Dallas Smoking Ban

[GarrettCarey]

I know everyone has heard that the city council will be voting soon about whether or not to ban smoking in Dallas restaurants. I was wondering what everyone's thgouts were. I am a non-smoker, but am not sure I care either way at this point in my life. However, I think I read that smoking in restaurants in Manhatten would be banned soon, perhaos other places. Here is a headline from the 12/14/2002 New York Times
"Campuses Moving to Restrict Smoking - A study by Harvard last year found that 25 percent of American colleges banned smoking in dormitories and that the number was growing. "

Regardless of the sentiments, it seems that the smoking ban is trend that is gaining popularity.

Anyhoo, any thoughts about this?

[bloodandpopcorn]

Just goes to show the government messing around in our lives too much. I only smoke on occasions, but I have alot of friends who choose to smoke alot. And if a restaurant wishes to allow people to smoke, they should be able to. If someone doesn't want to encounter smoking in a restaurant, they liekly have plenty of options for completely smoke-free restaurants to go to instead. Why it should be banned from all restaurants is beyond me.

[UrbanLandscape]

Well, both my grandfathers died of it, and I hate it, but even in bars, as I've heard? No way! You just don't do that!

Wait, I forgot, we're dealing with that psycho soccer mom type, Miller. Dear me, I hate her.

[TamTagon]

I am in favor of banning smoking in all enclosed public places. I almost always choose to smoke when I choose to drink and have come to expect bars to be smokey. I have never enjoyed the smell and mess but I put up with it. I lived in California when that state banned smoking in all public building. I agreed with the argument that the government was going to far. At first, those in favor of the ban cited the millions of tax dollars spent on treating smoking related illnesses. Legal counterpoints demonstrated that smokers were unfairly supporting general budget expenditures and that all income from cigarette tax should support California's state medicare system. Every point in favor of the ban was met with a valid counter point usually centered on the individual's right of choice.

Whew, this could have gone on forever. Then non-smokers said they should not be exposed to the health hazard at work and should not be forced to find a non-smoking work place. I agree with the working non-smoker. The government is not going too far, it is only protecting the rights of non-smokers. As awkward as it was, I was able enjoy a beer with out the cigarette, and actually enjoyed the trip to the patio or sidewalk for a cigarette. I was pleased that I smoked less, too. After all, smoking is a habit that when overdone can be very bad for your health, right?

[bloodandpopcorn]

saying that non-smokers have a 'right' to a non-smoking area is very valid, and true. Most of the time, I would choose a non-smoking restuarant over one that allows smoking, but that doens't mean smoking should be banned. Protecting the rights of the non-smoker, but so is protecting the rights of the smoker. If it comes to the point of non-smokers being too lazy (and it is, in my opinion, laziness. if they care as much as they seem to imply, then they would gladly go to some other, non-smoking eatery, of which there are many) to find a place that suits their personal choices regarding their health and life, I see much less harm in allowing some people to smoke in the few restaurants that will continue to allow it than in making "clean Joe/Jane Smith" choose another of the essentially unlimited number of restuarants around them. It is their right to not have to deal with smoking, but with rights come responsibilities, and in this case I see that responsibility as putting forth some little effort to go somewhere suited to their personal habits and health concerns. Making a law banning smoking in all resturants, however, is not acceptable in my opinion.

As for businesses, if the person is free to choose another job, then I don't see any reason why their 'convenience' should inconvenience others. I think it would be much easier to find a smoke-free environment than an environment filled completely with smokers or those sympathetic to the smoker.

[TamTagon]

I think the CA law is too inclusive, and I wish I had paid closer attention during the last weeks of the smoking ban debate in CA, but after a while I couldn't stomach the rhetoric. It turned into the chance to gain political points as, hum what do you know, election time was approaching. Among all states, CA had the highest percentage of non-smoking voters, and they were mobilized. Politicians needing a boost got really vocal in their altruistic concern for health of the non-smokers. My political hang-over was worse than a 2 pack cigarette hang over?!?! What was initially a statewide financial security issue quickly became a political rally cry.

