klepto

Perhaps this is just my aggressive libertarian politics rearing their ugly head, but just what in the hell is going on? 71% of America is living under some kind of smoking ban. I can completely understand a smoking ban in a public place, like a capitol, or an airport. But I REALLY struggle with how the government has the authority to tell a business owner that he cannot allow his customers to smoke IN HIS OWN BAR OR RESTAURANT. Since when did bars and restaurants become immutably public places? Don't like the smoke at a particular restaurant? don't eat there. It's such a gross infringement on business rights it really makes my head spin. If it didn't have such a definable negative effect on the economic success of certain business, I wouldn't have such a problem. And there's enough holier-than-thou non-smokers out there to drown out the few and far between calls for sanity regarding this issue. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

__________________
"I don't do drugs, I am drugs." - Salvador Dali

Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. -
Aldous Huxley

Kushy

Eh, I can understand it. I go to a restaurant to get my own food, not to smell someone elses smoke. If the smokers want to smoke, go somewhere outside or ventilated or in your own home.. And the owners of business would actually probably prefer no smoking on their property because smoking might drive away customers

__________________
We got a black president before weeds legal
In my mind, and my time, that shits unbelievable!
I love Obama, I love all people
I just can't believe that a plant's not legal
KMK

klepto

that's just the point though. It shouldn't be up to us. It should be up to each individual business owner to make a decision based on what he thinks is best for his business. If it's a privately owned business, it isn't the job of the business owner to cater his restaurant exactly how you want, it's his job to cater to the largest group of people possible. If that includes smokers, great. If not, that's cool too. However, it should not be up to the government. (In fact, now that I think about it, a restaurant owner should be able to cater to however many people he damn well pleases, be it a club of 15 people or 15,000.) Free market economy my ass.

024

Smoking isn't as acceptable as it was back in the 60's, and for a good reason, it can kill you. I do smoke on occasion aswell but I feel its the right thing to do, smoking outside is better for everyone.

troublemaker_42

AS a former smoker, I was considerate to always ask those I was aorund if they minded me lighting up. I had no issues going outside or moving to another area if I was offending someone. If all tobacco smokers took others into consideration, and showed a little restraint if they knew they were bothering someone else, this wouldn't have become the issue it has. However, tobacco smokers bascially forced such bans into effect by not being the least bit curteous or considerate of their fellow man. As a reformed tobacco smoker, nothing pisses me off more than getting a faceful of smoke from someone who couldn't even be bothered to blow their smoke in another direction. Why should I be the one required to leave when my air is being poisoned? Its not that hard to step outside for a few puffs, and if more smokers had done it on a volunatary basis previously, it wouldn't have gotten to the extremes of today. Our basic freedoms are not without limitation. When someone's "right" to smoke start infringing on the rights of other people to be smoke-free and healthy, that right is no longer absolute.

klepto

I agree with your statement that smokers' inconsideration largely brought the ban upon themselves. As a smoker, I always step outside to smoke. Besides simply being the right thing to do, the social stigma attached to smoking anymore is pretty harsh. BECAUSE of this social stigma, most restaurants would have implemented a smoking ban by now anyway, because that's what the customer wants. But in certain situations a large portion of the clientele happen to be smokers, who are then put out by the smoking ban. I simply fail to see how your right to breathe clean air while voluntarily patronizing a business supersedes a business owner's right to control the environment of his private business, as well as a smoker's right to patronize that business as well. You're not forced to be there. In fact, you're PAYING to be there. I would say an argument from an employee's health rights would be more valid than that. Even though that argument is fairly shaky also; construction work is pretty dangerous too. certain jobs are dangerous. A ban in public places, i completely understand. Walmart? yes. the DMV? yup. Outdoor public parks? I can even understand THIS one. It's when they start legislating this far into business and personal rights that things start going down a slippery slope. Can I smoke in my car? Can i smoke on my own damn porch? not in some cities.

troublemaker_42

I see wheere you're coming from, but the construction comparison is way off-base, IMO. Construction is dangerous by nature, but most companies take every precaution to protect their employees...hard hats anyone? OSHA? Some jobs are dangerous by nature, but smoking is a factor that can be controlled or even eliminated by the employer if they choose to do so. The fact it CAN be controlled, but ISN'T is what gives the employee rights' argument merit. Vegas is seeing this happen as we speak....more modern casinoes are implemnting technology that greatly reduces the employees exposure to smoke, as well as casino patrons. Older casinos don't have such technology, and it shows the second you enter. Compare the Venetian or Mandaly Bay to Imperial Palace or most tof the downtown casinoes, and you'll see what I mean instantly. The older properties are predicted to face a slew of lawsuits from employees regqarding working conditions, since the technology is availble but not being utilized by some places.

Again, arrogent, rude smokers (not saying all are this way, of course) brought this upon themselves, and had they shown some restraint, chances are this wouldn't be the issue it is. Sometimes when we do things that are ALLOWED, but somewhat frowned upon..."BECAUSE WE CAN, DAMMIT"....we're shooting ourselves in the foot. in the long run.

Texas Toker

I DON'T go eat at one restaurant here in Denton BECAUSE they don't allow smoking. So it works both ways. Now admittedly there are more non-smokers than smokers.Ya this argument is one that chaps my libertarian ass too.

__________________


The problem with Socialism is Socialism.The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists--William F. Buckley

Charley

the town one over from where i live enacted a smoking ban. out of the 15 bars/taverns (theres a difference) ten of them closed down with in 6 months of the ban because most of there customers now go to the bars in my town so they can smoke.

if you don't like the smell of smoke then maybe you should be the one to stay home. cuss this attitude of I don't like what your doing so you should stop is spreading like a wildfire and correct me if im wrong but didn't we experience this sorta thing at least twice before? I believe it lead to two separate prohibitions. at least one of which you don't agree with or you would not be on these forums.

I mean no disrespect to you only making a point. when the few try to limit the rights of the many we all lose freedom.



*EDIT*
I also wanted to add this as well I am a very active hookah smoker and im a member of a forum for hookah smokers every day I hear about my friends having to close down there lounges because there city passed smoking bans putting them out of work putting there employees out of work. and these are places specifically designed for smokers to go to relax and bond with other smokers. all because ppl with this attitude don't like smoke.

in fact the admin on that forum is fighting a smoking ban that will go into effect next year that will force him to shut the doors to his place of business along with 20 or so other lounges putting well over 100-150 ppl out of work all together.

troublemaker_42

No one is prohibiting cigarettes. its unfair to compare this to alcohol or marijuana prohibition, because no one is advocating banning tobacco, only restricting its use from certain areas. I dunno about you, but if weed was legalized, I'd be ok with some restrictions as to where I could or couldn't smoke it. its a compromise I'd definitely be able to live with. How about this? Hookah lounges, and cigar/smoke shops (shops specifically catering TO smokers, not attracting a non-smoking clientele) should be exempt from such bans. Other businesses would be smoke-free. is that fair? Is that a compromise we can live with? Smokers, IMO, should be willing to conceded certain things, otherwise, instead of restrictions, outright bans may come about. I don't want to see that happen, but I'm sick of not being able to go for a night on the town, or to gamble a few bucks, without seeing like the marlboro man when I get home. Even as a smoker, I was OK with being asked to go outside. I don't believe my right to smoke supersedes my neighbor's right to toxin-free air.