Do you have a right to eat at a restaurant?

[AHacker'sHacker]

The reason I ask is Saint Louis County is considering passing a county wide ban on smoking in restaurants and other public places. I think this is just another way of taking away individual rights and my reasoning is below…

To me this is a private property issue and nothing else. I am fine with bans in government buildings but I do not believe you have a “right” to eat at any restaurant you wish. Restaurants are private businesses and should be able to make decisions based on the owners’ desires. This is very similar to the private clubs thread regarding The Masters and women. Many will cringe at this comment but I believe that our personal freedoms such as the ability to own private property and other inalienable rights come directly from God and since they come from God they are ever present and can’t be taken away. When you start to believe your rights come from government you then lend yourself to the situation where certain rights can be taken away. A very scary proposition as far as I am concerned.

The issue of eminent domain and the taking away of one’s private property to give to another individual so that they can “enhance” the property and therefore create more tax revenues is exactly like the smoking issue.

 

[JB]

I believe most states already have that in place. I know they do in FL.

 

[Diane]

CT has a no smoking ban in restaurants and any bars that also serve food. It has had no impact on business.

 

[Diane]

The issue of eminent domain and the taking away of one’s private property to give to another individual so that they can “enhance” the property and therefore create more tax revenues is exactly like the smoking issue.

I have read this 3 times and have no idea how you made that connection. Please help me to understand.

 

[herr_ryan]

To me this is a private property issue and nothing else. I am fine with bans in government buildings but I do not believe you have a “right” to eat at any restaurant you wish.

Sure you do. How about a restaurant that doesn't allow black people? Or Asians? Or women? Would you argue that women don't have the right to eat at any public restaurant they wish?

Or look at it from a different perspective. Say I'm a waitress that doesn't smoke. The danger of secondhand smoke is not unknown at this point in human development. Should I be forced to work in a smokey room? And I know what the response will be: get a job somewhere else. That doesn't fly. People shouldn't have to find another job because their employer insists they work in a dangerous environment.

These are public restaurants. If you have a private club (Augusta, anyone?) you can make whatever rules you wish, but in a public restaurant, the government has the right to enforce a health code, for example.

 

[Craig Mac]

No more "right" threads please.... Where's the ignore thread button.....

 

[AHacker'sHacker]

CT has a no smoking ban in restaurants and any bars that also serve food. It has had no impact on business.

Diane it has nothing to do with the impact to business and everything to do with property rights. Are you ready for the government, be it local, state or federal to tell you you can’t smoke or drink alcohol in your house if you have children because they might be harmed health wise or given the idea that drinking is ok?

 

[herr_ryan]

Diane it has nothing to do with the impact to business and everything to do with property rights. Are you ready for the government, be it local, state or federal to tell you you can’t smoke or drink alcohol in your house if you have children because they might be harmed health wise or given the idea that drinking is ok?

That's your private home, this is a public restaurant you're talking about. Different animal altogether.

(and not for nothing, but a lot of "personal freedoms" conservatives are all about telling people what they can and can't do in their bedroom, for example, and in some cases even legislating what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes)

 

[StLCardsFan]

St. Louis seems to be way behind the current trend. I travel through the midwest quite a bit, and all over Missouri. In most areas, the number of restaurants that don't allow smoking is much greater than the ones that do. I know Springfield, MO implemented the same thing a few years ago. The one catch they have is that if a certain amount of your sales is liquor, then you can have a smoking area. So the local brewpub that does a big bar business can have a smoking area, the IHOPs and Cracker Barrels of the world or independents that don't sell liquor, no smoking is allowed.

Is it a right? Don't know, don't really care. I don't think it should be that big a deal. If someone can't go an hour without, then just get up and go outside. Even when I used to smoke I wouldn't when I was at a restaurant for a meal and would always try and sit in the non-smoking sections. It is actually much nicer now that most places don't even have smoking areas. The air is a little cleaner and you don't have to worry about getting stuck in the wrong spot when it is crowded.

 

[Grogger31]

Diane it has nothing to do with the impact to business and everything to do with property rights. Are you ready for the government, be it local, state or federal to tell you you can’t smoke or drink alcohol in your house if you have children because they might be harmed health wise or given the idea that drinking is ok?

Just curious, do you believe all drugs should be legalized?

 

[AHacker'sHacker]

Sure you do. How about a restaurant that doesn't allow black people? Or Asians? Or women? Would you argue that women don't have the right to eat at any public restaurant they wish?

Or look at it from a different perspective. Say I'm a waitress that doesn't smoke. The danger of secondhand smoke is not unknown at this point in human development. Should I be forced to work in a smokey room? And I know what the response will be: get a job somewhere else. That doesn't fly. People shouldn't have to find another job because their employer insists they work in a dangerous environment.

