I was riding home today from work and I had an idea.

Most of you, who are active in the fight against the aunti's live out west. If the Smokers on the EAST COAST could get off their duffs, this idea would really be something.

Here it is:
I've read posts and received emails saying we should "just not go" to a restaurant, or ANY other establishment, that does not allow smoking.
Well, in my opinion that works about as well as fighting a firebomb with a 5-ounce bottle of gas.
What we should do is; go into these places, not just one, or two of us, but as many people as we can get.
They don't even have to be Smokers, just people who sympathize with our cause.
Anyway, these people go into the non-smoking establishment and ask to be seated in the smoking section.
When they are told "there is no smoking allowed", TURN AROUND AND WALK OUT!
They say that the no smoking policy has not hurt business, well let's make them think that it has!
If they start having people walk out because they can't smoke, that means they lose money.
And that is what matters most to these people.

Now, like I said, it can't just be a couple of people once a week. It MUST be at least 5-10 people every couple of days. It would be better if it was every day, but I know our limitations.
By the way, the same person going into the same place should make sure that someone different is on duty.
But, that goes without saying.

Well? What do you think?

Tony

PS: I'm going to post this idea on other sites and email it to the list as well.
Hope you don't mind.

Tony - I've been doing that for years. Although we have very few non-smoking establishments in Delaware - they are all required to have non-smoking sections, not smoking sections, just non-smoking. Although most restaurants do have seperate sections, the smoking sections are gereally inadequate and a wait for a table is much longer.

If I am told the wait in a smoking section is going to be longer than for non-smoking I politely inform them they need to increase the size of their smoking section to accomodate us. Of course I'm told that impossible, but if I do not choose to wait I can sit in the non-smoking section. If there is no wait for the non-smoking section but a long wait for smoking it tells me this establishment is not willing to accomodate smokers and I politely inform the manager, that until there is such a change, I will not be returning.

My family and our friends no longer will patronize the Red Lobster chain for both their smoker unfriendly attitude (I was asked to put out my cigarette in the smoking section because someone didn't like it and complained) and because I live in an area of many fishing villages and I can get fresh fish anytime - they don't buy local. they have been told in writing of our reasons.

Another chain we do not patronize is Ruby Tuesday's. We were told iot would be about a 15 minute wait for a table in smoking - no problem - However when they called our name they were seating us in non-smoking - the hostess arbitrarily changed our seating to non-smoking because of my daughter. when we wouldn't take the table in non we were told it would be an hour wait. needless to say I asked to speak to the manager - it happened to be that hostess. So I complained. and informed her that I would be informing everyone else I know who smokes that they are very unfriendly to smokers. She got huffy - we left.

So Tony, not everyone on the East coast is terribly complacent!!!!!!

But I like your idea and will spread it around!

gabrielle

Thanks for your reply.
Perhaps I should say "Most of the people on the East Coast".
I have lived on the East Coast all my life and I don't mean to offend anyone who IS active in the fight against the aunti's.
I have only found one person who is interested in the fight. That's why I said what I said.
Now that I have ticked some people off, I find out that there is a lot more people here in the East involved in the fight than I thought there were.
I actually think that it's a GOOD thing that there is a longer wait in the Smoking section than in the non-smoking section.
THAT shows them that if they adopt a non-smoking policy, they WILL lose a LOT OF MONEY.
Personally, I wouldn't wait an hour for a table either and if I was told 15 minutes and then end up waiting an hour, I'd complain too.
But, whether we like it or not, we really should support ALL restaurants that allow Smoking.
If someone in the Red Lobster asked you to put out your cigarette (if it was a customer), then we really can't hold the restaurant responsible.
In the fight against the aunti's, we may have to ally ourselves with people, or businesses we really don't like.
Just like in World War II, nobody liked the Russians, but we HAD to be allies to defeat the nazi's.

I disagree. If a customer in the SMOKING section asks for another customer in the SMOKING section to put out a cigarette, then the smoker should refuse and the management should back the smoker and move the whiner to the non-smoking section.

When a non-smoker deliberately CHOOSES to sit in the smoking-permitted section, he or she does so knowing full well that people will be smoking and have no right to complain when anyone in that section lights up, anymore than a smoker has a right to complain that he or she cannot smoke while seated in a non-smoking section of a restaurant which accommodates him or her with a smoking section.