Anyway, I can remember one group working for exemption in bars and something about agreement among all employees to permit smoking, but non of it made it through. Most of my favorite non-smoking bartenders and waiters agreed bars should be allowed to make their own choice. In the end, only in private clubs was smoking allowed in an enclosed building.

Whether smokers are too lazy to smoke outside or non-smokers are too lazy to find non-smoking establishments, I hope Texas gives more leeway to the business owners and allows consumers to determine how far the non-smoking realm should extend. I'm glad this thing has spell check so I appear more intelligent.

[bloodandpopcorn]

I guess I missed your point. I defintly agree with you that the decision should be made between the business owner and the consumor. Apologies for dragging out my "argument" when it was unnecessary to do so.

BTW - this is somewhat off topic, but they did 'smoke' alot (though not cigarettes), but im HYPED about hte Pink Floyd light show coming to the Magestic! Anyone else excited and planning on going? I saw it on ticketmaster.com and almost jumped throug the ceiling in excitement.

[paulsukhudallasmetropolis]

The argument in NYC against smoking in bars and restaurants is that the workers should not have to be in a smoking environment eight hours a day. Their point has to do more with workplace health risks, rather than the patron’s health risks.

[UrbanLandscape]

What, I don't even go in bars...legally, I can't! Anyway, you're right. Smoking did kill both of my grandfathers, and it makes me sick!<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smokin.gif ALT=":smokin"> Die die die!

Yeah, anyway...

[MustangMonkey]

Personally I think that smoking in restaurants puts the workers health at risk.
Since this is a health issue it should be outlawed by the Texas Department of Health or the Texas legislature (of course we all know these people have no backbone and would never stand against their lobbyist)

So unfortunately the burden is placed on individual city councils which must weigh health against loss of tax dollars to surrounding communities which don't consider health to be that important.

[aceplace]

There would be no reason to ban smoking in just one municipality.

By that, I mean that the smokers would just do it in some other town. The number of bar and restaurant workers and customers who were poisoned would remain the same, just transported from one place to another.

So the humanitarian rationale to ban smoking cannot justify a municipal ban. Possibly a statewide ban, or a national ban...

[bloodandpopcorn]

I still don't see why it can't be left up to restaurant owners as to whether people can smoke or not. Outlawing it just seems radical and far over the line to me. If you don't wnat to eat whre there are people smoking, choose a different restaurant! It's really not that dificult.

As for the workers, they know full well when they begin working there that it is a restaurant allowing smoking. If they really wished not to have to put up with smoke, they can find a job elsewhere. Unless your looking in the technology or other high-end sectors, there are still plenty of (lower-paying, but equivillent to restaurant) jobs to go around. And in the case of restaurants, many of the non-smoking ones pay and tip better because they are "higher class".

[UrbanLandscape]

I don't know...now you're on the other way...

[hamiltonpl]

<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smokin.gif ALT=":smokin">

On a recent visit to Las Vegas a man was smoking beside me in a restaurant. However, my nose could not smell a thing.

The ventilation ducts and special air conditioning systems really work well up there. The city saw no need to mess in private business perogative when such technology is available.

I think the city should give restaurants the option to buy this equipment instead of banning all smoking.

Most of all, government should have as little to do with business as possible!

[TamTagon]

Here in the Atlanta area where county government is more active and powerful that city, DeKalb county is proposing a smoking ban in public places. Bars are one exception I'm aware - there may be more. About 20% of the Atlanta metropolitan population resides in this most progressive county. If the ban passes, most other metro counties are expected to follow.

[gc]

This issue has been rather quiet lately. Has there been any news that I mave missed? When is the city council planning on making a decsion here?

[downtownbum]

the part of town that has the most to lose if the city council outlaws smoking is far north dallas. if you can't smoke in a bar in FND, you can drive a half mile across the tollway and smoke all you want in addison.
the city council should figure out how to get rid of the drug dealers in oak cliff and harry hines and let the law abiding citizens of this fair city do what they want to...

[downtownbum]

also they voted before xmas to postpone voting on the issue until the new year, it will make its way back into the news before long (or maybe not, i hope.)

