No Smoking Law

Much like like the "no smoking law on the beaches of CA", it appears to me that Mexico didn't think this new law through. On TOB, there is a bunch of bitching about the Thirsty Turtle allowing people to smoke. Granted, I have no idea exactly what their setup is but if, they have open air seating I can see no problem with allowing people to smoke in those areas. I will admit that we were quite surprised that Bruno's was stretching the rule by allowing smoking in their quasi open air establishment. It only made sense that they cleaned up their act given the design of that particular establishment. I would be willing to bet at least $1USD that a majority of those taking a hard line are reformed smokers, who prefer to be on the top of the heap because they managed to quit. On our recent trip through Jalisco, Michoacan and Guanajuato, we experienced very different enforcement or interpretations of the law. I happen to believe that we go out of our way to be considerate to others but when a restaurant has a truly "open air area", then those of us that are foolish enough to continue with this bad habit should be allowed to indulge!

By the way, we don't smoke inside our home!

The fact is that smoking is restaurants in Mexico is no longer allowed, open air or not.

David wrote:The fact is that smoking is restaurants in Mexico is no longer allowed, open air or not.

You are correct. Bruno's is now Non smoking.

We met up with a member of MexConnect for breakfast at Lu's located in the Hotel Casino in Morelia. This location was a sidewalk restaurant:
[img][/img]

While I knew that the organizer was a smoker, it was apparent that the other three people that we met were not. When I felt the urge to smoke, I got up from the table and went out to the street to light up. The organizer of the meet came out to have a smoke with me and thanked me for being considerate to those who didn't smoke. Only natural for me but he mentioned a "no show" to the get together who would have sat at the table chain smoking without regard to the others. Sorry, that doesn't work for me!

I would be willing to bet at least $1USD that a majority of those taking a hard line are reformed smokers, who prefer to be on the top of the heap because they managed to quit.

CB.

That's was too sweeping an assumption. Some people never started, and just don't enjoy their food and drink in a smoky environment. There is no "top of the heap", since there is no heap.

Whether the law is enforced or not...........it is the law.

Some restaurants choose to ignore the law. Their problem, if they are fined. I can also choose to go elsewhere, and many do.

I don't think most restauranteurs want to take a chance on letting their customers smoke. The fine is $ 20,000. pesos.

As the OP, I should have been more clear in what I was trying to say! We have never avoided a restaurant either SOB or NOB because they did not allow smoking in some portion of their restaurant. Back when there were designated smoking sections, there was one side benefit to sitting in those areas: one rarely had to tolerate whining/misbehaved kids. To me, there seems to be some confusion regarding truly open air sections (ones without walls or canopies that tend to trap in smoke) of some restaurants. Bruno's was a good example of a structure which is technically open air but had restricted air movement. Smoking should have never been allowed there and it was good to see that the new managers listed to customers! A good example of just one experience we had was the El Patio in Tlaquepaque. They allow smoking on the patio portion, which is truly open air. Even there, we would not have smoked if there had been any tables nearby with patrons who obviously were not smokers.

As for my statement about the "born again" non smokers, they do often remind me of others from various born again groups! More power to those who never tried or picked up on a nasty habit.

LOL. I know whatcha mean about "born again" whatevers............the worst case ex-drinker I knew would get a "Cromwell" look on his face when the wine bottle was brought to the table!

...and then there was the ex-doper party gal who got religion and couldn't stop trying to "save" all her friends. Soon to be ex-friends.

Well I dunno about that "born-again" BS. I smoked for a brief time in my 20s and was fortunate to kick the habit. My luck. But that doesn't mean if I don't want to breathe your pollutants it is because of some holier than thou attitude.

I used to drink way too much in my youth. If others want to abuse alcohol I could care less (unless they drive). Unlike cigarette smoke, I don't have to ingest a drinker's byproduct. Start peeing on my leg or hurling on me and you'll have a big problem though.

Solovino wrote:Well I dunno about that "born-again" BS. I smoked for a brief time in my 20s and was fortunate to kick the habit. My luck. But that doesn't mean if I don't want to breathe your pollutants it is because of some holier than thou attitude.

Me too.

Solovino wrote:
If others want to abuse alcohol I could care less. Start peeing on my leg or hurling on me and you'll have a big problem though.

Yeah... I hate it when they do that!!

The "pee on your leg" type should be taken to the spay and neuter clinic.

ferret wrote:Consideration for others should always be a priority.

However, not just in regards to smoking in a public place...

There are those smokers who haven't gotten the message that: Smokers no longer have any rights! Get over it and get with the program.

CheenaGringo wrote:There are those smokers who haven't gotten the message that: Smokers no longer have any rights! Get over it and get with the program.

That's just not right...everyone has the right, albeit good or bad, to do what they want as long as they are prepared to pay the consequences.

You don't have the right to shit in the street. Don't see anyone complaining about that and that is a necessary bodily function. Smoking isn't prohibited. Just puff away in private. Like taking a dump.

That's some deep thoughts Solo............

No, not really. Smokers whine about losing their rights. Just ain't true. Non-smokers won the right to not have to breathe that crap.

Years ago, before all of the debate on smoker's rights, Steve Martin had a great line:

Person: Mind if I smoke?
Martin: No, not at all. Mind if I fart?

It isn't about losing rights! When a majority assumes a new status as a minority, what the hell can they expect? The problem is that the former majority cannot accept their change in status but the new majority has every right not to have to ingest the offshoot of a bad habit. Going back to my original poorly stated premise, smokers should be allowed to smoke in open areas where they are not infringing on the so-called clean air of others. For example, in the City Different (Santa Fe, NM), they have made it illegal to smoke within a 25 foot radius of the outside entrance to a public building, a business, a Government building, etc. But there is no law preventing the special (different) people pulling up to the curb and idling their car while waiting for their companion/partner to get done shopping. And who is breathing those exhaust fumes? And then when one goes to Trader Joes or Whole Foods to shop, one has to tolerate those very same special people talking on their cell phones in the aisles or having their strollers parked sideways. Whose rights are being infringed on with this behavior?

CheenaGringo wrote: And then when one goes to Trader Joes or Whole Foods to shop, one has to tolerate those very same special people talking on their cell phones in the aisles or having their strollers parked sideways. Whose rights are being infringed on with this behavior?

And exactly what kind of health hazard do those "inconveniences" present? I mean, WTF?

Not talking about "health hazard" but rather a "mental health hazard". As a smoker, I believe that I am damned considerate of others that don't have the nasty habit but I am sick of the "all about me generation" who have no consideration for others! Just a political statement and nothing more!

Ah, I remember the Me Me people at Trader Joes. The real winners were the ones who parked their giant vehicles in two parking spots, brought in their strollers, cell phones and blocked up the aisles, chatting on the phones.
The only health hazard was to the rest of the customers' blood pressure, however.
I can't say I miss 'em.

Ferret is right. It's all about being considerate of others, whether it's the law or not.

Gringal:

The funny thing was that the first New Mexico Trader Joes was opened in the City Different and then about nine months later the first Trader Joes opened in the "Yuppieville" section of the NE Heights of Albuquerque. It was immediately evident that the same "ME Me" generation were their standard customers. About a year later, another location opened and there was a night and day difference between the typical customer - more granolas but a much more considerate group!

Never understood why some people get upset when people talk on their cell phones in public places. What's the difference between that and talking to a person standing beside them. Same noise.