Hooter's Banned Our Hookah! Please Read!

[Soeffinblack]

also its crazy how popular these are becoming...

[mushrat]

Good reason to open a Hookah Bar.

Also, if you've never dealt with the press before, prepare yourself for a little shock. What you think you're getting isn't always what gets printed. And while a reporter can smile to your face and act real cool, they write what their editors want and what they think will sell nespapers. This dosn't always jibe with the facts

Having been the subect of a few stories in my day just take it all with a grain of salt. Good luck!

[KyDUDE]

I have never been to a Hookah bar! I heard that one opened in Cincinnati, Oh BUT they put the Smoking ban in effect!
Can someone tell me what one is and how it is ran, and what is sold ie Food , Beer, liqour??
I would consider opening one If I can figure it out!

[KyDUDE]

Wow how a little story can gather so much attention!
Last week, I went and did a photo shoot for a story to be featured in WIRED magazine
they are doing a story on the "Get Published" section on the cincinnati.com website and I was picked along with 1 other person for the photoshoot, due to the hookah story.
then a reporter came to do a follow up story on us!!

I started a my space page for our group; feel free to ad us:
www.myspace.com/nkyhookahgroup

Our first story: http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.d...0476/1077/Local

Our follow up story: http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.d...0469/1056/Local

what do you all think????

[Big Boss]

A group of us Gather at Hooter's in Newport, KY for Food, Fellowship and a Relaxing time.
We asked the Manager if we could smoke a hookah after we had ate!
He said "He see's no problem with it and there is nothing stating we cant in the policies."
So we ordered one and was told, By Him, We were told we couldn't smoke the Hookah anymore, due to A complaint.
I am enclosing my letter to HOOTER'S Corporate office. I
also had it published online at:letter online in newspaper

We have launched a letter writing campaign to HOOTER's and ask that you might take a few minutes and send them a letter for us!!!!
at: hooterspr@hooters.com

Here is My Letter!!!! What are your thoughts???

To whom it may concern:
As you may have already heard about, We had a little trouble from the Manager of the Hooter's in Newport, KY over a HOOKAH that a group of us bought to smoke after enjoying the food!

We (a group of at least 12 people) gather weekly at your restaurant on Wednesday nights at 9 O'clock! We have been doing this for almost a year (first at Florence and then moved to Newport so more could join us). After dinner we would smoke pipes and cigars. We had looked into Hookahs and the tobacco's they use and we thought that having one and getting to enjoy it after dinner would be nice and relaxing.

We approached "Chris" the manager at Newport, showed him pictures of the 4 hose hookah we picked out, explained it to him and also assured him we WOULD never smoke anything ILLEGAL in it. He said "He did not see any problem with it". . It did get a few looks BUT we always
invited other patrons to try it and answered any questions about it, and explained the Egyptian heritage behind it. We even had a lot of the waitresses and cooks try it.

We also do a lot of "advertising" our nights out on "My Space" by posting and reposting Bulletins about our gatherings and even placing pictures in them. We also post our pictures from HOOTER'S in our picture folders and the restaurant's name also!

We feel that this decision to not allow our HOOKAH is a bad business move. To lose 12 or more PAYING and TIPPING WEEKLY customers over one complaint supposedly made to the corporate office, is an unfair move on your part.

I have included the address for my "MY SPACE" page, on it you can look at the pictures and also realize that I have over 250 friends on there and the rest of the group have well over 3000 friends on their pages jointly. That is a lot of people hearing your name in either good or bad ways.

I hope we can get some answers to this situation. To the best of my knowledge there is no policy stated not allowing a HOOKAH to be smoked inside the restaurant, If there is, PLEASE forward the policies to me! I am also contacting the local papers to let them know of this biased move on your part not to allow us to smoke it in a restaurant that allows SMOKING.

My MySpace address is: www.myspace.com/markmilner

Feel free to contact me to talk about this letter.
Thanks for your Time!

Mark Milner

If he had said "Yeah, you can smoke your hookah." and then said "Oh wait, thats what a hookah is? No way you cant smoke that." then you would have a valid complaint, but since another customer complained I think you're fighting an uphill battle. It would of been really cool if the manager had stood by his dicision, though.

[PersianPride]

I always thought that Hooters was a strip club. Anyway I'll agree with other people here that you are over reacting and in the long term doing more damage to the shisha movement. Myself and others have said this a hundred times and that is a shisha is not a cigarette and has not place in any facility that offers a 'smoking section.'
The most obvious thing is that its a 31 inch structure that has exposed coals on top of it. You can imagine why a place with carpeting is not going to want that. It sounds like the manager never gave you any guarantees but rather a chance or 'trial run.' Edited June 27, 2007 by PersianPride

[KyDUDE]

What i find funny is that Hooter's is worried about their "IMAGE"?????

