Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't competition what this capitalist country was based on?
Furthermore, if a business that permits smoking is going to get more patrons and do more business; doesn't that tell you something about where the majority of people lean on this topic?
So basically you want to cheat in order to accomplish your goal, because you fear it would be a lobsided majority advantage towards places that permit smoking.
Which is an absolute violation and infringement of the rights of business owners and smokers. But that's okay, you know what's best for us all.
Please tell us all what should banned next, for the good of us all.
I say we ban all fatty cakes, cheese-covered nachos, cheese-dripping bacon cheesburgers, massive multiple cheese pizzas, greasy deep fried chicken, fat dripping red meat, cupcakes....and every cholesterol-ridden.....Monosaturated....artery-clogging food that's out there.
Afterall, I'm highly concerned about your health (and mine) and your over-indulgence in such dangerous foods; causes me severe concerns and emotional stress.
Furthermore, I want to ban every corporation and automobile that spits out dangerous, filthy and life-threatening pollution into my air, water and soil!!!!
Get 'er done!!!
Wow totally take my quote out of context. As I was saying, I prefer to have it be state wide than city wide. It allows the companies in the state compete on an even level. I have been in business for a long time, and competition is good. But most bars know that if you don't allow smoking you may lose business (or gain others), so at this point, you have eliminated that option. Good or bad.. it is just a fact.
I again, wonder if people are against this only because they don't want the gov't sticking their nose in our lives or if they are really against the ban itself.
I love the anologies to meat. You may not need meat to survive, but it sure helps. Smoking has no benefits to anyone, which is why it's regulated as it is. Smoking does encroach on others lives. And I think the majority of the people are for the ban, maybe not the gov't making the ban, but would prefer more options without the smoke. So if the business's regulated themselves, maybe not so much of an uproar. The people are represented in this state and the state gov't believes this is what people want. If enough people said no, it wouldn't pass.
I can't understand why people who think they are of average or above average intelligence, can't wrap their brains around the following concept and solution:
Let businesses make the choice themselves.
One business does not permit smoking. So that's where you non-smokers go.
Another business does permit smoking. That's where I and my smoking buddies go.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the above tramples upon anyone's rights.
Someone ......anyone...explain that to me!!! Show me how that infringes on your rights and how you end up with secondary smoke!
So tell me, why would there have to be a ban with the solution I provided up above?
I've asked this question at least three times. Please explain why we would have to go to extremes and ban it all together. How would you or any non-smoker have their rights violated by this solution?
Such a simple concept.
Because your solution is not a real solution. Sounds more like segregating people. just not by skin color or sexual orientation etc. but now by preference of smoking or not.
Why can't everybody just have the ability to patronize the same places regardless of preference..
Your solution means that; if, for example, there is only one restaurant of its kind available in the city, I, or other non smokers, will never be able to patronize this establishment because of a smoker not having the courtesy to smoke outside.. the smoker is now infringing upon my freedom to choose.
However, the smoker will always have a choice of each and every single establishment since they can CHOOSE not to smoke for an hour orso while having dinner at a non-smoking restaurant..
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,670,113 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssd3
I would like to take a poll to see if the people here in the Charlotte area support the smoking ban or not. In my poll I would like you to answer a few questions.
1) do you support it?
2) are you a smoker or non smoker?
3) are you a transplant or native and from where?
Feel free to add any other questions
I don't support the smoking ban here or in any other state.
I am a smoker
transplant from South Jersey
The decisions should be up to the businesses. I actually prefer no smoking in a work environment but it should be up to the company.
This is similar to Prohibition on a state by state basis, instead of being federal. That went well, didn't it?
Let's face it, businesses are out to make money. Period. Unless they are required to, they could not care less if the place was one big smoke cloud, as long as the $$$ come in.
Businesses are NOT going to make the choice. They don't want to risk alienating people (and, thus $$$).
By designating certain restaurants as "smoking" or "non smoking"; well, that is stupid, too. What if I don't like what is served at the "non smoking" restaurant? What if my companions are evenly divided between smokers/and non-smokers? Do we have to split up?
My right to be able to breathe is protected by the constitution. Your right to smoke is yours, too. However, when your right to smoke gives me an asthma attack, something is wrong here...I think it is called simply respecting others more than yourself.
It has been suggested that non-smokers do not necessarily have the right to eat out. That is a bit ludicrous, don't you think? Because I literally choose to breathe, I cannot eat out lest I offend someone who is oblivious to the health concerns of others? Somehow...
And, finally, I am not a crazy person over this issue. I just think that being able to breathe places will be such a fantastic change!! I have been in restaurants where the smoking section sort of wafted over to me in the non-smoking section; I have not made a fuss even though the smoke was making me physically ill. I also do not like air conditioning; I am allergic to the mold that all A/C s give off. So, I choose to sit outside whenever possible at a restaurant. However, in doing so, I often am around smokers. I don't say anything (after all, I am in THEIR territory! ) just finish my meal or get it boxed up and leave.
