A Knight in Dragonland

20 responses so far ↓

• 1    C. J. Summers // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:03 am

  “The owners of restaurants and bars would be wise to recognize this trend and embrace the future instead of clinging to the toxic past.”

  I agree with that, as long as it’s the restaurants’ and bars’ decision and not the government’s.

  You’re not making a fair comparison when you say, “A restaurant would be shut down if they let some customers poison the food of the other customers.” Smoking in a restaurant, you would have to agree, is not a secret behavior. My guess is that you can tell if a restaurant allows smoking or not immediately upon entering — often before. Poisoning other customers’ food would, in contrast, be a secret activity, which is why it needs to be outlawed; if it were not a secret, I would assume any relatively bright customer would decide not to eat at that restaurant. What the customer would not do is continue to knowingly eat poisoned food and then blame the restaurant/government for not protecting him or her. (Well, in today’s litigious society they might, but let’s leave that out of it for now.)

  Let me take a different tack here. In some ways, restaurants are indeed poisoning their customers, at least by some people’s standards. They serve caffeine, sugar, transfats, and other things scientifically proven to be unhealthy. So, where do we draw the line? How healthy should we legislate people to be? How responsible are we going to hold restaurateurs for the health decisions of their patrons?

  And make no mistake, that’s what this is — a decision — a choice. It’s a choice for the smoker to light up, and it’s a choice for the non-smoker to eat in a restaurant that allows that smoker to light up. No one is forcing people to go to restaurants and bars and sit in a cloud of second-hand smoke. There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants/bars, and more are being added all the time.

  I think you have to accept at some point that people are going to make unhealthy choices, and you’re not going to be able (or, let’s put it this way, you don’t want the government to be powerful enough) to keep people from making those unhealthy choices.

• 2    knightindragonland // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:30 am

  It’s your own choice whether to consume caffeine, sugar, alcohol, trans fats, etc. Smokers take away the choice of others around them. THAT is the difference, and it provides a very clear line of separation between smoking and the consumption of all the other substances you mentioned.

  As for there being “plenty” of smoke-free bars & restaurants … you obviously haven’t spent much time in Pekin.  Our restaurant selection on this side of the river is pretty limited to begin with, and there are very few smoke-free options.  I shouldn’t have to drive to Peoria to eat out.  No non-smoker should have to curtail their choices because of a toxin-spewing minority.

• 3    C. J. Summers // Mar 30, 2007 at 1:26 am

  First, it’s also your own choice to go to a restaurant that allows smoking. Smokers don’t take away that choice. If there are smokers who are dragging you into restaurants and forcing you to eat there, you need to call the police.

  Secondly, restaurants putting overdoses of sugar, salt, transfats, etc., into your food takes away your choice, doesn’t it? I mean, you can’t have them take it out, can you? If you’re going to eat there, you’re going to have to eat the transfats and other substances that are poisoning you. You were the one who made the analogy of smoking to poisoning food, weren’t you? Are you withdrawing your metaphor?

  “No non-smoker should have to curtail their choices because of a toxin-spewing minority.”

  So, you have a fundamental right to dictate the environment of any private property that serves the public? Well, I think I should be able to go to Big Al’s and not be subjected to nude dancing because I find it morally objectionable. Because they have nude dancing, they’re curtailing my choice. Thus, nude dancing should be outlawed. Right?

• 4    knightindragonland // Mar 30, 2007 at 6:46 am

  The express purpose of a restaurant is to provide food, and the express purpose of Big Al’s is to provide “exotic entertainment.” I wouldn’t go to a place called “Charlie’s Smoking Den.”

  Regarding the overdoses of sugar, salt, etc … most restaurants have this lovely thing called a menu. Usually there’s more than one thing on it. If you look hard enough, you can usually find something reasonably healthy. Again, the diner is given a choice, and they know that they will have a choice when they walk into the restaurant. Their choice to be exposed to smoke is just presumed, and that presumption needs to end.

  People don’t go to restaurants because they want to inhale secondhand smoke.  MOST people who go to restaurants don’t want to be exposed to smoke AT ALL. Most tolerate it because they’re used to tolerating it … because they’ve been forced to tolerate it for so long. We should no longer have to tolerate chemical assault, no matter where we decide to go.

