🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3tlsdm$smd@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, mschwarz@ix.netcom.com (Michael Schwarz) writes:
>jtbooker@nando.net (Jon) wrote:
>
>
>>I am a non-smoker, but there is a rational way to look at this issue. A 
>>restaurant is a private enterprise--if the owner prefers to allow smoking, 
>>that is their prerogative. If the presence of smokers offends you, take your 
>>business elsewhere. No one is forcing you to dine or remain at the particular 
>>establishment you have chosen to frequent.
>
>Perhaps instead of a law prohibiting smoking in a restaurant, there
>should be regulations posting whether smioking is or is not permitted
>in the restaurant. That way, consumers can make the decision to
>patronize a restaurant based on whether or not they want to breath.
>The business owner can make the decision to allow smoking or ban it
>based on his or her customers' desires, rather than a few (usually
>misinformed) politicans' desires.
>

	Or misperceptions of restaurant owners...  During the
	fight over whether or not to pass the California law
	that bans smoking in restaurants, the restaurant owners
	association was one of the biggest opponents, because
	they thought they were going to lose a lot of business.
	Since the law went into affect, the gross receipts adjusted
	for inflation are UP.  Maybe all those smokers are now
	paying for dessert instead of lighting up a cigarette,
	or the other patrons don't mind lingering over an 
	after-dinner drink or dessert or ....  Whatever the
	cause, revenues are up.  Interesting to think that if
	they had gotten their way, this wouldn't have happened!