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.
Sure, why not? As long as it hurts no one nor violates their rights certainly.
Uh...yeah.
So, explain how my resturant or bar hurts anyone or violates their rights if I allow smoking? After all, patronage of ANY PRIVATE buisness is voluntary. Thats why IMO its ok to ban smoking in tru publicplaces where people MUST go on ocasion.
Quote:
WTF are you talking about? This topic is not about regulations. Its about violation of private property rights. If you consider allowing smoking on PRIVATE property corruption then you pretty much render your opinion meaningless.
The law states the following: "NO SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES" or, more specifically: "No indoor smoking places open to the public". The fact that these public places are privately-owned businesses is a side-effect of the law.
So your fine with legislation that, as a side effect violates private property rights?
Besides the simple FACT that there is no such thing as a privately owned public place. A place is either public (owned by the tax payers) or private (owned by an individual)
Quote:
Again, its not about health regulations. Health regulations generally protect you from unseen dangers & filth you might not notice until you were sick. Heres what I do. I go inside & if I found it too smokey for my liking I'd leave. Who am I to tell a person what to allow on their property? I am free to leave.
Well, now the laws change. It's the smokers problem to go outside. And who are you to tell a person what to allow on their property? That's right. Who are you? As far as I can tell you're some guy on the losing side of the smoking debate who is spending his time advocating smoker's rights over non-smoker's rights.
Sorry to dissapoint you but I dont smoke & I find it offensive.
Please be so kind as to point out where I told anyone what they can or cannot do on their property. Like most liberal whiners you are clueless. If a person wants to have a smoke free place its their perogative. My issue is with people forcing it on them. In many cases it hurts buisness because the customers WANT to smoke. If you & your tyranical friends were actually doing what the public wanted there wouldn't be a need for the law. People simply wouldn't go to places that permitted smoking & those places would soon be out of buisness.
Besides the FACT that the second hand smoke myth is just that. Some people love to force their will or feelings on others regardless of the impact or truth to their cause. I'm glad to know where you stand.
On another note you should try out the quote feature instead of simply bolding your jibberish & copying those you are responding to. It makes for a much neater easier to comprehend conversation.
Exactly, it's more for the workers as a safety measure. It's the same thing as OSHA requirements in manufacturing facilities. Business owners have to provide safe working conditions for their employees, and 2nd hand smoke in a restaraunt is not a safe working condition. I wish my state would enact smoking bans in bars and restaraunts. Some of the better cities in this state do, but none in my area, nor in Charlotte.
Bullsnot.
Show me statistics showing that theres significantly greater health issues in a resturant or bar that permits smoking VS on thats non smoking. You cant because its not true.
If it were true there would be insurance regulations & OSHA would be involved. They arent & you are wrong. But that is where it should start & end, OSHA is charged with regulating saftey in work places & if it mattered they would be involved.
Its simply a political tool used to get a following & pander to whiny crybabies with nothing better to do.
Add to the fact that many of the employees of these places smoke themselves & it becomes a joke.
Taking this from the other point of view I have this comment. Before general smoking bans ALL restaurants allowed smoking. Most were without special sections. I was and still am sensitive to tobacco smoke. Should I be effectively banned for all restaurants because they don't or did not want to risk loosing the smokers business? Effectively, I was banned from the social and business interaction as well as the pleasure of a restaurant meal.
As far a freedom is concerned this is a health regulation and as protecting the public health IS one of the prime functions of government this is an easily justifiable law. Anyone operating a public business does not, under innumerable anti-discrimination laws, have the right to arbitrarily exclude the public. A bar keeper has the right to exclude an unruly or drunk customer but not the right to keep him out in the first place. A public restaurant is not a private home.
As far a business being regulated by the government is concerned it is a cost of doing business under the law. Many restaurants are corporations established by the government to limit the liability of the owners to only the amount of money they invested. If someone is injured due to the owner’s or employee’s negligence the injured party can only recover against the assets and insurance of the corporation and cannot recover against the owner’s entire fortune. By accepting this protection the restraint owner, and all other corporations, accept being regulated beyond that applicable to a private individual. Regulation is part of the price of the protection.
Specifically speaking, if you are not causing a public nuisance or creating a disturbance by breaking a law, you can demand service in a privately owned public restaurant or you can recover damages for discrimination.
PS – I am offended by being called a whiny crybaby. I do understand personal freedom and I do understand the difference between public and private. Apparently many of you do not. If you desire to operate outside the law then please do so. I suggest understanding exactly what being outlaw really means.
Last edited by GregW; 10-02-2008 at 10:54 AM..
Reason: added text
I support the measure. Customers might be able to go to other establishments who ban smoking inside, but the workers can't exactly leave easily - they are inhaling secondhand smoke for hours at a time. That can't be healthy for anyone. Ultimately the right of a business to allow smoking ends when it effects the health of those who work there and/or the public who frequents the establishment.
Just my two cents.
Are workers forced to work there or do they have the freedom to look for jobs anywhere they choose?
Case, what if an owner decides he wants to change it to a smoking restaurant. Should he be required to offer a severance package for all the employees who are going to leave?
Exactly, it's more for the workers as a safety measure. It's the same thing as OSHA requirements in manufacturing facilities. Business owners have to provide safe working conditions for their employees, and 2nd hand smoke in a restaraunt is not a safe working condition. I wish my state would enact smoking bans in bars and restaraunts. Some of the better cities in this state do, but none in my area, nor in Charlotte.
So you are saying there is evidence that claims it is? Care to provide me with the actual research that supports this. Keep in mind I am asking for the research, not administrative summaries. Provide me with the actual research.
Just so we are clear, if the EPA claims a study is conclusive, I want you to provide me with the actual research they claim allowed them to come to their conclusions.
Why am I being picky? It is because if you actually "read" the research, it is inconclusive and those who did the study are clear about how the information is inconclusive. It is the administrative summaries that do not show this information and conveniently conclude as they see fit.
If we discuss in this manner, we avoid bias influence with the information. We are able to look at the actual research itself and discuss the validity of their methods and how they came to their results. That way, there is nothing to hide behind, no vague claims, or source attacks. It will be just the facts and nothing but the facts.
Case, what if an owner decides he wants to change it to a smoking restaurant. Should he be required to offer a severance package for all the employees who are going to leave?
No, why should they? Should all employee's be given severance packages when they leave a business because they disagree with the businesses decisions? You don't have a "right" to work a certain business. If the business doesn't want you working there, they can let you go at anytime. Well, I guess it depends on state, but here in Texas, we are a "right to work" state. The state does not tell me how many hours I can work, when I have to take my break and it does not tell the employers who they have to hire and when they can let people go. All of this is left up to the business's and employees to decide.
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.
