news-record.com

BLOGS

Thinking Out Loud

Who let the dogs (and cats) in?

The state did. It has devised new rules for restaurants that allow dogs and cats to sit with their owners in outside dining areas.

There are some people, of course (including my spouse), who consider animals near the dinner table unacceptable under any circumstances.

But the best news is the restaurants will have a choice.

And customers will have a choice of which establishments to patronize based on their policies.

Permalink

Posted by Allen Johnson on Friday, August 27, 2010 at 10:42 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Elmer

August 27, 2010 - 11:30 am EDT

Makes sense to me. If one finds animals lounging about restaurant patios offensive, they damn sure don't have to patronize those places. Of course, I also felt the same way about restaurants that allowed cigarettes.

retiree

August 28, 2010 - 3:43 am EDT

Allen,

I agree with Elmer but wonder if your logic on restaurants having the choice should also apply to smoking? While I'm not a smoker I believe it should be the restaurant owner's choice as well and our choice to patronize them.

Our country is rapidly becoming a nanny state with so many laws on what you can and can't do, what you can and can't say, etc. What ever happened to individual liberty and freedom, and also common sense?

Panacea

August 28, 2010 - 9:51 am EDT

Apples and oranges.

First of all, the health risks of second hand smoke are well documented. Smokers don't have the right to endanger my health. This isn't being a nanny state; it's the government protecting MY rights from obnoxious, self centered jerks who consider their addiction to be more important than the health and welfare of their neighbors.

Secondly, dogs and cats aren't being allowed indoors . . . which is a good thing for other customers who may have allergies. Outdoors will allow a separation.

Personally, I would never bring my cats to a restaurant. They would hate being on a leash, and one in particular is afraid of most other people . . . being in public would be a great stressor for her. Most cats don't want to travel with their owners; they want to be in their own territory where they feel safe.

Dogs are a bit more gregarious, and might prefer being with the pack. But it is so difficult to take a dog to most places, and dangerous to leave the dog in a car (especially in summer, but winter is just as bad) that again, I simply would prefer to leave a dog at home.

Service dogs are a different story; they can go anywhere, and are working dogs.

Allen Johnson

August 28, 2010 - 2:24 pm EDT

The bottom line: Dogs shouldn't pose a health hazard. Second-hand smoke definitely does.

overtaxed

August 31, 2010 - 9:08 pm EDT

First of all I am glad I can enjoy a meal or a drink without the haze of second hand smoke. However I must say that those who use the claim that" exposure to second hand smoke is a health hazard" to justify government enforced smoking bans, are no different than those who use unproven data about man made global warming.

http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html

Panacea

September 2, 2010 - 9:17 am EDT

The CDC and many research studies by medical professional on second hand smoke have secured the consensus of the scientific community that second hand smoke is dangerous.

The consensus of climate scientists is that our climate is changing, and that man is the reason why. The data is proven; saying it is unproven doesn't make it so.

Your link is to an advocacy group with the open agenda of discrediting the scientific community. They are a political group, not a scientific group. Their conclusions are not part of the scientific dialogue taking place; they are producing no new studies that convince any physician or medical researcher that conclusions about second hand smoke are wrong.

In effect, you link to a group that is all "smoke and mirrors."

retiree

September 6, 2010 - 1:26 pm EDT

Do you think all scientists are free of political agendas? If so, there is some beach property in Nebrasks you can get on the cheap. And many of those noted professional scientists were proven to have political biases and were caught cooking the results of their analyses in order to solidfy their agendas.

You used the words "consensus" and "scientific community" as is those who disagree with you on global warming and second-hand smoke were not reputable. There is a wide divergency of opinion by reputable scientists about the global warming issue, and to refuse to consider their arguments is not rational according to the scientific method.

Sawdust

August 28, 2010 - 11:54 am EDT

I'd rather share a dining area with a leashed dog than with a screaming child.

Allen Johnson

August 28, 2010 - 2:19 pm EDT

So would I. Provided the dog is well-behaved.

Elmer

August 28, 2010 - 10:43 pm EDT

I agree Allen, better a well behaved dog than an ill behaved child, (or adult, for that matter.)

Froggie

August 31, 2010 - 11:04 am EDT

What about people that are allergic to cats or dogs. Shouldn't the state protect us just as the state protected us against tobacco. The owner should not have this right any more than owners have the right to declare their establishment smoker friendly. This is apples to apples.

Allen Johnson

August 31, 2010 - 1:46 pm EDT

They could request not to be seated near the dog or cat. Or they could eat inside. Or they could choose to eat somewhere else. I had the same dilemma when restaurants allowed smoking in outside dining areas.

Froggie

September 1, 2010 - 1:46 pm EDT

Yes, non smokers did have that issue and that issue has been resolved by state law. Why should people allergic to animals be any different than non smokers not wanting to be around smokers? Why should folks with animal allergies have to choose to eat somewhere else or eat inside, etc. Why accommodate some and not others? A health issue is a health issue and one person's health issue shouldn't be more important than anothers. I am of the position that owners should be able to operate their establishment without government intervention. But, that is no longer the case in NC when the state decided that owners could not allow smoking. Please respond back. Thanks!

Allen Johnson

September 1, 2010 - 1:59 pm EDT

You have a valid point about choice. I still submit that the health hazard posed by dogs and cats is negligible (allergies) when compared to the potential ravages of secondhand smoke (lung disease, heart disease). It's also much more easily managed than cigarette smoke, which was impossible in many situations to physically contain.

Panacea

September 2, 2010 - 9:20 am EDT

It is fairly simple.

On the face of it, your point has some merit.

However, bear in mind that for people with allergies, they must face the potential of running into allergens where ever they go. Unless they live in a plastic bubble, they cannot avoid them forever. People who are so severely allergic that their lives are in danger from the specific allergen should always carry an epi-pen with them.

For those with milder allergies, the allergic reaction is an annoyance, is avoidable, and carries less risk of long term health problems, and is something they risk whenever they leave their homes. You don't get cancer from allergies. The risks are outweighed by the benefits to the greater community, and that's why this law was passed.

Froggie

September 2, 2010 - 10:20 am EDT

Thank you both for your comments. Allergies can be life threatening. There are a lot of people that suffer from pet allergies. Just because you can't smell it like smoke, pet dander is airborne and impacts a number of people. People that suffer from such allergies are not as vocal, or as well-known, as those opposed to tobacco smoke - because until now it hasn't become a public issue. When visiting friends I always ask about pets so as to not come in contact. However, I believe it is my right to eat in public and not have dander swarming in close proximity just as non smokers should have the right to eat in public and not have to be subject to tobacco smoke. It is for the greater good - it just that the greater good may not be as well known as those opposed to tobacco smoke. I just wish those that are opposed to tobacco would be more supportive of other types of public health issues. I mean really, is it that important to take you pet to a restaurant? To serve the greater good, couldn't you just leave your pet at home?

Thank you again!

Panacea

September 2, 2010 - 12:26 pm EDT

Your point of view is understandable, and I'm not saying I disagree with it in whole.

By and large, I don't think people should bring their pets with them every where they go. It's really not good for the animal, who usually prefers to stay at home in their own territory where they feel safe.

Froggie

September 2, 2010 - 1:35 pm EDT

Thanks Pan. We are an unheard of group. When I go to the movies, bowling, grocery store, Macy's etc., I never encounter dogs and cats in close proximity. Until now there hasn't been a reason for people with such allergies to complain. But to sit next to one of these fabulous animals - really, they are adorable and loveable creatures - wouild cause great distress. Its a concern for many and I would just like to see the issue receive the same level of importance as tobacco.