Why do the put their waitress on display and basiclly Pimp them??

This is hooter's response:
"At times we are required to make a judgment call on what is best for our customers in general, and what is true to the Hooters image, that may displease a few customers. This is one of those times," said Michael Gregory, general counsel for Hooters of Newport. "Right now, we don't think a hookah belongs in Hooters. We hope these folks can come to understand that, and will continue to patronize the restaurant."

[ahwahoo2006]

I know I am late to this discussion, but I have a few points to make.

1. Smoking is not a right, it is a privilege. Frankly, I am surprised that any institution, other than a dedicated hookah bar would allow hookah smoking, even if they allow cigarettes and cigars. I love smoking the hookah, but I certainly wouldn't appreciate a cloud of smoke over my delicious, delicious Hooter's wings, and hookahs produce much more smoke than other smoking implements. Unfortunately, the decision comes down to which group will be more inconvenienced, and the restaurant will always side with the majority of its customers (even if only one complained).

2. You take the completely wrong approach and tone to your "letter." Threatening a major national institution will get you nowhere, especially when you have the grammar and writing skills of a sixth grader. When you are writing a business letter, proper capitalization and punctuation are not optional, but essential to being taken seriously. The same thing goes for waving around your Myspace group and 3000 "friends." Myspace is not thought of in a positive light by a large portion of the media and public (you can find a new story every day on more pedophiles and perverts being kicked off of it), and associating hookah, another activity that people find questionable, with it, is probably the wrong approach.

[Sonthert]

I also have a few points, being a tobacco manufacturer, I may be biased, but I really have felt this way long before I ever started making tobacco.

1. I love ya ahwahoo, but its driving thats "a privilege, not a right". Smoking is smoking. Its not a privilege any more than drinking alcohol or soda pop is. "Toxic chemicals are released in the air." So are the fumes from some perfumes, and perfumes are every bit as annoying as smoking, in my opinion. Is wearing a perfume a privilege, too? It offends my nose, so why can't I ban it? "Smoking is a privilege" is the mindless crap spouted by the anti-smoking establishment. Smoking isn't a right either, but people telling me how to live my life, whether its offends them or not isn't a right either. Industries dirty our air, but being an industrial manufacturer that releases atmospheric pollutants isn't a "privilege". Industries produce a lot more pollutants than cigarettes. What about people that stink of body odor? Is stinking a privilege? Its fouling the air...so are we to arrest and hose down stinky people? People with bad breath? Periodontal disease has been linked to heart disease...so everyone with bad breath gets thrown to the ground and has their teeth cleaned? Farting is a privilege? Belching? Utter nonsense...it does show the stupidity of he anti-smoking lobby, on the other hand. If me offending them by smoking can be banned, then people blowing off bullshit rhetoric, like the anti-smoking lobby does should be made illegal, too. You have the liberty to smoke...if people don't like it, they can move the other direction if I'm smoking. The same thing is true if I say things people don't like or print things they don't like. They can not listen, walk the other direction or throw the newspaper in the trash. They DO NOT have the right to silence me.

"Liberty 2:Power to do what one pleases:Freedom from restraint."-Webster's Dictionary

The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The same logic applies, in my opinion, if smoking isn't wanted in a particular business, so be it...they don't want your business.

3. Before most of you were alive, smoking was permitted on airliners. Pipes and cigars haven't been permitted as long as I can remember. My father, a pipe smoker of 60+ years, would buy cigarettes when he flew. I wonder if the cigarette companies had any influence on those rules?

4. KYDude, I understand your point, if we were racial or ethnic minorities, whom Hooter's didn't want in their establishment, this would be unpardonable. You feel discriminated against, you feel like a minority...which we are...as smokers. I find their letter dumb, too. It sounds like, in high school, Kimberley was voted "Most likely to say something empty headed."

5. We smoke, there are a lot of instances where we can't smoke in public, perhaps appropriate, perhaps not. People aren't permitted to drink alcohol in public, except in designated places. Caffeine, a thoroughly more addictive drug than alcohol is, can be consumed almost anywhere. I've always felt California's laws regarding smoking indoors are fair-ish. They shouldn't blanket-ban drinking in nightclubs and bars...but some of the anti-smoking ordinances in other states are absurd. Edited June 28, 2007 by Sonthert
I only need #5 once.