  Yes … as a society, we have a fundamental right to dictate that we want a clean environment. We have the right to dictate that we don’t want poison in the air that we breath. Nonsmokers are the majority, and the majority rules. Minority’s have rights, but smoking is not a right.  It’s a luxury that can be withheld for the time that it takes to eat a meal.

  As I’ve said before … this is a public health issue, not a property rights issue. Death trumps profit, and there’s very little evidence that smoking bans harm the restaurant industry at any rate. Usually it’s tobacco industry proxies stirring up paranoia among bar and restaurant owners.  Remember this little gem?  That’s pretty typical of the “evidence” provided to oppose smoking bans.

• 5    C. J. Summers // Mar 30, 2007 at 8:54 am

  But Knight, you don’t want there to be a “Charlie’s Smoking Den”! You want that to be illegal, remember? Are you saying that if a business’s express purpose is for smoking, but they also serve food just like a restaurant and drinks just like a bar, you would be in favor of allowing that?

  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you want to outlaw smoking, outlaw smoking. But don’t trample private property rights in an ends-justify-the-means, back-door way of trying to prohibit it. You will someday regret the Pandora’s Box that opens.

• 6    chef Kevin // Mar 30, 2007 at 10:24 am

  I’m sure you were waiting for me to show up

  I’m not getting into the smoking debate for the xx time; I’ve said my piece. I am not saying this to be mean or insulting. For your sake, I hope Pekin doesn’t pass a law, etc. that seriously limits, changes or bans what you do as a peds doctor, while other cities do not and your client base disappears because of it. You have built a clientle and if the Pekin govt. says you can no longer accept patients or continue practicing on patients younger than 6 (as an example) for reason X, what would you say? I’m sure you’d resent the government sticking their nose into the business you have worked so hard to develop. However, if it was a state wide law, you could live with it (but still not happy).

  “Even the pubs of Ireland are now smoke-free!” While that is correct, they ALL are. Not just some. Not on one side of the street, river, city line and not the other. There is no 2 mile drive and you can smoke your head off while downing pints.

  A simple smoking ban on new establishments would be sufficient. The smoky restaurants will go away on their own accord by a change in philosophy or by closure as there simply will be more choices for smoke free dining (well, eating) establishmnets.

• 7    Mister Ed // Mar 30, 2007 at 9:54 pm

  Personally, I do not smoke cigs – just the occasional cigar away from others. I don’t like smoke with my meal. Most resturants, cafe’s, etc. that allow smoking do not handle it well. You always end up smelling the smoke. I am always annoyed to be asked “smoking or non-smoking” There is other smoke that I am more concerned about for our health and that is power plant smoke that you hardly notice but is full of mercury. One of the worse is just south of Pekin. When will this issue be effectively addressed?

• 8    knightindragonland // Mar 31, 2007 at 9:04 am

  Mister Ed – Most restaurants don’t handle “Smoking” vs. “Non-Smoking” sections well because you’d have to put an air-tight sealed wall with an airlock between them for it to actually work. Would some of you rather we require THAT instead of simply banning smoking in restaurants? I’ve said it before … hanging up a “No Smoking” sign is a heck of a lot cheaper than putting in an expensive special ventilation system.

  I just don’t buy the “slippery slope” theories. Smoking doesn’t just affect the smoker. Everyone around them gets exposed to it, too. That is clearly different from banning trans fat or anything else that the individual has to consume themselves.

  Chef Kevin – If pediatricians were killing over 30,000 people every year (the LOW estimate of the number of people killed by second hand smoke exposure every year), I sure hope the government would step in and do something about it.

  Anyway, we’re halfway there. The Illinois Senate approved a state-wide public smoking ban this week.

• 9    Tony // Mar 31, 2007 at 12:34 pm

  Knight, as long as the purchase and use of tobacco cigarettes is legal in the State of Illinois, you DO have a right to smoke. What you DON’T have is a right to go to any restaurant. Owners are free to serve whom they please.

  As one who believes smoking is the most filthy stinking dirty rotten habit in the world, I prefer to go to smoke-free places.

  I do, however, support the rights of business owners to allow whatever activities they want in their business providing they are legal.

  Smoking is legal.

  Let the free market decide. The government has no business regulating the personal decisions of the citizens. If you don’t like the conditions, don’t go.

  Besides, once you look at the list of places that are already smoke free (by their choice) you realize that this should be a non-issue. There are PLENTY of places to take your family and not be bombarded by smoke.

