Restaurant takes on Smoking Ban

[LincolnparkRed]

From Indy's Channel 6

Restaurant Defies Smoking Ban

POSTED: 11:44 am EST July 10, 2005
UPDATED: 11:46 am EST July 10, 2005
MARTINSVILLE, Ind. -- The owners of a Morgan County restaurant are vowing not to ban smoking at the eatery despite the threat of a lawsuit for refusing to comply with the county's recently imposed smoking restrictions.
The southern Indiana county's smoking ordinance that took effect in January requires restaurants that allow smoking to have separate rooms with separate heating and cooling systems.
Bob Williams and Linda Dunigan, owners of Charlie's Drive-In Restaurant, have been fined $200 for refusing to comply with the ordinance. A note posted on the restaurant's door spells out their position.
"This restaurant allows smoking. If this offends you, please feel free to visit one of our competitors," the sign reads. "If you choose to come in, then you enter at your own risk. Thank You."
The Morgan County Board of Health is poised to file a lawsuit against the restaurant's owners for noncompliance with the ordinance and refusing to pay the fine.
Williams' lawyer advised him not to talk to the media about the issue.
A jar on the restaurant's counter collects change for "attorney fees and fines for court to fight the smoking ban," according to a handwritten label.
Regular customers at the restaurant say the ordinance limits their personal freedom.
Butch Albertson, a 62-year-old retired factory worker, comes into Charlie's almost every morning, and doesn't mind smokers although he does not smoke himself.
"I have been eating with these people for years," he said. "I have a right to come in here, or to leave if I want to if the smoke bothers me. I don't think they have a right to tell people they can't sit in here and have a meal because they smoke."
Dr. John Reynolds, Morgan County's health officer, said the department has notified the owners at least twice about violations.
"He is in violation now, and we are intending to pursue it with a lawsuit to get a court injunction because he continues to allow smoking," Reynolds said.
If Charlie's does not abide by a court-imposed injunction, he said its owners could be held in contempt of court, and a judge would determine the penalty.
"It comes down to them being defiant," Reynolds said.
Waitress Katie Fine said that if a day in court arrives, "we are closing down and we are all going to court. Everyone that works here will be there."

[Johnny Footstool]

Bars in Lawrence, KS have been fighting this same kind of city ordinance. They haven't had any luck thusfar.

[Michael Allred]

All I can say to those owners...RIGHT ON! Fight this BS law. Non-smokers can just go someplace else (lord knows they have more options than smokers these days.)

[registerthis]

All I can say to those owners...RIGHT ON! Fight this BS law. Non-smokers can just go someplace else (lord knows they have more options than smokers these days.)

I suppose the non-smokers that work there should just go work somewhere else too.

[TeamCasey]

I suppose the non-smokers that work there should just go work somewhere else too.

True.

[redsrule2500]

I am completely against the smoking ban, even though I don't know anyone that smokes. The law is just stupid.

[Caveat Emperor]

All I can say to those owners...RIGHT ON! Fight this BS law. Non-smokers can just go someplace else (lord knows they have more options than smokers these days.)

The same logic could be given to smokers: if you want to smoke, go somewhere else, like outside of the room. Or, better yet, cowboy up and go without a cigarette for a few hours while you're out and about.

I agree that smokers have every right to continue puffing away until they drop dead, but the minute their enjoyment of this right infringes upon the health and wellbeing of individuals who choose NOT to participate in the habit, I draw the line.

And, the true victims aren't the people who CHOOSE to go to places where smoking occurs, the victims are the people who work in those places and are forced to breathe air that is probably just a shade under toxic on a nightly basis. Waitresses, bartenders, bouncers, cooks, etc. Good luck getting a job in any of those professions, especially starting out, and not inhaling two packs a day on the clock.

We had a public smoking ban in Toledo for all of 10-12 months before the owners/operators of several local establishments successfully forced a ballot initiative that removed it from the books (Their slogan: "Vote Issue 2 for Jobs!"). It was wonderful being able to go out and watch a game at the bar for a few hours and not come back reeking of cigarette smoke and forced to do an entire load of laundry immediately.

I'm sorry, I'm with libertarians and individual freedom on 99.9% of the issues, but the public smoking ban has tangible benefits and is something I personally enjoy and agree with.

[Michael Allred]

The same logic could be given to smokers: if you want to smoke, go somewhere else, like outside of the room. Or, better yet, cowboy up and go without a cigarette for a few hours while you're out and about.

I agree that smokers have every right to continue puffing away until they drop dead, but the minute their enjoyment of this right infringes upon the health and wellbeing of individuals who choose NOT to participate in the habit, I draw the line.

And, the true victims aren't the people who CHOOSE to go to places where smoking occurs, the victims are the people who work in those places and are forced to breathe air that is probably just a shade under toxic on a nightly basis. Waitresses, bartenders, bouncers, cooks, etc. Good luck getting a job in any of those professions, especially starting out, and not inhaling two packs a day on the clock.

We had a public smoking ban in Toledo for all of 10-12 months before the owners/operators of several local establishments successfully forced a ballot initiative that removed it from the books (Their slogan: "Vote Issue 2 for Jobs!"). It was wonderful being able to go out and watch a game at the bar for a few hours and not come back reeking of cigarette smoke and forced to do an entire load of laundry immediately.

Spare me the "oh the poor workers" claptrap. There's plenty of non-smoking businesses, why not work there?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, allow the business owner to decide for him/herself on whether or not to ban smoking.

A patron or worker can simply choose between a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Problem solved. but oh no, that's not good enough for the anti-smoker groups, it must be banned *everywhere.* Compromises be damned.

You're downtown, one restaurant has a BIG flashing sign that says "no smoking", across the street is another that says "smokers welcome." You know what, smokers won't be going into the non-smoking business and complain about a ban. Now on the other hand, you KNOW there are those crazed out "I HATE SMOKING!!!" people who will head right on over to the smoker friendly business and complain, picket and protest.

This is the problem.

Just let us have a few friggin corners of the world where we can go and enjoy ourselves for pete's sake!

[flyer85]

Why don't they just ban tobacco?

[Falls City Beer]

I think smoking bans set a strange and conceivably dangerous precedent. Let the owners (and the money-spending public) decide this one.

[flyer85]

I think smoking bans set a strange and conceivably dangerous precedent. Let the owners (and the money-spending public) decide this one.

I thought the job of our government was to protect us?:

[919191]

I kind of feel that is many ways it is up to me to protect myself. I don't smoke, but if I own a building I should be allowed to decide for myself if I want to allow smoking or not. I have no problem having to disclose to potential employees it is a smoking establishment, but I want to be able to decide.

[SteelSD]

Why don't they just ban tobacco?

Addiction to tax revenue.

Far more addictive than nicotine, and a habit that's far more difficult to wean off from. And entirely impossible to quit cold turkey.

[Falls City Beer]

I thought the job of our government was to protect us?:

If, by protect, you mean liberties and rights, then yeah.

Oh, and for the record, I don't smoke, and very few of my friends and family smoke.