obamacare.

I have lived long enough to see that we have been letting the government nibble away at our freedom in this country by using the law to address every social problem that annoys us. You would think we'd learned that lesson from Prohibition.

This thread started off with the stupid cafe employee who couldn't grasp that an EBR is not a computer. So...I like to read on my EBR while I eat & this cafe is stopping me. Obviously we need a law to make them leave me alone, right? Or just maybe I should take my business somewhere else & keep the government out of it.

There are always arguments for giving up our freedom to the government. Until one day we wake up & find the government running most of our life.

And oh, yes, my son's problem is indeed his problem, not yours. And your asthma problem is your problem, not his. Neither of you has the right to use the law to make other people deal with your problems.