But but but . . . if a bar is full of smoke and you don't want to be around smoke . . . why would you care? I mean, you would choose not to go there, right?
Businesses are established b/c the owner wishes to make money. If more people hated the place than liked it, the owner then has to either 1. change the rules or 2. go out of business. But if the owner is making money, then he has gotten his mix of business right.
Tanning salons are all over. I personally think tanning beds contribute to cancer, but I like to look tanned. Am I forced to go to a tanning bed? Nope. I can go get a spray on tan. Or, I can choose to do nothing. No one forces me to get in a tanning bed but I decide that since it is not convenient for me to drive five more miles to go get a spray on tan, I would like for a reg to be passed requiring all tanning salons w/ beds to also offer spray on tans. After all, tanning beds (I believe) cause cancer. The owner of the tanning bed salon is incensed; why should he have to provide spray on tans just b/c I decided his place of business didn't provide me w/ what I wanted? Yet, a law was passed saying that even tho the owner had decided on his own business model - and by doing so - appealed to a certain group of people who did NOT care whether or not tanning beds caused cancer . . . now the business owner has to spend more $$$ to accommodate people who DO think tanning beds cause cancer.
Now, that would be ridiculous. The people who didn't want to use tanning beds had a choice - go somewhere that offered something different. Yet, b/c that was not convenient for me, I made sure the business owner had to meet MY demands.
People determine whether or not a business will survive and thrive by their patronage. If people who don't like smoking in restaurants want to go somewhere that doesn't allow smoking, they have that choice. But the business owner should not be told that he/she has to change his/her business model b/c potential patrons don't like the present business model.
It just doesn't make sense to me why people feel they have the right to dictate how a business owner does business by imposing laws. Our patronage - or lack of patronage - determines whether someone stays in business.
Location: Some got six month some got one solid. But me and my buddies all got lifetime here
4,555 posts, read 10,404,562 times
Reputation: 2162
Quote:
Originally Posted by amploud
I do not see any conflict between Libertarian views and smoking bans any more than I see a conflict between Libertarian views and Drunk Driving laws.
There's a huge conflict:
I make a choice to walk into a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. I know before I walk through that door that I'm making a personal decision to patronize such an establishment. Automatically I'm personally assuming the risk, especially knowing that I have a choice to just not walk in. I have no idea who I'm getting on the road with.
And you say this: A person having to choose activities because of smokers has been wronged.
No, it's not because of smokers, it's because of the establishment that allowed smoking in the first place. If you went up to a smoker who lit up in a place that allowed it and told them to put it out, the response would most likely (and appropriately) be, "Take it up with the owner". Going directly to the smoker in that case would be barking up the wrong tree. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a state law anywhere that says if you open a bar or restaurant that you MUST allow smoking. Being a non-smoker I have two choices: put up with it or find another place that doesn't allow it. This really doesn't get any easier.
chicagocubs: I'm with you as far as your health issues. Both my parents are big time smokers and I've been dealing with the effects for years. At times I need an inhaler as it can get difficult to breathe for almost no reason, jogging/exercising/a lot of physical activity gets difficult quickly and my breathing recovery time takes much longer than a lot of other people. My lungs are definitely compromised. The difference is that you and I didn't have a choice as to who to live with back then. We have a choice as to where to eat or drink.
Like the reaction towards the many sin taxes levied on this stuff I think some people here see this ban mostly as an appropriate punishment towards smokers.
Indoor places yes I support it. Outdoor places no and I am a non-smoker. However I dont really think its fair to decide when the workers have to breath the smoke daily till they find something else (if they do).
I do not see it as a punishment towards smokers but instead a protection of health of others.
Let's face it, businesses are out to make money. Period. Unless they are required to, they could not care less if the place was one big smoke cloud, as long as the $$$ come in.
There are already LOTS of restaurants that are non-smoking, so I don't know what you are even talking about here.
Then people whine, "Oh but I wanna be able to go here or there too!". Well, maybe you should've bought that establishment then you could make the rules? But no. You'd rather have legislation force the hands of business owners to criminalize a perfectly legal product on their private property. And it IS private property.
They didn't have to apply for a position in an establishment that allows smoking as well. That was their personal decision.
Totally wrong, especially in today's economy. One may not have a choice in employment these days.
A person should not be forced to choose between being employed and their health and well-being. This has been the opinion of the courts in most cases. As a result, virtually every chemical in the workplace is regulated by OSHA. It's required by law that the MSDS for each chemical is kept on site for employee review. Safe exposure PPM levels, personal protective equipment, and handling instructions are mandatory and required by law for many chemicals far less toxic than cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke has gotten a free pass for too long. It is perfectly reasonable to restrict or eliminate it in anyone's workplace based on well documented, proven health impacts.
Also, if it is the "private business owner's choice" to allow smoking, it will be the "private business owner's employee's choice" to sue for damages, unsafe working conditions, etc.
If smoking was totally safe, my arguments would not be worth typing. Knowing what we now know about smoking, it completely boggles my mind that intelligent people will argue for the side of the smoker.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) just finish my meal or get it boxed up and leave.
