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.
I think it could depend on multiple factors. If a business is leasing a building, could the lessor ban smoking in that building for the tennants? What about neighboring businesses? Cigarette smoke can cause extensive damage to walls that could effect neighboring businesses. If I own a hat shop and a bar goes in next door and makes my store ( and consequently, my merchandise) smell like smoke should I have recourse if sales go down? I've seen nicotine from regular indoor smoking cause waxy substances in windows and walls that's very difficult to remove. If we share an a/c or air vent, am I going to be responsible to damages from my neighbor?
Should the bar be required to install some sort of high powers independent air circulation system? Whose expense should it be?
Personally, I dont care either way, but if I'm smoking, thatfreedom ends when it starts affecting other people.
COLUMBUS – The Supreme Court of Ohio today agreed to become the first state supreme court in the nation to determine whether a statewide smoking ban violates bar owners’ property rights. The Court also agreed to review whether the Ohio Department of Health has consistently exceeded its authority in fining business owners under the ban.
Nobody is forced to go to a bar. Unlike a hospital or school or other facility were people do not have the choice bars are purely optional. There are plenty of non-smoking establishments to accommodate those folks who do not smoke, therefore, it should be up to the owner of the establishment to determine whether or not the bar should cater to a smoking or non-smoking crowd.
Personally, I dont care either way, but if I'm smoking, thatfreedom ends when it starts affecting other people.
There are plenty of laws on the books that protect businesses from outside harm. We don't need a ban on smoking to double up on that protection.
You could say the same about sewage. Why should a hat shop lose customers because a shop next door let's their sewage leak and stink..... but we don't need another law banning sewage stink.
If smoking was as harmful as they make it out to be then the FDA would be allowed to regulate it or the Feds would make it illegal. But the Feds and states make too much tax revenue off cigarettes.
I believe smokers should have the right to smoke (although I never would), so long as they are not affecting anyone else. What they do NOT have the right to do is pollute the air others have to breathe with massive toxins and carcinogens. That is tantamount to assault, and over the long term (like if you live with a smoker who smokes in the home), assault with a deadly weapon.
COLUMBUS – The Supreme Court of Ohio today agreed to become the first state supreme court in the nation to determine whether a statewide smoking ban violates bar owners’ property rights. The Court also agreed to review whether the Ohio Department of Health has consistently exceeded its authority in fining business owners under the ban.
Nobody is forced to go to a bar. Unlike a hospital or school or other facility were people do not have the choice bars are purely optional. There are plenty of non-smoking establishments to accommodate those folks who do not smoke, therefore, it should be up to the owner of the establishment to determine whether or not the bar should cater to a smoking or non-smoking crowd.
20yrsinBranson
A well designed ventilation system would eliminate most of the smoke in bars but some would still complain about the smell.
Nobody is forced to go to a bar. Unlike a hospital or school or other facility were people do not have the choice bars are purely optional. There are plenty of non-smoking establishments to accommodate those folks who do not smoke, therefore, it should be up to the owner of the establishment to determine whether or not the bar should cater to a smoking or non-smoking crowd.
20yrsinBranson
While I agree with the result of your position, I have one objection.
" There are plenty of non-smoking establishments to accommodate those folks who do not smoke"
I don't agree with that premise. It isn't the fact that there may be such establishments available that are non-smoking, rather that there is the freedom of any individual to cater to that need if it is in demand.
That is, even if there was not a single non-smoking establishment available currently, the owner should be the one to determine what is allowed and those who desire a non-smoking establishment can become a business owner and stipulate that as a requirement for their business.
Either outlaw cigarettes altogether or allow it. This death by a million small bans thing is nothing more than an infringment on property rights. Why do we continue to allow cigarette smoking? Revenue. Oh and look how Prohibition worked out for organized crime; it was a windfall.
Freedom is not easy and that includes property rights. You want your local haunt to not allow smoking, then you should lobby the owner and exercise your preference through your wallet and encourage others to do the same. Having government ban something that you dislike is asking government to overstep their bounds. Enough.
If you genuinely think cigarettes are pure harm and serve no purpose, then lobby to have cigarettes outlawed completely but as I said before, that's pretty darn unlikely. Government is not there to support your personal cause; stop trying to use it to do so.
Government can permit or forbid businesses from having alcohol consumption on its grounds. Why is smoking any different?
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.