[tamtagon]

I waffle on this one, and will think outloud for a minute or so...

I'm in favor of smoking bans in most enclosed public places because, as a polite smoker, I know I am not the only one affected by the smoke. It is not for me to decide that everyone in the room with me should smoke with me. Additionally, the smoke stinks, it permiates your clothes and is unpleasant. It makes my eyes itch, and irritates my lungs.

But as a smoker, I should also be able to have a drink, or a meal or whatever and not walk outside to smoke.

I'm also part owner of a bar, I want to serve my smoking patrons. I do not have the space or means to provide smoking and non-smoking areas and I cannot afford expensive ventilation. My non-customers know the bar is full of smoke - they say smokin' and drinkin' go together. My non-smoking employees claim they do not mind.

But not all workers are fine with the health risks of a job. Have waiters and bartenders joined the ranks of workers in high risk occupations - highway repair, policeman, fireman. THere are many job which put you health in danger.

My daddy (non-smoker after the heart attack of 1995) astutely says, "If it's legal to sell them, it should be legal to smoke them." Then he follows that up with, "If it's legal to buy bullets, it should be legal to go and shoot them off." THis gets at the heart of the issue for me - public health. CIgarettes do not have the immediate impact a bullet has, but we've all heard the long term problems. A smoking ban is no more the panacea than strick gun control laws.

A compromise need to be found when the rights of one group are favored. Perhaps a smoking version of the Unicard? (Do Unicards still exist? Is much of Dallas COunty still dry? I've often thought one thing protecting the character of Oak Cliff from homogenized development is the anti-alcohol blue laws.) Pay to smoke? I dont think I like the idea and have not thought it through, but a "permit" to light up in the smoking section of a restautant, or a "permit" to enter the smoking bar?

THe smoking permits would be non-transferable, lifetime memberships for the individual - that should not last long.....

This would allow the city to have the vote-attracting policy on it's record, and allow shop owners a way to provide a smoking option.

In an area like DFW with a many city just across the road, a municiple bans seem to be political statements rather than steps toward better living. Phoenix or Houston - other areas with one dominant city - could make a less politically suspicious city wide smoking ban.

[gc]

Those are all good points tamtagon. I can always see both sides easily.

[CTroyMathis]

Council OKs Dallas smoking ordinance
Ban to take effect March 1
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/politics/local/stories/wfaa030122_gp_smokingadvance.49c42645.html

01/22/2003

From Staff and Wire Reports


Dallas City Council voted 10-3 Wednesday afternoon to ban smoking in restaurants and many other public places.

Restaurant owners told the council that the ban would drive business to nearby suburbs, but council members were not swayed.

Mayor Laura Miller, who pushed hard for the ban, said opponents were unable to produce any credible studies showing restaurant business will suffer.

"The scientific evidence is all on the side of the bans," she said. "Studies show over and over there is no economic harm."

The ban, to take effect March 1, allows bars and billiard halls to designate areas where patrons may smoke.

A coalition of owners say many businesses already have installed air ventilation systems or closed smoking areas due to customer preference.

Dallas' previous law required restaurants with more than 50 seats to provide a nonsmoking section that must be separated from the smoking section by 4 feet of floor space.

The restaurant ban, which was recommended by the council's health committee, is stronger than a measure proposed in August by the city's Environmental Health Commission. That proposal would have required separate ventilation systems to ensure that smoke does not enter nonsmoking areas.

Plano and Arlington also have ordinances requiring separate ventilation systems in most restaurants.

Boston and New York also have recently endorsed comprehensive smoking bans.

The Boston law bans smoking in all public indoor workplaces, including restaurants and bars. New York, which already had a law that prohibited smoking in restaurants with more than 35 seats, now will ban smoking in almost all restaurants and bars.

[mikedsjr]

I am conservative in most view than most people. But i have changed in some idealogies in the past 4 years. To me, the Smoking ban is great. Unfortunately, this should have gone to the State government and made it a state-wide law.

Sometimes Government does have to take away rights of some for the betterment of the whole.

