Wednesday, December 13, 2006

No smoking law - the easy compromise.

Turns out you can pass a no smoking law today in Carbondale. All you need to do is not enforce it on the bars. Yes, I know that then the law wouldn't be perfect. It will fix the problem for 80 or 95% of the people.

After the restaurant thing goes down, you can come back in a year or two and pick up the bars. They wouldn't stand a chance.

Worth thinking about. I sure wouldn't miss the smokers when I'm eating out.

6 comments:

Calion said...

So patronize restaurants that have a no-smoking policy, or which seat smokers far enough away from non-smokers. Let the market do its job. Government force is not the solution here; it never is, except in those areas in which it is absolutely necessary.

PeterG said...

I guess you don't believe in being responsible for your actions? If a restaurant installs a ramp leaving their building and coats it with grease, are they responsible for the people who slip and fall? Why shouldn't a bar be responsible for allowing an environment that causes lung cancer? Either bar and restaurant owners should own the liability for their places of business or no one should liable for anything.

Think about it.

Calion said...

If business owners install a ramp, covered it with grease, then posted a sign saying "Ramp covered with grease," no, I don't think they would be at all responsible for people falling; in fact, kids would probably have a lot of fun sliding down it. No one is forcing you to go to places that allow smoking, no one is tricking you; "smoking section" signs are usually obviously in evidence, and if they're not, if you feel strongly enough about it you can pick up and leave if someone lights up, never to return. The situation you described implies deception, or at least a lack of information, neither of which applies in the smoking example.

Anonymous said...

Having a "smoking" and a "Non smoking" secion implies the smoke stays in the smoking area, which, at least in Carbondale, is not the case. In both Dennys and Pags, smoke can easily drift throughout the restaurant. Such secondhand smoke has been shown harmful to those inhaling it. Shouldn't the restaurant warn me that I'm eating in a harmful environment?

Calion said...

Yes: The sign "Smoking Section" does that nicely. Everyone knows that smoke can drift.

Bob said...

The example cited of a posted sign indicating a "Ramp covered with grease" is the very definition of an "attractive nuisance". BTW, I am no lawyer, but...

There is a well established body of law that says certain dangerous situations inherently attract people to them because, frankly it seems to be some genetic inclination in most of us to be risk takers. An example of an attractive nuisance would be a 100' truss-frame (easily climbable) TV-radio tower. Kids will be attracted to climb it unless you surround the bottom 10 feet with a covering that inhibits the ability to get a grip for climbing. The tower owner is responsible for counteracting the irresponsible climbing behavior of the kids.

Following that line of thinking, yes, in fact, the bar owner is responsibile for preventing any danger imposed by the smoker to the non-smoker in the shared establishment. Just because kids like to slide on a greased ramp, doesn't mean other patrons have no complaint against the bar owner for creating an attractive nuisance - the bar.