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.
What do you all think of banning smoking in restaurants and other public places? Many states are doing this now.
Here is my take on it. "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool."
Never heard that analogy but it's spot on! Smoking is banned in bars and restaurants here in Colorado and I love it. I was in Missouri recently and was shocked that people were smoking in a restaurant. Seemed as odd as somebody walking over the the corner and peeing on the floor.
It's cut and dry... you are infringing upon the liberties of private property owners. It's irrelevant that you are doing it through laws, those laws are infringing upon our liberty.
How hard it is to smoke outside is irrelevant. You are dictating to a private property owner what they may do on their property when people are given the choice to visit or not visit... not a single person is forced to enter that business and subject themselves to the rules of the establishment.
Defining the infringment of liberty based upon how easy it is to "just go outside" is the crux of the issue. It proves that you don't understand whose liberty is being infringed upon... it's not the smoker, it's the property owner.
I suppose cleanliness standards and laws for restaurants also infringe upon the rights of restaurant owners
I suppose cleanliness standards and laws for restaurants also infringe upon the rights of restaurant owners
These laws are necessary because they are covert actions that cannot be evaluated by the potential customer. Smoking can be seen and a decision made as to whether or not to enter the establishment.
Originally Posted by What! It is the small bars and restaurants that cater to the working class that are most often damaged by smoking bans and it is not a total collapse of the restaurant industry that anyone is arguing about, I haven't seen anyone here claim that, it is that many small bars and restaurants (which have a hard enough time surviving as it is) which often cater to smokers still less food and alcohol because their customers don't like to sit around as much as they do when they can smoke. Also, a lot places that have cover charges and bowling alleys (which often do not let customers outside because of the rented shoes and have a primarily working class customer base) also suffer because they can't let their customers smoke and if they leave, they have to pay again, so smokers (20-35% of the population, depending on state) often avoid them. Also a lot of people complain now that smoking has been banned inside the bars and clubs, that the parties end up continuing out on the streets and it leaves the bars less lively than they were before (not to mention annoying people who live nearby).
Those bars and restaurants having problem with the ban is their own fault. I repeat: it is their own fault. Businesses face new regulations over the course of years and have to abide by the rules. Part of being a business owner is being able to keep pace with the times. Business owners should always try to expand your businesses and attract new customers daily. If they can't then that is their fault. The fact that their customers go to their bars to smoke and they don't go their for the food, recreational activities (like dart and pool), beer, live entertainment, etc. is their own fault. Why can't these businesses find other ways to attract customers? They don't even make a profit off cigarette sales, thus, it shouldn't be a big deal. They need to start making a profit off the items they sell.
And that whole cover charge complaint is bogus. Whenever I go to places that offer a cover charge they stamp your wrists or give you a wristband so you can get right back in. Why can't these bowling alleys do the same thing? Also, if people want to play on the streets that's their business, as long as they do it in an orderly fashion. Business owners need to find a way to attract people into their business other than allowing smoking.
Your point is what? Yes, we know what the law says and there have been previous "That is all" laws before and there are proposed laws (usually in California) that also talk about banning all smoking in parks, streets, and all residences that are not owner occupied single family homes. More than a few smoking bans also go after cigar bars, going after a business entirely devoted to smoking. It's not a slippery slope when every smoking from "smoking and non-smoking sections in airplanes" to "no smoking on airplanes" to "smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants" to "no smoking in restaurants" to "no smoking in bars" and now in a few small cities in California "no smoking anywhere but your own house" are or were all "That is all" laws.
I can't defend California at all. That state is a pretty messed up place. Whatever those loons do is something they think is right.
It is about more than that. I live in a place where it is in the 60s during the winter, so let's just say that smoking bans really don't effect me all that much and I can deal with smoking outside just fine. Guess what? I don't even smoke in my own house, if I want a cigarette, even late at night, I step outside to do it. What I oppose is this general "I don't like it and you can't do it any place I might want to be" attitude, it is a very authoritarian and ultimately very immature view. If you claim that now that non-smoking bars and clubs are so in demand, how come more bars and clubs don't go non-smoking? I mean, it sounds like it would be great for business.
The whole "I should be allowed to smoke indoors and if you don't like it then you can leave. No one if forcing you to be there." attitude is even more authortarian and immature. And I don't know why more bars and clubs go non-smoking on their own, ya got me there. But what I don't get is why you complain when this law is easy for you to follow.
Decent bar that didn't allow smoking? Do you mean a bar that didn't allow smoking or that the bars that catered to people primarily concerned with the smoke flat out sucked? Now if you mean that it was hard to find bars that didn't allow smoking, you'd have a bit of a point. If you mean that most of the bars that did sucked, shouldn't that tell you about the kind of people where that is their biggest priority when it comes to a bar?
I meant the former: bars that didn't allow smoking.
Oh, and I will not reply to the other half of that segment. Bitter rambling is NOT debating.
Tell that to your pro-smoking buddies who are getting so emotional.
These laws are necessary because they are covert actions that cannot be evaluated by the potential customer. Smoking can be seen and a decision made as to whether or not to enter the establishment.
I've seen many a restaurant kitchen that has been inspected by the local government health department, and in quite a number of cases it's not a testament to government oversight.
I'd be in favor of voluntary private inspections by independent ratings companies. Restaurants could get a score and post it in their window, showing the date of last inspection.
Right now people are under the assumption that health department inspections are sufficient, so there's not much of a market for competition.
The only reason that bars, public places etc now have a smoking ban is NOT because of health issues. It is solely because of law suits brought against companies due to claims of death, health problems through second hand smoke. It should be up to the company or business whether smoking is allowed and no one puts non smokers arms up their backs to use certain bars etc. If you think a bar is too smokey or a restaurant is too full of smokers DON'T GO THERE.
The only reason that bars, public places etc now have a smoking ban is NOT because of health issues. It is solely because of law suits brought against companies due to claims of death, health problems through second hand smoke. It should be up to the company or business whether smoking is allowed and no one puts non smokers arms up their backs to use certain bars etc. If you think a bar is too smokey or a restaurant is too full of smokers DON'T GO THERE.
Guess what? The law is now changed, buddy. If you don't like the fact that you can't smoke indoors STAY HOME!
Hey Buddy I don't smoke but i'm damned if I have the right to Dictate to those who do. If i don't like that there is smoking in a particular restaurant i then have a choice of whether to go there or not. You may be dragged into places where they smoke and fight before they get you through the door...who knows. If you don't like being where there are smokers DON'T GO THERE,,,,Freedom of choice. OOOps i forgot fredom of choice is only for non-smokers, Buddy.
It's interesting how many non-smokers are siding with the business owners and property rights.
Also interesting is that the anti-smokers automatically assume that these people are smokers. It demonstrates the "us vs them" mentality that they have, as well as their selfishness and disregard for property rights in general.
Do the Non-Smokers really think that the ban was put into place for them? The ban is in place to STOP litigation. The Govt. couldn't give a "flying figg" as to the health or wellbeing of Non-Smokers.It's Dollars that are in play here.
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.