[downtownbum]

i disagree with the smoking ban, mainly because i think it can hurt businesses in north dallas and other neighborhoods near suburbs with no ban. what really gets under my skin is how the dallas city council wastes their time with junk like this when their are many far more pressing problems in our city that need to be addressed. kind of like "chief" bolton's announcement a couple weeks ago that "the cavalry is coming over the hill." well, chief, where the hell have you guys been, that you are just now coming over the hill. and how about trying to bust drug dealers etc. instead of using 5 cops in 5 cars to slow down traffic on 30. i have lived in the suburbs my whole life until the past 4 months and now that i keep up with dallas politics it makes me want to puke. but i do stand by my earlier statement that laura miller is hot (i would).....

[freewaytincan]

I don't know, man, I still think that's pretty gross. Even without the whole soccer mom look thing, it's just weird...yeah.

Well, read some Dallas history, and from that, I have begun to appreciate the screwed up system we have now. Read it and you'll see why. It could always be worse, although I can't imagine it being much worse.

I may think the "Rolling Roadblocks" deal is hilarious. but you have a point. The schools, for once, should be on top.

[tamtagon]

There may be an affect on Dallas businesses across the street from businesses which can allow smoking. Smokers are likely to favor smoking establishments, and non-somkers will favor non-smoking estabilshments. Since there are far more non-smokers, business might pick up in Dallas....

[freewaytincan]

You know, you have a point there. I sure hope you're right.

[Quiz03]

Group seeks to block smoking law
Business owners fear revenue loss, will try to bar enforcement


02/20/2003

By KATIE MENZER / The Dallas Morning News

A group of Dallas business owners is discussing taking legal action to stop the city from enforcing its new smoking ban in restaurants.

After a closed-door meeting Wednesday among lawyers and the business owners, the group's representatives said they will decide early next week whether they will seek an injunction or other legal order to stop Dallas from enforcing the ban. The City Council passed the ordinance in January.

Foes of Dallas' smoking ban include (from left) Court Smith, Cory Schell, Matt Mankin, Greg Boling and Eric Roberson.
The ordinance, which is scheduled to take effect March 1, allows smoking only in establishments that derive 75 percent or more of their gross revenues each quarter from the sale of alcoholic beverages. The ban is similar to anti-smoking laws passed in California, Delaware, New York City, Boston and El Paso.

Cory Schell, one of about 200 restaurant, bar and other business owners and representatives in the group, said the ordinance is unfair and will push customers to establishments in nearby cities that do not have smoking bans.

"There's enough holes in the ordinance," said Mr. Schell, partner of Suede Bar & Grill on lower Greenville Avenue. "I think we will be able to turn this thing over."

Greg Boling, Suede's lawyer, said the group has a long battle ahead, but he hopes to have the ban put on hold before March 1.

"It's going to be a long process," Mr. Boling said. "It's not going to be a matter of weeks."

E-mail kmenzer@dallasnews.com

[gc]

I saw this in the paper too. Here we go again!

[freewaytincan]

I don't feel sorry for any smokers. After watching both of my grandfathers die of smoking-related illness and seeing others waste away, those who started while aware of all dangers...no sorrow for their current position...

[tamtagon]

I can only see two possibilities which may lead to reversing the smoking ban either temporarily or permanantly:
-the Dallas ordinance is poorly written so that enforcement is rendered impossible, thus, back to square one for the ordinance writers, or
-the Dallas business owners have found an aspect of smokers rights which supercedes those being protected by the ban.

The Dallas ordinance appears to give bars an exemption "...allows smoking only in establishments that derive 75 percent or more of their gross revenues each quarter from the sale of alcoholic beverages...." I guess that's the most efficient way do define a bar. I dont believe a grassroots defense will gather much public support from smokers as long as these smokers can still be drinkers without having to step outside.

[downtownbum]

the smoking ban will be enforced the same way the speed limit is on the tollway: they will catch one out of every 1000, when they are looking for them, which they won't be. the only enforcers that may have any ability would be TABC, but a city ordinance might be out of their jurisdiction. the thing i hate about this is not the ban, but the possibility of business and the fact that there are far more pressing matters on the council's table than a smoking ban (like revising the setup to a strong-mayor system or some other that will make SOMEONE accountable for what happens to the city.)

