Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, the experiment has started. Starting April 1, 2008 - smoking in all restaurants, bars, pubs, etc will be against the law in Norfolk Only. As long as this thread stays open ((and I remember.. gawd that's a long time)) I will keep you guys posted on the affect it has on business in Norfolk and in surrounding Cities.
If it's not still open, lets open another one. I think this is important. I'd really be interested in hearing what effect the ban is having good or bad.
I agree it is reasonable to expect restaurants and any food suppliers to be responsible as well. But ultimately I am responsible for my own safety. As for "others", I'm not sure who you would be referring to, but the only others I would expect to be responsible as well would be for parents to be responsible for their young childrens health.
By others I just meant other businesses, that's all. All in all, we just have a difference in opinion but I can definitely see where you're coming from.
By others I just meant other businesses, that's all. All in all, we just have a difference in opinion but I can definitely see where you're coming from.
Actually I think we are on the same page. I think I (and possibly others) got the wrong idea from some of your earlier posts.
Hooray for the bans. I hate smoking. I hate the fumes. I hate the health hazards etc. . . The more I think about it though the more it worries me. If they ban smoking (which makes 100% complete sense because the second hand smoke is a known proven lethal immediate health hazard) what is next? If it isnt taken as a snow ball effect and you simply look at smoking bans in isolation, then they are awesome. If you look at them in the context of removing freedom - not so good. It is a difficult trade off and easier to make with smoking because the damage is right there as soon as someone lights up.
"smoke is a known proven lethal immediate health hazard"
Where'd you come up with that?
Farts are much worst to breath into your lungs. I think we should ban farting or at least have designated farting areas.
Places that have implemented the smoking ban in food and drink establishments have shown an increase in revenue after the ban took place.
Yes, in previous areas with smoking bans, establishments have shown an increase in revenue. That's because the smokers want to go out and now the non-smokers are checking out the places they never ventured.
However, would non-smoking places still see the same revenue if there were choices that did not involve standing outside to smoke?
I wonder what people would say if Norfolk lost a lot of revenue to Virginia Beach or Chesapeake.....
Quote:
If it's not still open, lets open another one. I think this is important. I'd really be interested in hearing what effect the ban is having good or bad.
I'll make a note to myself on my calendar to check the revenue statistics when the changes are made.
That's how I feel. I just don't understand why it is so hard for some non-smokers to understand. Why some people are so against the bar owners (and in my opinon restaurant owners as well) deciding if they want to be smoking or non-smoking. The non-smokers who are for state wide bans just want to be able to go to any bar or restaurant they feel like going to without restriction. Yet, they wouldn't be restricted from going to a smoking establishment they just wouldn't want to go because of the second hand smoke. So because they don't want to be around smoke, they vote to ban it everywhere. It's just selfish. There is no way around that. Common courtesy would be to agree the smokers should have a place where they feel comfortable as well.
No - that is not the case, but nice try to twist it all around... The basic simple fact is that when someone smokes, their exhaust, the byproduct of their actions, leave their 'area', and are then allowed to be picked up by others, others that may not desire to breathe such fumes/odors. Create 'smokers club' if so desired. But a bar is primarily a facility to drink. A restaurant is primarily a facility to eat. Smoking within such places is secondary, and for only those that have such a habit. Why should those that enjoy such places have to breath this material? So, are you selfish then because you propose that smokers should be able to, that they have some supposed 'right', to put this material into the air for others to breath, no matter the location?
Arizona Annie, I just thought of a funny chain of events.
There's a building that sits in Virginia and North Carolina - in fact, there's even a LINE that separates the states. There's registers on both side - one with North Carolina's taxes, one with Virginia's.
What would happen if one of the states became non-smoking? Would the building have to remain smoke free.. or just one side?
No - that is not the case, but nice try to twist it all around... The basic simple fact is that when someone smokes, their exhaust, the byproduct of their actions, leave their 'area', and are then allowed to be picked up by others, others that may not desire to breathe such fumes/odors. Create 'smokers club' if so desired. But a bar is primarily a facility to drink. A restaurant is primarily a facility to eat. Smoking within such places is secondary, and for only those that have such a habit. Why should those that enjoy such places have to breath this material? So, are you selfish then because you propose that smokers should be able to, that they have some supposed 'right', to put this material into the air for others to breath, no matter the location?
We can't create a smoker's club. That's illegal in places that have smoking bans.
No - that is not the case, but nice try to twist it all around... The basic simple fact is that when someone smokes, their exhaust, the byproduct of their actions, leave their 'area', and are then allowed to be picked up by others, others that may not desire to breathe such fumes/odors. Create 'smokers club' if so desired. But a bar is primarily a facility to drink. A restaurant is primarily a facility to eat. Smoking within such places is secondary, and for only those that have such a habit. Why should those that enjoy such places have to breath this material? So, are you selfish then because you propose that smokers should be able to, that they have some supposed 'right', to put this material into the air for others to breath, no matter the location?
I think you missed her point. It shouldn't be all or nothing. What's wrong with having both smoking and smoke-free bars?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The basic simple fact is that when someone smokes, their exhaust, the byproduct of their actions, leave their 'area', and are then allowed to be picked up by others, others that may not desire to breathe such fumes/odors. Create 'smokers club' if so desired. But a bar is primarily a facility to drink. A restaurant is primarily a facility to eat. Smoking within such places is secondary, and for only those that have such a habit. Why should those that enjoy such places have to breath this material? So, are you selfish then because you propose that smokers should be able to, that they have some supposed 'right', to put this material into the air for others to breath, no matter the location? 
