Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 16 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Smoking ban in smokers' responsiblity
Published Monday, November 17, 2008
When I was a kid on a midwest farm, we used to burn our trash in a barrel down at the far edge of the yard, as far away as possible from the picnic table under the cherry tree where we sometimes ate, when the weather was nice.
Who would want to be smothered in all that smoke while scarfing down mom’s pot roast or “beanie-wienies?”
A cigarette is not a trash barrel, I know. Compared to that from a trash barrel, the amount of smoke emanating from one tiny little cigarette is, well, tiny.
But, a restaurant is not a back yard, either. It is an enclosed space. The “tiny” amount of smoke from one cigarette is thereby magnified.
Who wants to eat a meal in a cloud of smoke?
Certainly nonsmokers do not, and even most smokers would tell you that everyone should wait to light up until everyone has finished eating.
Which brings me to the proposed smoking ban in Natchez public places, particularly restaurants.
A ban on smoking in such places should not be necessary—smokers, like myself, should realize that not everybody wants to try to breathe smoke and enjoy the full flavor of, say, a ribeye steak, or even peas and carrots, at the same time.
We don’t puff smoke between bites, do we? So why should we expect nonsmokers to do it? We should just take our smoke outside, where it is usually more pleasant, anyway.
We should be, in a word, courteous.
We don’t need a public smoking ban. We need a return to common courtesy.
That isn’t going to happen, so I suppose we need laws.
Yes, we smokers should simply take it upon ourselves to “ban” smoking in the presence of nonsmokers. A lot of us already do that.
But common courtesy works both ways.
If smoke from our after-meal cigarette is bothering you, just stand up, walk over to us, and tell us, in polite terms. How hard is that? Spare us the hostility and the name-calling.
We really don’t have to be enemies.
I’ve been reading the comments regarding this issue in the online edition of The Democrat, and it seems like the only argument against a restaurant smoking ban is that it would be throwing another regulation on businesses.
That’s a rather specious argument, at best.
A smoking ban isn’t regulating the restaurant’s behavior, it is regulating human behavior that a majority of Americans, and Natchezians, find noxious, or at least obnoxious.
We don’t allow folks, say, to walk naked into restaurants, or to take their pellet guns into Ryan’s so they can take potshots at the portrait of dear Scarlett O’Hara between trips to the buffet (Ryan’s has been smoke-free for a year, now, by the way).
Finally, yes, smokers have the “right” to smoke. But nonsmokers have the right to enjoy a meal without having smoke dulling their senses of taste and smell, too.
Smokers, we should unite on this issue and simply take our smoke outside when we need it.
I don’t think that’s too monumental a sacrifice for us to make.
Robert Gard is a Natchez resident and a smoker.
Comments
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Robert,
If all the smokers were like you, we would not need a law. BUT, most are not and only want to defend there right to assault my rights.
If everyone would remember the basic "Rules of Rights", most of our laws would not have to be written down. The basic rule states that you have the right to swing your arms UNTIL your arm gets to close to me or my personal space, then you no longer have the right to swing your arms. I have the right to go out in the woods and shoot my gun UNTIL people start to walk through the woods where I am shooting, then I know longer have the right because they have a right to live in peace and not feel threatened by my right........
back to the basics....
Posted by babev1 (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
all of this smoking band scrap is for the birds you can't smoke but you can drink and drive and kill somebody me smoking is not going to cause me to get into my car and drive and kill somebody you should only be able to drink at your house not out in public
Posted by darylwalker (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
-"We don’t allow folks, say, to walk naked into restaurants, or to take their pellet guns into Ryan’s so they can take potshots at the portrait of dear Scarlett O’Hara between trips to the buffet"-
Both are illegal (Indecent exposure and vandalism). Smoking is not.
-"A smoking ban isn’t regulating the restaurant’s behavior, it is regulating human behavior that a majority of Americans, and Natchezians, find noxious, or at least obnoxious."-
I bet most Americans, and Nathezians, would find passing gas to be both of these as well, but we're not discussing a ban on that.
A ban on smoking IS an infringement on a property owner's rights. They should have the right to CHOOSE. A non-smoker has the RIGHT not to enter an establishment they know smoking is allowed in. The only ordinance that should pass is that all such establishments should have to post signs at the entrance stating that they allow smoking inside so a non-smoker can make the decision to enter or not.
I'm sorry if my defending the rights of property owners comes off as just another smoker defending his right to smoke, but that is not the case. I'll say it again; I don't care if every restaurant in natchez goes smoke-free, as long as it is their CHOICE.
Posted by triscuit (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This letter was a well-thought-out contribution to the on-going on-line debate. Redusmfan is right though, if all smokers felt like Mr. Gard nobody would be talking about a ban on smoking. Mr. Gard was more generous than most chip-on-their-shoulder smokers when he acknowledged that even smokers don't like to eat their steak and smell cigarette smoke at the same time.
If restaurant owners won't take it upon themselves to limit the rudeness of the in-your-face variety of smokers, then it is probably time for a ban.
Posted by overthehill60 (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
There are so many more things the world WE should be worrying about, not that all this fuss about smoking. When gasoline prices soared people were frantic, but do you hear complaints about the cost of cigarettes? I actually saw a woman at the grocery store put a case of baby formula for her child back because she went over, but she had a had enough enough to buy a carton of cigarettes!
NOW THAT IS BEING ADDICTED!!!!!
Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by babev1 (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
all of this smoking band scrap is for the birds you can't smoke but you can drink and drive and kill somebody me smoking is not going to cause me to get into my car and drive and kill somebody you should only be able to drink at your house not out in public
Not a very smart comparison - if you want to compare smoking then let's do it - if you drink and drive and kill someone then you go to jail for something like vehicular homicide and spend hopefully lots of time in jail - so since you are comparing the two should we lock someone up for smoking in public places after all second hand smoke does harm others - of course not that is ridiculous just as your comparison of drunk driving to smoking.
Posted by booberry (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I enjoyed reading this thoughtful letter, and Mr. Gard made some very good points.
Yes, if only people would be more courteous, the world would be a better place to live, etc. Unfortunately, in my experience, that is not the case.
Take for example, pet owners. Most owners have their pets on a leash (which they are required by law to do) when they are out walking them.
But there will always be the idiots out there. Some owners do not obide by the law, allowing their mutts to run around freely and sometimes attack (if only playfully) passerbys. Now when I see these uncourteous owners, unconcerned about the effect their behavior has on others, they seem blissfully unaware (hey, since it's my cute dog, why should anyone else mind being pawed or licked by it?) And this is even when there is a law.
So to think that all smokers will be courteous to non-smokers without a law that forces them to--though a noble and optimistic idea--well, I don't think I'll hold my breath for that.
But a very good article.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Smoking bans exist in bars and restaurants coast to coast in this country.
Why does Natchez consistently have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century?
Posted by MSviaTN (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The passed the law not too long ago where I live and my thought was - good you won't have to wait so long to get into a restaurant - NOT!!! If anything you have wait longer!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I personally would like the right to walk naked, smoking a cigarette, with my pellet gun into Ryans and take some pot shots at Scarlett.
Now THAT would be a giant leap forward for the Redneck States of America!!!
Posted by skippydammit (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent commentary Mr. Gard.
If everyone were as courteous as you,
then a LOT of laws would be unnecessary.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em....just
not while I'm eating. Thanks....:)
Posted by babev1 (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MSviaTN you hear more about drunk drivers killing people than anything eles you can't choose not to sit in a non drinking section but you can shoose to set in a non smoking but me smoking and driving I am not going to kill anyone because I am drunk from smoking I GUESS YOU ARE A DRINKER AND DRINK AND DRIVE and not care about the peopke you could kill going down the road so you are more stupit
Posted by rebellady (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well in my opinion a city-wide business ban will hurt business such as bars and resturants. If you don't like to be around smokers when you eat a lot of places have non-smoking and smoking areas. I am a smoker and I will tell I don't go out eat to sit and smoke I eat my food and wait until I leave out the door and back into my car to smoke. I don't have a problem with businesses that don't allow smoking but saying you can't smoke in somewhere outside in the city is crazy, That is taking away our rights as people of the united states of america. You don't need a law to stop smokers from smoking just ask me I would politely put my cigarette out but being told I would go to jail over smoking is crazy.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dragonflyday...I think I agreed with most of what you said, but I couldn't really tell because you were YELLING! TURN THE CAPS LOCK OFF!
This whole smoking ban argument isn't about smoking, it's about the rights of individuals to govern their own business establishments. To take away that right and give it to the City is directly contrary to the Constitution.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The following is an edited repost of an opinion I offered sometime ago, but it is still relevant and some may not have seen it:
A nonsmoking ordinance was passed in Columbus GA while I was there. The restaurant and pub owners protested the ordinance, period, but when it seemed inevitable there was a compromise made. Perhaps the same compromise could occur here, unless, of course, the majority wants to inflict its will on the minority because they can.
The compromise was:
1. A pure restaurant posts signage advising patrons of their stance on smoking. Most chose to become non-smoking.
2. Most combination restaurants/pubs chose to ban smoking until 10:00p.m. so that people could come and eat until the kitchens closed at 9:00p.m plus the extra hour to eat. At that point all bets were off, the big brass bell sounded, and the bartender yelled, "smokem if you gottem". Which was cause for celebration.
3. Pure pubs were, again, with due notice via signage, allowed to determine for themselves who their clientele was and what kind of damage or profit it would mean to them to declare one way or another. Most chose to remain smoking establishments.
That sounds to me like a workable compromise. The problem is that non-smokers, like Mr. Gray, Mr. Pollard and Mr. Cooper, tend to be militant...which will cause problems that don't need to exist. They also tend to be so liberal that they can't help but tell people they, and not we, are smart enough to govern our own lives.
In Mr. Pollard's case it is particularly egregious since he is supposed to be a conservative fighting for less government rather than for more.
I really don't know what the fuss is...we smokers are a dying breed...we'll be gone soon enough...I personally am only hanging around to annoy liberals...LOL.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on November 17, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dragonflyday...On the contrary, of the three options, I thought the second was the most elegant. Since combination restaurant/pubs are probably the most common and affected establishments the compromise gave them the opportunity to function in both modes and cater to their clientele.
The non-smokers and smokers alike knew the rules. The non-smokers and children vacated at 10:00p.m. or if the non-smoking adults chose to remain they knew that smoking was about to commence and took their chances.
The smokers either didn't attend until after smoking was allowed or they refrained or left temporarily in order to avoid breaking the law and/or alienating the non-smokers. It was a great way for people to compromise without government stepping in excessively.
Please refrain from calling anyone's ideas stupid. You may or may not agree with them and you're certainly free to say so, but to simply dismiss them as "stupid" is quite simply...rude. You don't want to get a reputation like that of a certain Yeahduhuh, aka...gnat.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)