[gc]

Time is burning for city's smokers
02/28/2003 - By KATIE MENZER / The Dallas Morning News

If you see a thick cloud of smoke rising from some Dallas restaurants and bars Friday night, don't call 911.

It's not a fire. It's a party.

"At five minutes to midnight, we're going to have every smoker in the house light a last cigarette," said Dick's Last Resort manager Kevin Fielder. "It will give our customers a chance to say goodbye to smoking here. We hope it will be the largest light-up in the West End."

Dick's and other restaurants are offering a last supper of sorts to smokers Friday night in Dallas. Starting Saturday, restaurants, bowling alleys, bingo halls and many other establishments must be smoke-free to comply with an ordinance the City Council passed last month.

Mayor Laura Miller, who ardently supported the passage of the ordinance, has some party plans of her own for the weekend. She's going to Maggiano's Little Italy Restaurant in NorthPark Center on Saturday night to celebrate with others who lobbied for the smoking ban.
"I plan to stop by and enjoy the smoke-free atmosphere," she said.

The City Council voted 10-3 Jan. 22 to approve the ordinance. Dallas joins a growing list of cities and states with anti-smoking laws, including New York City. California and Delaware enforce total bans in bars and restaurants, and Maine, Utah and Vermont ban smoking in restaurants but not bars.

Supporters of the ban hope suburban cities will follow Dallas' lead. Officials in at least one city – Irving – are in the early stages of considering a similar ordinance.

Losing business


But the ban isn't a breath of fresh air for everyone in Dallas.
Steve Vissotzky, general manager of the Hyatt Regency in downtown Dallas and president of the Hotel/Motel Association of Greater Dallas, said his hotel has lost about $720,000 in convention and meeting business this year. The ordinance bans smoking in hotels except in designated guest rooms.

Mr. Vissotzky said the Dallas Big Smoke – a gathering of cigar lovers and dealers sponsored by Cigar Aficionado magazine – has canceled its March 13 meeting at his hotel, costing the Hyatt about $60,000.

A convention of a large tobacco company that has met at his hotel in past years also is no longer interested in coming to Dallas. The hotel will lose about $660,000 in revenue, he said.

Mr. Vissotzky said the loss of those groups doesn't hurt only his hotel. Airlines, restaurants, shops, amusement parks, the city and others will miss out on the sales and tax dollars those tourists would have injected into the Dallas economy, he said.

"It's more than just individual smokers being affected. It's the commerce of the city," he said. "The smoking ban has moved into large business."

Hotel association members have been asking Dallas council members and the mayor to exempt hotel meeting rooms from the ordinance. They plan to collect information about lost revenue and present it to the council.

City Council member Lois Finkelman, who supported the ban, said the council is willing to listen to their pleas and weigh the evidence.

"I don't have any feeling that we will change at this point," Ms. Finkelman said. "But it's always a possibility."

Some restaurant owners are attempting a more heavy-handed approach to change the law.

Citizens for Freedom of Choice, a group of about 200 Dallas restaurant owners and others, plans to seek a temporary restraining order Friday morning to stop the city from enforcing the law. They say the law violates the rights of businesses and patrons.

"We're going to file and try to beat this before it starts," said Cory Schell, a partner in Suede Bar & Grill on Lower Greenville Avenue and a representative for the group. "It's all going to happen pretty quick."

Promoting awareness


Karen Bradford, director of Dallas' Environmental and Health Services Department, said she has spent a lot of time over the last few weeks fielding calls from concerned restaurant owners about the details of the new ordinance.
Her department and inspectors are in charge of enforcing the law, which requires establishments to hang no smoking signs in their entranceways, and they are working hard to get local business owners up to speed.

"I've been spending anywhere from four-and-a-half to six hours with the smoking issue each day," she said. "I'm hoping it will get a little better after March 1."

Despite her efforts, some business owners still aren't aware of all the details.

