Ravenwood - 10/29/03 06:00 AM
England is following the socialists in New York and California, and considering a smoke ban in restaurants and bars. Just like in the U.S., anti-smokers and their willing accomplices are not even considering private property rights.
The London Health Commission is running the Big Smoke Debate and will report back to mayor Ken Livingston early next year.Those "public places" they speak of are actually private businesses, and it's quite interesting that the government doesn't think twice about telling people where smoking should be allowed, even if it treads on the rights of others. In their mind, it is perfectly legitimate to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property, especially if it is for the children.The initiative follows a recent Mori poll which showed 71% of Londoners were bothered by smoke in enclosed public places.
Another 35% said they had left or avoided eating somewhere because of tobacco smoke.
Organisers say the survey is not about whether people should smoke, but where smoking should be allowed.
I've been sitting in a non-smoking bar in CA both weeknights this week, several hours on end. Losing track of the time because I can breathe.
And then I figured it out - the new rash of complaints set to come forth.
Women won't know their husbands have been out - smell the same as a night at the office. Men won't know their wives didn't go to a Partylite gathering as they said they would.
People like me will drink more than they should.
Just guessing here, but it made me laugh.
hln
Posted by: hln at October 29, 2003 9:38 AMhln
How did you get to the bar? If you didn't rollerskate or ride a bicycle then you added more pollution to the environment than that bar would have with wall to wall smokers.
In Heather's defense, I think her point was that she felt more comfortable because there was no smoking. It's not really a question of pollution.
That said, I disagree with the assertion that a patron's comfort should be paramount. While every business owner tries to appeal to the majority of customers, and while prohibiting smoking might please more than 50% of patrons, that doesn't necessarily translate into increased profits, for reasons that I'll explain.
When it comes to smoking, it is true that non-smokers may be more comfortable in a non-smoking environment. However, smokers seem to be more uncomfortable in a non-smoking environment than non-smokers are in a non-smoking environment. That means that financially, you may be worse off appealing to a majority of customers (non smokers) and losing the minority (smokers). That's because although non-smokers prefer a non-smoking environment they aren't as likely to get up and leave.
That said, regardless of how the numbers work out, it should always be up to the business owner to decide which way he wants to cater his business. Having the government decide (or the majority) is tyranny.
Posted by: Ravenwood at October 29, 2003 8:29 PMTo quote (or at least paraphrase) Eddie Izzard:
"Yeah, no smoking in bars in California now. And soon, no drinking and no talking."
Posted by: Steve Gigl at October 30, 2003 9:09 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