This is a ploy that is frequently practiced by anti-smoker activists to impose their will on ALL smokers, and they should not be permitted either by smokers or restaurateurs to get away with it.

The solution is simple: Those who object to sitting near smokers should sit only in non-smoking sections. Period.

I absolutly agree.
I wasn't there, so I don't know the whole story.
If the establishment backs the other person, then you're right.
How about this:
Instead of not going there anymore, bring MORE Smokers with you to the restaurant. Just order a piece of pie, or a bowl of soup and everyone light up.
That way, you don't spend a lot of money, you take up tables that would be used for people ordering a large meal AND you'd be in the face of any aunti who may be there to complain.
If the restaurant still insists on supporting the aunti, then get LOUD and demand your RIGHTS, just like the aunti's.

Just throwing out ideas. Something to build on.

What I personally would do (if management didn't back me when I was smoking in a restaurant's smoking section and an anti-smoker seated in that section complained) is refuse to put out my cigarette. Under no circumstances would I put out my cigarette in a declared smoking section in a restaurant. If I refused, what would the management do? Call the cops because I was legally smoking in a legally defined smoking section? No, what the management would do is move the whiner, who would then be embarassed and inconvenienced, not I. And that particular anti probably wouldn't try that particular ploy again. As I said above, this was clearly a DELIBERATE ploy by an anti personally to enforce a smoking ban where smoking is permitted by law and by the business owner. And it WAS an anti, because non-smokers who accept seating in the smoking section of a restaurant voluntarily obviously don't mind if people around them are smoking.

Obviously at the Red Lobster in question, the management is incompetent. As soon as the whiner in the smoking section complained about smoking, the manager should have immediately offered to move the whiner to the non-smoking section and should not have disturbed ANY of the smoking patrons with the matter. THAT'S what a competent manager would do.

I would not come back with smoking friends and take up seats in the smoking section that other smokers might be waiting for. That only punishes other smoking diners, not the guilty parties.

If I cared enough, I might even ask for the consumers' complaint number of the restaurant chain and report how I had been treated by a manager who is clearly incompetent. If I didn't care that much, I'd simply never go there again and would badmouth the restaurant every chance I got.

That is, indeed, an anti ploy. Back in what now seems like the "good old days" when there were still smoking flights on Alitalia, I not only booked one, but triple checked that it would remain so. It was; nonetheless, a woman seated in our section began raising holy hell. She was seriously allergic; she'd go comatose and die if the rest of didn't put out our cigarettes. The steward told us there were no empty seats for her in the non-smoking section. I refused to put my cigarette out and told the steward to either find someone in non-smoking who'd switch seats with her or to tell her tough luck. They found her another seat. I was later told by another passenger who apparently knew her that she didn't have physical problems with smoke; she just liked to go around doing that
which she

Cat -- you're exactly right, it's a typical anti-smoking ploy. Remember how Julia Carol (head honcho of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights) advised a nonsmoker to lie about a health condition in order to get the boss to quit sneaking cigs in the restroom?

"Tell your boss you're allergic to cigarette smoke (even if you're not), and ask her to help you by not smoking," says Julia Carol. (Good Housekeeping, "Secondhand Smoke: The Real Risk for You and Your Family," November 1996, p. 173)

This is the same Julia Carol whose "research" gets published in JAMA.

Martha

[This message has been edited by Martha Perske (edited 02-23-2000).]

EGADS - I did not mean to start a war amongst ourselves.

The management in the Red Lobster did not side with us - they sided with the non-smoker and asked us to put out the cigarettes. I refused. Was asked to leave so I did. Was presented with a bill - which I refused to pay and told them to call the cops if they wanted to, I would wait. They didn't call, I didn't wait and we had a few drinks on them and they had to "eat" the cost of the meal we had already ordered.

There are enough smoker friendly establishments in Dover, Delaware that I don't have to go to those that aren't. But believe you me - I let all the smoker-unfriendly places know why I won't return and will not recommend their establishment to others.

Actually, I don't think there was much disagreement at all among us.

Glad to have the details, Gabz. Under the same circumstances I personally would have done just as you did--especially since you can get much better seafood locally at restaurants which are not managed incompetently, as this particular Red Lobster obviously was. Drinks on the house!