[jamesh2]

wow sonthert that was quite inspiring.
that being said, i live in NE Ohio, and i must say that (after the smoking ban) i feel that the people that are really gettng shafted are the business owners. we had a little itilian restaurant downtown, that is pretty popular. he stoped allowing smoking due to the fact that there was a higher demand for nonsmoking seats. i feel that that is legit. but for the state government to legislate against it is laughable. i dont feel that it should be the right of the state to dictate what practices (of a legal standpoing) should be taking place in their establishment, it should be the business owner.

[KyDUDE]

Thanks guys!!!! I appreciate your opinions!!!!
It's a shame that everyone on here, just cant see that I am trying to keep our rights, Even that smoking in a certain place isn't a right, it is still worth standing up for!!!!

My wife, who smokes, hates to go to Cincinnati, Oh now since the smoking ban!!!

Sonthert & Jamesh2, Thanks for your kind words!!!

Did you see our new article???http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/NEWS01/706210469/1056/Local

[glz88]

I think people have the right to enjoy a smoke free establishment...If this was done outside then there might have been other issues. But other than that it was done indoors in a place where people don't have a clear cut seperation of smoking v non smoking sections. Hence the manager acted on the complaint. If you don't like it you may take your buisness eslewhere. Its not like you entered a contract. As for other substances tobacco is worst for you in most cases. Alcohol if used in moderation does not cause any damage to the body, yet tobacco no matter how little you smoke will do permanent damage to the lungs. Even chewing tobacco does damage to the lining of the mouth.


And about smoking rights, you have the right to smoke in the privacy of your own home outside, but since this establishment does not want you to smoke inside I see no issue. It is simply their choice and you should take your buisness elsewhere.

While you are fighting for our rights as smokers, you are also fighting against the rights of non-smokers...I say let it lie... Edited June 28, 2007 by glz88

[jamesh2]

this isnt a question of the establishment allowing smoking, it does. thats the problem... i hate to tell ya but smoke is smoke. to ban smoking just because of the way its done doesnt make sense to me.

[jamesh2]

Thanks guys!!!! I appreciate your opinions!!!!
It's a shame that everyone on here, just cant see that I am trying to keep our rights, Even that smoking in a certain place isn't a right, it is still worth standing up for!!!!

My wife, who smokes, hates to go to Cincinnati, Oh now since the smoking ban!!!

Sonthert & Jamesh2, Thanks for your kind words!!!

Did you see our new article???http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/NEWS01/706210469/1056/Local

dont mention it
hit me up if your ever in the NE ohio region we will smoke ;-)

[glz88]

Well if the establishment allows smoking they still have to bend to customers. It sux but all it takes is ONE complaint. So as a buisness I don't see how they could tell the customer to fuck off...

[KyDUDE]

Jamesh2, I will and If you ever get down to Cincinnati, get hold of me!!!

Where in OH are you?

Sometimes people don't understand how hard it is for a smoker to be in a building( i.e. basketball game, concert) for a couple hours without a chance to smoke somewhere!!
in Ohio, You gotta go outside and away from the front door to light up! Yeah, thats safe!!!

[hookah hippie]

How insightful Sonthert

[jamesh2]

Jamesh2, I will and If you ever get down to Cincinnati, get hold of me!!!

Where in OH are you?

Sometimes people don't understand how hard it is for a smoker to be in a building( i.e. basketball game, concert) for a couple hours without a chance to smoke somewhere!!
in Ohio, You gotta go outside and away from the front door to light up! Yeah, thats safe!!!

i live in Akron, about a mile south of cleveland

[Sonthert]

Why is it people's right to have a smoke-free environment indoors? I agree on public property, but I don't believe the government has the right to come into a business or a home (which I view in the same light from a perspective of rights) and tell them what to do.

The evidence regarding second-hand smoke is all questionable at best and fabricated at worst. If it doesn't pose a distinct danger, then why could it be banned? Like I said, then body odor, certain types of music, etc. could also be banned. It sounds like a case of "It annoys us, so we want it stopped."

A simple question...why do people have some protection against being annoyed? It undermines the whole idea of liberty and freedom. Consideration of other people is important, and smokers should refrain from smoking in public places, but to make a law? Absurd. One of the statesmen-y guys said something to the effect "With liberty comes excess, but it is a small price to pay for freedom." That is, give people the right to scream at the top of their lungs and some will do it...because they can. When we start limiting people's liberty because they go overboard, we inadvertently limit other people with the best intentions. Sure, I understand smoking doesn't really make a constitutional argument when done correctly, but its the wisdom of smarter men than us if you make an exception to people's freedoms more will be made and more until freedom is a hollow word.

