Comments on: An ADA right to smoke-free eateries?

By: Archimede

Archimede — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:07:23 +0000

mr.Bogden is a ASH Clown, –

By: MF

MF — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:42:33 +0000

I think we need to differentiate between creating a law that prohibits smoking in public places like restaurants, such as we have here in California and other places, and lawsuits that FORCE such action, such as what’s attempted here.

In the former, it’s a case of the majority (or their representatives) creating a law that prohibits the action. If you don’t like the law (or lack thereof), convince enough other people of your point and get everyone to elect representatives who will change the laws.

In the latter, it’s judicial activism that creates a law out of an interpretation of another law (ADA).

What Mr. Bogden should do is work to get a law written to prohibit smoking in public locations such as restaurants. Instead, he can’t get that to happen, so he tries to find an accommodating judge who will side with his extreme view of a badly written law in order to enact what he wants but many others do not.

Note: I happen to be among the many here in California who LIKE the no smoking laws. But I do not in any way approve of the way Mr. Bogden is attempting to force his will on others. If the people of Virginia don’t want the law, accept it or move to somewhere that has passed such a law.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 09:28:47 +0000

The constitution was written (correctly) to prevent the tyranny of the majority. However, many of our laws effectively allow for the tyranny of the minority where the majority must not just accommodate but accede to the wishes of the minority. However, problematic that may be in certain situations, it pales to what Mr. Bogden is attempting to do here which, if he wins his lawsuit, would effectively be rule by tyranny of the individual. What he wants is the power to be able to prevent smoking in any restaurant he may want to patronize. Having a separate smoking area is not good enough for this anti-smoking zealot. He wants to use the junk science findings on the effects of second hand smoke in conjunction with the ADA to prevent anyone from smoking in those restaurants. Even if one were to believe that there was a long-term negative effect on the individual from second hand smoke, there certainly is no scientific evidence that a single exposure to second hand smoke would be harmful. Moreover, since the smoking area is isolated from the rest of the restaurant the amount of smoke that he would potentially be exposed to would be minute. Of course that really is not the point. What he wants is for the courts, though the misuse of the ADA law, to give him the power to prevent smoking in any restaurant he make think about patronizing. It is interesting that he does not even attempt to obfuscate his purpose. He comes right and says that he is trying to use his health problems as a means of achieving his goal of preventing people from smoking.

By: kimsch

kimsch — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:59:38 +0000

Richard, or Clydes. Those crab cakes are to die for!

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:41:00 +0000

“If so, would the entire legal system implode into a great, swirling black hole?”

Unfortunately, I doubt it. But we can hope!

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:03:53 +0000

1. This guy lives in DC. Him and his fascist buddies from Smokefree DC got their ban. Why the hell is he still coming to VA??

2. Do you know what restaurants he’s suing? Harry’s Tap Room, Mike’s, and two more: CLYDE’S, and DENNY’S out of all places. He says he’s concerned about having another heart attack. Can someone tell him not to eat at DENNY’S for starters??? What an idiot!!

By: Joe Bingham

Joe Bingham — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:48:30 +0000

I like P Saunders’ thinking.

Stuff like this really makes me burn. I used to hate the smell of cigarettes in restaurants, until stupid Florida banned it and I don’t smell it anymore. Now, I go into a Shoney’s in Tennessee and think, “Mmm. The sweet scent of freedom.”

By: P Saunders

P Saunders — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:47:40 +0000

Smoking is an addiction and I thought that addiction was a disability according to the ADA. Could smokers theoretically force these same restaurants to retain their smoking sections? If so, would the entire legal system implode into a great, swirling black hole?

By: ras

ras — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:09:28 +0000

I presume the police will also be asked to crack down on all loud music and conversation in restaurants since so many people have diminished hearing?

And all lawyers will need to provide (free of charge) prescription reading glasses for their clients with diminished eyesight in order that they can read the fine print? [Hey, I like that one!]

And every city will have to clean up ALL ragweed and other allergens in every park?

It looks like Busybody-ism is a disability in its own right.

By: leafs004

leafs004 — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:24:53 +0000

Heart attacks also can result from poor eating habits. Does he plan to also make all the eateries (none of which sound like healthy food) serve vegetarian and heart friendly foods?

Am I the only one who thinks it might be a little hypocritical for a guy with a history of heart attacks to eat french fries in a smoke free environment?