"We have to hang signs?" PoPoLos Café owner Stevan Hammond said when he was told of the provisions of the law.

But Mr. Hammond is ahead of the curve. He banned smoking in his restaurant at Preston Road and Royal Lane in December after his children complained of the smoke. Business has improved 15 percent since he asked patrons to put out their butts, he said, adding that he thinks the ban will benefit the city.

"In the end, the public will be healthier in Dallas," he said.

Although the ordinance allows smoking in bars that derive 75 percent or more of their gross revenues each quarter from the sale of alcohol, it does not exempt places such as bowling alleys or bingo parlors.

That could be a problem for North Dallas Bingo, where about 60 percent of patrons smoke.

"I play where I can smoke," said Loretta Leffall, a 20-year veteran bingo player who was visiting North Dallas Bingo on Wednesday night. "The cigarette is your concentration. I need it. I'll just go to Irving. It's just a 15-minute drive off of [State Highway] 183."

That's OK with Tonya Hill, who sits on the nonsmoking side of the bingo parlor when she plays. She must pass through the smoking area – which is set apart by a glass wall and smells of cigarettes – to get to the cashier. She's looking forward to the smoke-free environment soon.

"They should have started on their nicotine patches already," said Ms. Hill, a consumer sales representative for a pharmaceutical company. "They knew what was coming."

[gc]

The smoking ban in restaurants and other establishments in Dallas will begin Saturday. Here are some facts about the new ordinance:

The smoking ban will be enforced by inspectors with the Dallas Environmental and Health Services Department, although other city employees – including police officers – may be able to ticket offenders.
Business owners who do not post signs warning patrons that smoking is not allowed in their establishments can be fined $50 to $500. Business owners and bartenders cannot be fined for not stopping someone from smoking.
Individuals who smoke in no-smoking areas can be fined $25 to $200.
If you see someone violating the ordinance, call 311 to report it.


SOURCE: Dallas Environmental and Health Services Department

[MustangMonkey]

That really makes me angry, that they force businesses to put up signs. It's not enough to comply with the no-smoking ordinance, but they actually made up another way of fining businesses even if no one is smoking in the restaurant.

[boozo]

Originally posted by MustangMonkey
That really makes me angry, that they force businesses to put up signs. It's not enough to comply with the no-smoking ordinance, but they actually made up another way of fining businesses even if no one is smoking in the restaurant.

I think your beef if with OSHA regulations bro, not the city council.

I can't wait for the no smoking! I hope for the day when I can go dancing all night at a club and I won't have the stink of nasty cigarettes permeate my clothes.

I have actually heard that when people in Cali ended all smoking in clubs, people went out and were amazed. They couldn't believe how much more enjoyable it was.

HELLO PEOPLE! It is a CARCINOGEN! You would never work in a building loaded with asbestos would you? Why would you allow yourself to sit in a room with carcinogens in the air and not care?

[MustangMonkey]

I think your beef if with OSHA regulations bro, not the city council.

I'm not your bro.
It would be appropriate to at least familiarize yourself with some of my previous post (viewpoints) before referring to me in a derogatory manner.

[tamtagon]

dude

[boozo]

Originally posted by MustangMonkey
I'm not your bro.
It would be appropriate to at least familiarize yourself with some of my previous post (viewpoints) before referring to me in a derogatory manner.

I wasn't trying to be derogatory. I work in the OSHA compliance industry and I was trying to point out that the federal government is the one that handles signage in workplaces. It has nothing to do with the city council.

[MustangMonkey]

boozo:

Sorry for sounding so confrontational, I had allot going on in my mind at the time (work related) so I apologize. Bad first impression, but you'll probably find out that I am actually a sane person.

Back on the subject; after reading the DMN the public signs are probably a favorable compromise, since the restaurant is not liable for inforcing the smoking ban, only putting up signs.

[tamtagon]

I lived in California when that state banned smoking in all public places including bars.

There, the establishment was required by law to enforce the ban; when someone was caught smoking, the smoker and the manager on duty got a ticket. A special hotline was set up to gather tips on places allowing smoking. I'd say that within six months, compliance was close to 100%.