[glz88]

There is a big difference. The medical evidence supporting second hand smoke and the deterioration it causes is solid. There have been many trials that have proven the effect of second hand smoke. If you view that as questionable you can view the Theory of Gravity or Evolution as questionable too. As a biochem major those things are laws to me. Unquestionable since we have proved thats the way it works on this planet.

As protection against being annoyed it is a variable thing. Various things tick various people off. It is a case by case behavior. And if the person is irritated at one point they may react differently in a situation than if they weren't you can't predict people's behavior hence you can't protect them from being annoyed.

It is not absurd because you are actually harming the secondary party. It is like taking a knife to their lungs. The secondary party did not ask to be harmed so the government steps in to protect them.

And Freedom in this country is already a hollow word. The government does not listen to the screams and pleas of the public. The Katrina incident, Iraq, Vietnam, need i say more all were ignored. Edited June 28, 2007 by glz88

[ahwahoo2006]

Thanks for the earlier love Sonthert. I love you and your amazing tobacco as well (mostly because you sent me some amazing free samples last year).

As to your post, here is my reply. I will try and take it point by point that you make, and I will try and keep it as succinct as possible, but this is a topic that invites serious and lengthy discussion. Also, I apologize in advance if I skip one or two individual points within your main points.

1. What I think you are missing here is the distinction between public and private. In your own home, yes, you have the right, more or less, to do whatever you choose, within the confines of law. (I am going to avoid the entire issue of whether certain activities should be legal or not). In public, in a park or on the street, again, yes, you should be allowed to light up a cigarette, cigar, or hookah. A restaurant, however, is a private establishment. They are given the option to decide what goes on within their walls – the same idea as “no shirt, no shoes, no service.” While it might not seem fair to allow one form of smoking over another, that is still their prerogative.

What about people that stink of body odor? People with bad breath? Farting is a privilege? Belching? While I wish these could be banned, especially on the subway which I have to ride every day, there is a distinct difference between bodily functions, which are often unconscious, and smoking, which involves a conscious decision. If me offending them by smoking can be banned, then people blowing off bullshit rhetoric… should be made illegal, too. Free speech is explicitly protected under the Constitution. Smoking, however, is not. You have the liberty to smoke...if people don't like it, they can move the other direction if I'm smoking. Walking down the street, yes, sitting at a table in a crowded restaurant, not so much. The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While this is certainly correct, it also applies to the people on the other side of the aisle. If happiness for another person involves not being smoked on, is it permissible for you to deny them their right? What it really comes down to at the most basic level is respect.

2. The same logic applies, in my opinion, if smoking isn't wanted in a particular business, so be it...they don't want your business. Exactly.

3. Before most of you were alive, smoking was permitted on airliners. Pipes and cigars haven't been permitted as long as I can remember. My father, a pipe smoker of 60+ years, would buy cigarettes when he flew. I wonder if the cigarette companies had any influence on those rules? More than likely – the tobacco lobby is quite powerful. I’m not sure, however, where this point fits in to your argument.

4. I agree, too, in principle, just not in this specific instance.

5. We smoke, there are a lot of instances where we can't smoke in public, perhaps appropriate, perhaps not… They shouldn't blanket-ban drinking in nightclubs and bars...but some of the anti-smoking ordinances in other states are absurd. I agree with you on this as well. I think the nanny-state is getting completely out of hand and that people need to exercise some personal responsibility (yes, I know that’s a loaded term to be throwing around). Why is it people's right to have a smoke-free environment indoors? I agree on public property, but I don't believe the government has the right to come into a business or a home (which I view in the same light from a perspective of rights) and tell them what to do.

A simple question...why do people have some protection against being annoyed? It undermines the whole idea of liberty and freedom.

What it all really comes down to is the idea of a “social contract.” According to Thomas Hobbes, in order to be able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to self-interest, we, as a society, must submit to a reasonable ideal of the group. If smoking a cigarette makes me happy, but annoys 20 other people sharing the same space, then, at least in my opinion, I shouldn’t be doing it. According to your idea of liberty, we should be able to do whatever we want, whenever we want. John Locke, another philosopher, put this idea well, saying that “the natural condition of mankind is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest.” Obviously, deferring to the decision of the group isn’t the most pleasing result to us as individuals, but it is the price we pay in order to function effectively as a society. The problem arises when we try to combine the concepts of freedom and liberty (the individual) with that of society. Jean-Jacques Rousseau maintains that by submitting our individual wills to the general will, created through an (implicit) agreement with other free and equal persons, we can live in an equilibrium state. The protection people have against “being annoyed,” as you put it, is the agreement we make to enter in society, and which I would call respect. As members of society, that is one of our main responsibilities (see: The Golden Rule).