These are public restaurants. If you have a private club (Augusta, anyone?) you can make whatever rules you wish, but in a public restaurant, the government has the right to enforce a health code, for example.

Those aren’t valid arguments. You can’t discriminate based on race, color, creed, gender or nationality. That is not even remotely the same thing as saying we allow smoking here because it is a private business if you don’t like it go somewhere else.

The waitress isn’t being forced to work there is he/she?

 

[AHacker'sHacker]

Is it a right? Don't know, don't really care. I don't think it should be that big a deal. If someone can't go an hour without, then just get up and go outside.

STLfan my point is it has nothing to do with the patron and his or her ability to wait an hour for a smoke and everything to do with the person who owns the establishment and their personal property rights.

 

[herr_ryan]

Those aren’t valid arguments. You can’t discriminate based on race, color, creed, gender or nationality. That is not even remotely the same thing as saying we allow smoking here because it is a private business if you don’t like it go somewhere else.

But it isn't "private" at all, it's open to the public, and therefore government has the right to enforce health regulations.

The waitress isn’t being forced to work there is he/she?

I already addressed that:

People shouldn't have to find another job because their employer insists they work in a dangerous environment.

 

[herr_ryan]

STLfan my point is it has nothing to do with the patron and his or her ability to wait an hour for a smoke and everything to do with the person who owns the establishment and their personal property rights.

If they close it to the public they have all the rights they could possibly want.

 

[AHacker'sHacker]

Just curious, do you believe all drugs should be legalized?

Grogger, I knew this point would come up and my opinion on that issue isn’t relevant to this argument. Cigarettes are legal to purchase and smoke in the United States. Therefore a business owner should be able to decide if they will allow them in their establishment or not. That being said I lean on the libertarian side of things if that answers your question.

 

[herr_ryan]

Grogger, I knew this point would come up and my opinion on that issue isn’t relevant to this argument.

Sure it is, no matter how much you wish it weren't

Cigarettes are legal to purchase and smoke in the United States. Therefore a business owner should be able to decide if they will allow them in their establishment or not. That being said I lean on the libertarian side of things if that answers your question.

That's kind of circular logic, don't you think? Let's say murder were legal in this country. Because it's legal, should a business owner get to decide whether people are allowed to murder other patrons in their restaurant?

Just a little devil's advocate here...

 

[Craig Mac]

I just want to know why I can smoke my cigarettes in some places but not my cigars:confused2:

 

[bonknhead]

Or look at it from a different perspective. Say I'm a waitress that doesn't smoke. The danger of secondhand smoke is not unknown at this point in human development. Should I be forced to work in a smokey room? And I know what the response will be: get a job somewhere else. That doesn't fly. People shouldn't have to find another job because their employer insists they work in a dangerous environment.

No one forced the waitress to apply to work to a restaurant that already allowed smoking. I can see your point if the restaurant suddenly allowed smoking.

 

[AHacker'sHacker]

But it isn't "private" at all, it's open to the public, and therefore government has the right to enforce health regulations.:

Last time I checked businesses were considered “private” and public entities were government entities. You can say a place is open to the public but it is still a private business.

 

[herr_ryan]

Last time I checked businesses were considered “private” and public entities were government entities. You can say a place is open to the public but it is still a private business.

Yes, it's a private business, but because it is open to the public the government can regulate it. You won't beat me in a semantics argument, trust me. :wink:

 

[herr_ryan]

No one forced the waitress to apply to work to a restaurant that already allowed smoking. I can see your point if the restaurant suddenly allowed smoking.

Someone shouldn't be precluded from applying for employment somewhere because the employer insists they work in an environment which is hazardous to their health.

 

[Grogger31]

Cigarettes are legal to purchase and smoke in the United States.

Who made them legal?

(Choosing to skirt legitimate questions only detracts from your argument(s))

 

[Craig Mac]

Once I get a few cocktails in me I feel I have the right to do anything, let 'em try and stop me....

Anyone want to go streaking through the Quad???

 

[AHacker'sHacker]

Sure it is, no matter how much you wish it weren't



That's kind of circular logic, don't you think? Let's say murder were legal in this country. Because it's legal, should a business owner get to decide whether people are allowed to murder other patrons in their restaurant?

Just a little devil's advocate here...

If murder were legal that would be fine. The person would know that was the case and could choose to frequent that establishment or not. The inverse of your argument would be an owner could say, even though murder is legal it is not allowed here. That would be his right as the property owner. Just like he can say today, no shoes, no shirt, no service or no gang colors etc.

 

[herr_ryan]

I just want to know why I can smoke my cigarettes in some places but not my cigars:confused2:

They stink? :wink:

One cigar smells more than about 1,000 cigarettes.