On Sept. 14, my wife and I celebrated a notable event with dinner at one of Upper Saint Clair's loveliest and finest restaurants, a place which offers al fresco dining by a stream. It was an ideal night for outdoor dining, which is what we requested.
The weather was perfect and the setting peaceful, relaxing, and intimate until to our surprise, it was ruined by an individual at the next table (within four feet of us) who lit the first of several cigarettes she would enjoy throughout the evening.
I wondered if this inconsiderate person could have been acted without the consent of the restaurant in smoking, but then saw that she had a large ashtray which was obviously provided by the establishment, sanctioning the ability to smoke.
I know that this facility is co-owned by an individual who has a full-time position in the respiratory therapy field, which causes him to be intimately familiar with those who have committed slow suicide through smoking, destroying their lungs. I was incredulous that this restaurant, of all places, would be stuck in a bygone era, in which we failed to recognize the harm that cigarettes and secondhand smoke do to others.
I find it difficult to believe that in 2012, someone would have the audacity to smoke while essentially sitting next to diners whom it would be reasonable to conclude do not welcome the intrusion, but my primary beef is with the restaurant, which not only accommodates smokers over non-smokers outdoors, but which did not even warn us that sitting there could subject us to the rude and self-absorbed individual.
We quickly approached the hostess to request an inside table, and she was gracious, understanding, and apologetic. A distinguished couple that then was dining indoors next to us and which had seen us outside asked if we came in due to the cool temperature. We explained the situation, and they joined in our disgust over the unfairness of the outdoor area of the restaurant being devoted to the one smoker who had no compunction about ruining it for everyone else.
Close to 40,000 people that attend Pirates games at PNC Park when the event is sold out, a number which surely includes thousands of smokers, are somehow able to avoid indulging at least until they leave the ballpark, but our dining neighbor could not refrain for ninety minutes in consideration of others.
I hope the smoker and her party enjoyed their evening at the restaurant. At this establishment, she and her nicotine addiction come first; the heck with every other diner that did not wish to have a main course of first class carcinogen with their mushroom risotto and breaded zucchini.
As one with Libertarian underpinnings, I believe that an adult should generally have the ability to do whatever he or she wishes so long as their action does not have a detrimental effect on others. If one wishes to destroy their life and the lives of those who love them through smoking, go right ahead, but display a modicum of good manners and courtesy and leave me out of it, especially while I am eating.
I wonder how many readers of this article believe that state legislation which rendered most public places smoke-free should be repealed, that we should return to the era in which we were subjected to smoke-filled restaurants, offices, and retail establishments. I suspect that the number of individuals who would increase the prevalence of smoking in public facilities is infinitesimal.
At this restaurant, the doctrine of caveat emptor (which in this case, translates to "let the diner beware") should be kept in the forefront of one's mind.
Our friend here is one who seeks to be offended. Folks like the poster scour restaurants for smokers, stalk convenience stores for those people drinking sodas they feel are too large or scan public property for nativity displays just so they have something to rail against. @Allison K – You’re right, the poster has every right to express their opinion. The right to express that opinion is no right of acceptance of that opinion. It appears many here feel the poster was a little over sensitive and maybe a tad self important. I happen to agree. That’s the risk you run when you make your opinion public.
If you don't want to be around smoking then you can either eat inside, request a outside table that is away from the majority of smokers, or make a "to go" order and take it to a park. In other words, if you don't like something then personally choose not to go around it. For example, if you are deathly afraid of bats then don't walk into a cave. Also, if you don't want to burn your hand then don't hold it over a fire. It's pretty plain and simple! However, you don't need to complain to the world...it's your own personal choice and other people do not need to be dragged into it.
I am so sorry that you received that letter, I am embarrassed for and by society so many times. It was totally wrong and does not represent the opinions of the vast majority of society. Honestly, it disgusts me. Have we learned nothing from the Japenese interntment camps during WWII? I will be bold and speak for every commentor here and offer an apology for some fools actions.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/clean_indoor_air/14187
You would have also noted that it defines a “drinking establishment” as a place that does not admit those who are under 18 years of age, not all public places or workplaces. If you’re going to bloviate, at least do it with some semblance of credibility.
The fact is YOU find smoking “unacceptable” and because it bothers YOUR delicate sensibilities, YOU would deny all citizens the ability to smoke. YOU can avoid smoking just as I can avoid the filthy habit. The difference is I’m not demanding people change their lives because I find the habit filthy. Your analogy to slavery is insulting and your reference to the failed Equal Rights Amendment is just bizarre.
Anyway, why should non-smokers endure someone else's smoke while eating dinner? Why should a server put up with second hand smoke? Let smokers go outside to the parking lot or sidewalk if they can't go for 90 minutes without a cigarette.
Further to your point regarding a separate entrance, the legislation actually states, “is a physically connected or directly adjacent ENCLOSED AREA which is separate from the eating area, has a separate air system and has a separate outside entrance.” [emphasis mine] Additionally, the only parts of the legislation that mention those under the age of 18 are the definition of “drinking establishment” and a place where a fundraiser is conducted. A “drinking establishment” is defined as a place where on-premises food sales are less than or equal to 20% of total revenue. This is not the definition of a restaurant. The legislation makes no mention of patios. A helpful hint would be to read the legislation before bloviating. As to your questions, you’re not forced to eat there, no one is forced to work there and the person smoking was outside.
The OP was expressing his opinion, but in this case it is pretty darn egocentric to sit in a smoking section of a restaurant and then complain that someone was smoking. It does not matter what his opinion is of smokers, meat eaters, shell fish eaters, or the color of the sky if the basis of the arguement is incorrect or inaccurate It is a smoking section, people smoke in a smoking section, if the smoke bothers you do not sit in the smoking section. Its a very simple concept. I've said, I don't smoke cigarettes, but if they bothered me I sure would not sit in a smoking section then proceed to castigate smokers and preach about it.