…Every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest… As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others (emphasis mine), society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion” – John Stuart Mill

Liberty is am exemplary concept, but if everyone did exactly what they wanted, there would only be chaos.

What we should avoid, and what I think you were getting at when you mentioned laws being passed against smoking, is what Alexis de Tocqueville calls the “tyranny of the majority.” Personally, I don’t think that the government has the right to tell me what I can eat, how I am allowed to have sex, what I can smoke, etc. My morals are my business. If, however, when not limited by law, a particular restaurant has, and should have, the ability to you may do X, but not Y on the premises.

Please, feel free to respond either here or via PM. I’m always up for educated discussion.

[ahwahoo2006]

Also, I apologize for the Tolstoy of a post above.

[Skarredmind]

There is a big difference. The medical evidence supporting second hand smoke and the deterioration it causes is solid. There have been many trials that have proven the effect of second hand smoke. If you view that as questionable you can view the Theory of Gravity or Evolution as questionable too. As a biochem major those things are laws to me. Unquestionable since we have proved thats the way it works on this planet.

There is a lot of things out there with "undeniable proof" that has no real proof just an idea and an official looking paper that "confirms". As of 2 years ago when I did the research there was no solid evidence or even studies on second hand smoke. They must have done a lot of really good long term studies on it in that gap. I would love to see this proof, where can I find it specifically?? I will direct you to the tv show Bullshit on Showtime, you can probably find the episode about smoking online, if you aren't a subscriber.

As protection against being annoyed it is a variable thing. Various things tick various people off. It is a case by case behavior. And if the person is irritated at one point they may react differently in a situation than if they weren't you can't predict people's behavior hence you can't protect them from being annoyed.

I think that was the original point... you don't have a right to not be annoyed, for, in part, the very reasons you cite. If you have no right to not be annoyed you have no "right" to a smoke free place of business.

It is not absurd because you are actually harming the secondary party. It is like taking a knife to their lungs. The secondary party did not ask to be harmed so the government steps in to protect them.

Oddly enough, taking a knife to someone's lungs and smoking in their vicinity are NOT quite the same... That silly point of hyperexaggeration aside...

No one is forcing the secondary party to be near you when you smoke, if they don't like it they can LEAVE. By chosing to stay they are "taking a knife to their own lungs" Since the issue we are talking about is restaurants and bars, if they don't like it they can make their point to the owner by going to a different establishment. You say if you don't like an establishment that bans smoking, smoke somewhere else... why doesn't that apply to the nonsmokers too?

And Freedom in this country is already a hollow word. The government does not listen to the screams and pleas of the public. The Katrina incident, Iraq, Vietnam, need i say more all were ignored.

The fact that you say that is very humorous to me. How does freedom figure into the katrina incident, iraq or vietnam?? Bad government management does not equal lack of freedom. Freedom does not mean that the government does what you want it to do, freedom means that the government lets YOU do what YOU want to do...

The killer here though is that by making a law forbidding someone to do anything you are indeed reducing their freedoms, and while non-smokers may not miss their freedom to smoke where they want, they are losing it just the same. People making your argument are causing the word freedom to be come the hollow word you complain about...

PS +1 to all of Sonthert's stuff above, saved me a lot of typing

[Skarredmind]

Thanks for the earlier love Sonthert. I love you and your amazing tobacco as well (mostly because you sent me some amazing free samples last year).

As to your post, here is my reply. I will try and take it point by point that you make, and I will try and keep it as succinct as possible, but this is a topic that invites serious and lengthy discussion. Also, I apologize in advance if I skip one or two individual points within your main points.

1. What I think you are missing here is the distinction between public and private. In your own home, yes, you have the right, more or less, to do whatever you choose, within the confines of law. (I am going to avoid the entire issue of whether certain activities should be legal or not). In public, in a park or on the street, again, yes, you should be allowed to light up a cigarette, cigar, or hookah. A restaurant, however, is a private establishment. They are given the option to decide what goes on within their walls – the same idea as "no shirt, no shoes, no service." While it might not seem fair to allow one form of smoking over another, that is still their prerogative.

