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 can easily find a large number of "scientific studies" that show that cigarettes are more dangerous than car exhaust. I can, just as easily, find a large number of studies that show that car exhaust is worse than cigarettes.
Quote:
And the no-smoking law is meant to prevent the spread of disease linked to secondhand smoke....The need is to protect the public's health.
So, if it's such a public hazard, why are cigarettes still being sold? It just seems ironic that the government wants to continue filling holes in their bloated budgets from the money that cigarettes bring in. However, they put up a farce of concern for health and ban the activity. Then they increase the taxes on it, yet again.
The only choice that pro-ban fans want is the "You can go outside" choice. Everyone is just inquiring on the choice of have designated "Non-Smoking Establishments" and "Smoking permitted establishments" - to which the public is notified upon entry. With Tax breaks for No-Smoking and extra taxes for allowing smoking, the free market will settle things pretty evenly.
A majority of council appears to be in a favor of allowing restaurant owners who can show they've been financially hurt by a ban the right to re-implement smoking sections.
Add: It almost gives business owners and patrons a choice in the matter. I will add that even though I don't smoke - when Norfolk passes the law, I won't go to Norfolk to eat out. I have the choice to drive down the street to a neighboring city and enjoy a meal at a Smoke-Free-By-CHOICE restaurant.
I can easily find a large number of "scientific studies" that show that cigarettes are more dangerous than car exhaust. I can, just as easily, find a large number of studies that show that car exhaust is worse than cigarettes.
Some are vaild studies. Others are pure junk science funded by the tobacco industry.
In any case, car exhaust is an outdoor activity, too.
Quote:
So, if it's such a public hazard, why are cigarettes still being sold? It just seems ironic that the government wants to continue filling holes in their bloated budgets from the money that cigarettes bring in. However, they put up a farce of concern for health and ban the activity. Then they increase the taxes on it, yet again.
1. The tobacco lobby is well funded.
2. Millions of smokers would become suicidal/homicidal. Look how upset they are over simply going outside for a smoke.
Quote:
The only choice that pro-ban fans want is the "You can go outside" choice. Everyone is just inquiring on the choice of have designated "Non-Smoking Establishments" and "Smoking permitted establishments" - to which the public is notified upon entry. With Tax breaks for No-Smoking and extra taxes for allowing smoking, the free market will settle things pretty evenly.
Add: It almost gives business owners and patrons a choice in the matter. I will add that even though I don't smoke - when Norfolk passes the law, I won't go to Norfolk to eat out. I have the choice to drive down the street to a neighboring city and enjoy a meal at a Smoke-Free-By-CHOICE restaurant.
I predict you'll have a diminishing pool of "acceptable" restaurants for you to practice your protest. The trend seems to be towards more no-smoking laws.
Some are vaild studies. Others are pure junk science funded by the tobacco industry.
I predict you'll have a diminishing pool of "acceptable" restaurants for you to practice your protest. The trend seems to be towards more no-smoking laws.
Some studies are funded by eco-friendly activists - do we call any study funded by an Interested Party to be "Junk Science"?
And for acceptable restaurants outside of a smoking ban area - at least around here... my choices are quite vast. A lot of restaurants here have chosen to go smoke free over being forced to.
And I would hope the trend would be towards a choice (and battle, if you will) between places that allow smoking and places that do not. This is happening in certain areas - and would continue to do so. With or Without a ban.
Bottom line is, it is not the government's decision to tell a business they can't allow it. Just wait, this WILL be challenged at some point in the future. Anybody who thinks it is should move to Cuba. Smoking is not illegal and in fact it is almost a given at most bars.
A local smoking ban went into effect here back in 2000. Restaurants and bars seem to be doing as well as ever. And the atmosphere is a whole lot better in those places these days. The bars all seem to have a patio area where the smokers can congregate. Usually with outdoor furniture and a roof. As a nonsmoker, I sure do enjoy seeing a game at a sportsbar or a live band at a club a lot more than I did in the 90's.
Bottom line is, it is not the government's decision to tell a business they can't allow it.
The government enforces loads of regulations concerning public health.
Quote:
Just wait, this WILL be challenged at some point in the future.
All controversial laws need to be tested.
Quote:
Anybody who thinks it is should move to Cuba.
Cuba happens to be a great place for smokers: cigars and what-not. Perhaps smokers should consider the exact move you've demanded.
Quote:
Smoking is not illegal and in fact it is almost a given at most bars.
It's not illegal. But it has been proven unhealthy and as a result it is now regulated. You can still light up. Just practice your habit in a manner that doesn't impact everyone around you. And that IS the law.
A local smoking ban went into effect here back in 2000. Restaurants and bars seem to be doing as well as ever. And the atmosphere is a whole lot better in those places these days. The bars all seem to have a patio area where the smokers can congregate. Usually with outdoor furniture and a roof. As a nonsmoker, I sure do enjoy seeing a game at a sportsbar or a live band at a club a lot more than I did in the 90's.
Of course businesses might see about the same (or more) business than before a ban goes into place. Smokers will still go out and enjoy themselves. Non-smokers will also go out and enjoy themselves. It just goes to show that just because you ban the activity indoors does not mean that it will stop smokers from enjoying life.
But again, I would like to see true free market competition between smoking and non-smoking establishments. That would be the true test of which scenario is more desired.
For example:
At the Oceanfront, there are many many bars to choose from. One of them is a non-smoking bar. The business owner never has a shortage of people - and the people that come in seem to stay longer (not many bar hoppers) than before he made the place smoke-free. According to him, a smoking ban might actually hurt him because the people would have more choices and might not stay as long.
According to him, his profits almost doubled when he chose to be smoke-free.
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.
I have the choice to drive down the street to a neighboring city and enjoy a meal at a Smoke-Free-By-CHOICE restaurant.
