linecrosser's Blog

      What ever happen to the signs that read WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE. I remember those signs. And there was always the feeling that they were racial motivated, of course there are laws that prevent that type of selection of customer. Recently a bar in Va. Beach found that out when they were trying to refuse admission based on hair style. The signs were meant to give business owners some power over their establishment maintaining the comfort and safety of their customers and employees. 

      As I've stated in earlier posts, this smoking debate is a complete waste of government time. Several restaurants have already gone smoke free, some are smoke free during certain hours, this is being done for commercial reasons. Customers who don't want to sit in a restaurant when enjoying a meal know that during certain hours they can find a smoke free seat. That same restaurant can cater to the after hours crowd that typical would include smokers.

       Norfolk city council, has changed their position temporarily, for fear of lawsuits. They still feel that the all empowering phase Public Safety gives them the authority and responsibility to step in the doors of all the restaurants within their city limits.  Oh sure we want them there when the safety of the product being severed is concerned, we like the ideal that a restaurant has a standard to meet and that there is somebody watching over the quality of the food being consumed. We like the fact that should a rash off illness happen there is a system in place to find the source and correct it. Rarely there are instances where food borne illness is tracked to one restaurant or chain when even though the operators followed all the procedures and it was beyond the control of the establishment. I'm thinking of the case out west when some nuts went around poisoning the salad bars. They were caught because there is a system in place. 

      I'm not saying that smoking isn't poison, we all know it is. With the exception of tobacco shops that have smoking rooms, the consumption is left up to the consumer. The location of this poison is regulated only because of second hand smoke. People who don't smoke do have the right to object to being exposed. This applies even more in small confined areas or when the non smoker isn't able to exert their right to be in a smoke free atmosphere.As an example, I agree that smoking in a car with children shouldn't be permitted.

      What concerns me is one of the proposal of Norfolk city council is that for the price of a thousand dollars a restaurant can avoid the smoking ban. So much for public safety as being the rational behind the ban. Unless the city was going to put that money in a fund to take care off those who can prove their health problems are directly related to second hand smoke they were exposed to while eating in a restaurant that permitted smoking. This fee is just away of generating money without calling it a tax. Will this be a one time fee or a yearly price to pay for the right to allow those who CHOOSE  to be in your place of business to smoke or be exposed to second hand smoke.  

      This entire issue isn't one to be decided by the government, the business owner and the customers can settle this without the government wasting time and money on it. As a matter of fact they have brought it to just a money issue, we might get sued, we'll charge a thousand dollars.

      One of these days maybe the tobacco farmers will farm something else and the sale of this poison will just be another embarrassing example of how the government is so easily influenced by big business and doesn't have the ability to admit to mistakes. Hemp has proven to work remarkably well as a bio-fuel. But that's not what this post is all about.

      Smoke and mirrors is what this is. Its a emotional issue that doesn't need to be in the governments hands and if it weren't  a news story they wouldn't even be wasting our time.