What about people that stink of body odor? People with bad breath? Farting is a privilege? Belching? While I wish these could be banned, especially on the subway which I have to ride every day, there is a distinct difference between bodily functions, which are often unconscious, and smoking, which involves a conscious decision. If me offending them by smoking can be banned, then people blowing off bullshit rhetoric… should be made illegal, too. Free speech is explicitly protected under the Constitution. Smoking, however, is not. You have the liberty to smoke...if people don't like it, they can move the other direction if I'm smoking. Walking down the street, yes, sitting at a table in a crowded restaurant, not so much. The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While this is certainly correct, it also applies to the people on the other side of the aisle. If happiness for another person involves not being smoked on, is it permissible for you to deny them their right? What it really comes down to at the most basic level is respect.

2. The same logic applies, in my opinion, if smoking isn't wanted in a particular business, so be it...they don't want your business. Exactly.

3. Before most of you were alive, smoking was permitted on airliners. Pipes and cigars haven't been permitted as long as I can remember. My father, a pipe smoker of 60+ years, would buy cigarettes when he flew. I wonder if the cigarette companies had any influence on those rules? More than likely – the tobacco lobby is quite powerful. I'm not sure, however, where this point fits in to your argument.

4. I agree, too, in principle, just not in this specific instance.

5. We smoke, there are a lot of instances where we can't smoke in public, perhaps appropriate, perhaps not… They shouldn't blanket-ban drinking in nightclubs and bars...but some of the anti-smoking ordinances in other states are absurd. I agree with you on this as well. I think the nanny-state is getting completely out of hand and that people need to exercise some personal responsibility (yes, I know that's a loaded term to be throwing around). Why is it people's right to have a smoke-free environment indoors? I agree on public property, but I don't believe the government has the right to come into a business or a home (which I view in the same light from a perspective of rights) and tell them what to do.

A simple question...why do people have some protection against being annoyed? It undermines the whole idea of liberty and freedom.

What it all really comes down to is the idea of a "social contract." According to Thomas Hobbes, in order to be able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to self-interest, we, as a society, must submit to a reasonable ideal of the group. If smoking a cigarette makes me happy, but annoys 20 other people sharing the same space, then, at least in my opinion, I shouldn't be doing it. According to your idea of liberty, we should be able to do whatever we want, whenever we want. John Locke, another philosopher, put this idea well, saying that "the natural condition of mankind is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one's interest." Obviously, deferring to the decision of the group isn't the most pleasing result to us as individuals, but it is the price we pay in order to function effectively as a society. The problem arises when we try to combine the concepts of freedom and liberty (the individual) with that of society. Jean-Jacques Rousseau maintains that by submitting our individual wills to the general will, created through an (implicit) agreement with other free and equal persons, we can live in an equilibrium state. The protection people have against "being annoyed," as you put it, is the agreement we make to enter in society, and which I would call respect. As members of society, that is one of our main responsibilities (see: The Golden Rule).

…Every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest… As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others (emphasis mine), society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion" – John Stuart Mill

Liberty is am exemplary concept, but if everyone did exactly what they wanted, there would only be chaos.

What we should avoid, and what I think you were getting at when you mentioned laws being passed against smoking, is what Alexis de Tocqueville calls the "tyranny of the majority." Personally, I don't think that the government has the right to tell me what I can eat, how I am allowed to have sex, what I can smoke, etc. My morals are my business. If, however, when not limited by law, a particular restaurant has, and should have, the ability to you may do X, but not Y on the premises.

Please, feel free to respond either here or via PM. I'm always up for educated discussion.

I had a brilliantly thought out and well worded reply to this written then I finished reading your post. I think you, me, and Sonthert are on the same page here...

In a nutshell you are saying that it was hooter's right to ban the hookah where they allow cigarettes and cigars, and that there should not be a law telling restaurant owners that they can not allow smoking on their premises. Am I mistaken?

PS I LOOOOOVE the fact that you are whipping out the philosophers!!

[KyDUDE]

I believe that it should be the Bar or Restaurant OWNERS choice to allow smoking or not! They could post a sign at the front door stating that they allow smoking inside.
Plenty of restraurant's ( mostly fast food) dont allow it but if you wanna go see a band in a bar you should be able to smoke!!

Ohio is trying to pass a law involving strip bars also. it is really absurd like that you cannot be within 6 ft of the stripper while she is nude.

I guess soon the state's name will be "NOHIO" hahaa