• 10    knightindragonland // Mar 31, 2007 at 12:49 pm

  Sorry Tony … businesses don’t have the right to allow some customers to poison the air for everyone else, and the law is rightly changing to reflect that common sense conclusion. Smoking may be legal for the individual smoker, but others around them shouldn’t be forced to unwillingly partake in their habit.

  And I repeat … there are very few non-smoking options available on this side of the river, and most of those are fast food.

• 11    C. J. Summers // Mar 31, 2007 at 2:50 pm

  “…others around them shouldn’t be forced to unwillingly partake in their habit.”

  No one is being forced to unwillingly breathe second-hand smoke in restaurants. If you don’t go to the restaurant — which is a free choice — you won’t be breathing in second-hand smoke. The only reason you would be breathing second-hand smoke is if you chose to go to a restaurant that allowed it and you chose to stay and eat your meal there anyway. No one is forcing you to go to the restaurant.

  Second-hand smoke is quite possibly the easiest “poison” in the air to avoid. Much easier than, say, the fumes from the power plants and other industrial polluters to which “Mister Ed” referred.

• 12    knightindragonland // Mar 31, 2007 at 4:25 pm

  No one is forced to unwillingly breathe second-hand smoke in restaurants? What about the employees of those restaurants? I guess they should just find another job.

  And again … why should my choices and the choices of other non-smokers be curtailed by a minority?

• 13    Brian A. Graham // Mar 31, 2007 at 9:30 pm

  Isn’t it ironic that this post gets more comments than say a post on educational funding, the city’s overall prosperity, or how the city is going to pay ofr all of it’s unfunded mandates?

• 14    knightindragonland // Mar 31, 2007 at 10:36 pm

  This post does draw on issues that have broader interest than my posts that are more particular to our community, Brian. C.J., Tony and Chef Kevin don’t live in Pekin. However, I share your concern that too few show real interest in the matters you mentioned.

• 15    C. J. Summers // Apr 2, 2007 at 10:05 am

  Knight says, “why should my choices and the choices of other non-smokers be curtailed by a minority?”

  Because we live in a free country. Do you really think a majority vote should allow private property rights to be taken away? As I’ve said before, be careful what you wish for.

• 16    Michelle // Apr 2, 2007 at 4:33 pm

  I really think the property rights argument is a red herring. We already regulate whether or not you can sell alcohol at your business, for example. Owning a piece of property certainly does not mean you can do anything at all you want with that property. For example, I cannot keep a flock of chickens in my back yard, even though I think my back yard is big enough to do so, because my neighbors might not like the smell and noise. If I go to the city and demand that I ought to have the right to keep farm animals within the city limits because “I’ve got property rights, dang it!” just how far do you think I would get?

• 17    C. J. Summers // Apr 2, 2007 at 4:58 pm

  We regulate the selling of alcohol. These places aren’t selling cigarettes, but allowing patrons to smoke them.

  You can have chickens, pigs, horses, and other farm animals in parts of the city zoned A1, even though the smells said animals produce may waft into nearby subdivisions zoned residential. I suppose I could choose not to live next to land zoned A1, but then, by Knight’s logic, that would be tantamount to my choice being curtailed by a minority (farmers, in this case, rather than smokers). Perhaps, for consistency’s sake, the state should also outlaw all farm animals.

• 18    knightindragonland // Apr 2, 2007 at 9:13 pm

  So far I haven’t seen any evidence that pig farts kill people. I’ll keep a lookout.

• 19    C. J. Summers // Apr 2, 2007 at 11:52 pm

  Now there’s a quote for the Tribune! LOL! Keep a lookout for those pig farts, Knight. And while you’re at it, keep a lookout for those guys who keep kidnapping you and forcing you to go to restaurants that allow smoking.

  

• 20    BKLK // Apr 24, 2007 at 4:49 pm

  As someone who has worked in the resturant business on and off my whole working life, it can be unpleasant to inhale second hand smoke but I could also find a new line of work. I am well aware of my choice in jobs. So Knight thank you for campaigning for the working man/woman but really there is nothing we can complain about, we all knew what the job enatailed. I know being in the health profession you are concerned with everyones well being but I do have one last thing to say and that it is a free country and you can smoke or not smoke, you can work in a resturant where there is smoking or not. YOU have to make the choices that suit your lifestyle.

Leave a Comment