Business should be more than willing to help out customers by clearly posting a sign. Who knows how many public servants will be dedicated to enforcing the ban, but a thoughtful propirator should do everything possible to keep patrons from getting a ticket.

[MustangMonkey]

Exactly,
It is in the proprieters best interest to provide thier customers with the information, btw you don't need signs to do this, but the proprieter shouldn't be held responsible for their customers actions.

[gc]

This issue has been extremely queit lately. I guess it wasn't that big of a deal after all!

[TexasStar]

It isn't. Smoking is dying.
Witness today's announcement of 2,600 layoffs by RJ Reynolds.

[mikedsjr]

Ain't noth'n wrong with that. Those people need better jobs than runn'n legal addictive drugs that kill millions every year.

[gc]

....from D Magazine's Frontburner

WAITING TO EXHALE
The recent decision to ban smoking in Dallas restaurants has plenty of restaurateurs singing the blues. But here's a new spin. According to exec chef Kent (Abacus & Jasper's) Rathbun, the major anti-smoking ban voices are coming from the big tobacco companies. In a full-page ad in this week's Nation's Restaurant News Kent boldly proclaims, "If anybody tells you smoke free measures hurt hospitality, don't believe it." He advises us all to "get the facts" here (http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/). He's got a point--Abacus has never allowed smoking and Kent attributes the ban as one of the keys to the restaurant’s success.
Nancy Nichols · 12:18 PM

[Columbus Civil]

I just read in this week's Observer that Liberty Noodles on Lovers Lane is closing, and the owner, Jeffrey Yarbrough, is blaming the restaurant's failure on the smoking ban - "The smoking ban was just like a bullet between my eyes". He claims the ban took quite a bite out of his happy hour business.

[TexasStar]

The "smoking ban" will likely be evoked by every marginal business looking to explain their failure. And, of couse, just the saying of it doesn't make it so.

Funny how other establishments appear to be thriving -- witness how long I still have to wait for a table. And since the ban I make it a point to dine out only in Dallas proper (...where the air is cleaner.)

[psukhu]

I'm not a smoker, so I didn't really care much about the ban. The smoke really didn't bother me.

When my wife became pregnant, I had to be careful and avoid smoke. The ban made it easy for me to find places to eat. I'm guessing that I'll like the ban even more when taking my future child out to eat.

[freewaytincan]

Not necissarily. I don't think that it would affect you or your child. I know that here in Richardson, smoking is still allowed. However, there are some catches, such as seperate air systems for smoking and non-smoking, and a buffer to insulate the two areas. It works great here, and even if there is the occasional drift, it is hardly noticeable, only because I have a sensitive nose. That's all there is to it. The more I think about this ban, the more I realize that it is just one more case of stifling free enterprise. I mean, if I owned a restaurant, I might allow smoking in the bar area, and there would be no smoking in the restaurant itself, and even the outside eating area would be split into smoking and non-smoking to avoid drift issues. But that's me. While I did watch both of my grandfaters die from smoking related illnesses, it was their choice to smoke and to continue to do so even after they learned its danger.

The City of Dallas just needs to accept that sometimes, other people's choices you may not approve of, but that is their freedom. I doubt the council knows the meaning of the word.

[boozo]

Have to disagree with you there Urban. Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like have a peeing section in a pool.

People say that there is no damage from second hand smoke but I know from personal experience that it happens.

When I was a kid, both of my parents smoked. From the earliest I remember, I LOVED it! I remmber thinking it was great every time my dad would light up one of those Marlboro Lights. The smell of the smoke was so intoxicating. Eventally, they both stopped.

Flash Forward 20 years. Now, I can't stand the smell of tobacco. It makes me gag. When I smell it on other people it makes me gag. When I have to walk through it, I hold my breath and run. Strangely enough, it's the same thing I do when someone takes a dump in the office bathroom(can't they make it home?)

It made me wonder. Why did I love the smell so much when I was a kid? Was I getting a contact buzz just by being around? Do you think I was as addicted to it as my parents?

I do.