Smoking Ban in Boston (Holden: inspections, living, restaurant)

[holden125]

Originally Posted by sambo2929

While most all major US citys are liberal blue staters, Its no surprise to me that the responses are what they are. This isnt saying anything against Bostonians, so please dont take it that way. Somone said "what about our rights as non-smokers to breathe clean air? To that I say, you know the risks of second hand smoke before you enter the establishment, so if you dont want to be exposed to it, I would suggest that you dont enter. Talk to the bar owner and ask to make it non-smoking but dont demand that he do so! Dont dictate how he runs his business. You see, as a smoker, the last thing I would say is that "I have a right to smoke anywhere I want" But I would say that a business owner should have the right to determine wether or not he wants cigarette smoke on his own personal property.

The owner's house is his "own personal property." A business, open to the public, is a place of public accomodation and subject to regulation. That's why the owner can't discriminate on the basis of race is his "own personal property." Unless you're like Rand Paul and think that law should be gone too.

The idea that a non-smoker should just have to avoid restaurants and bars that allow smoking is absurd. Not least of all because, as LRFox correctly points out, before the bans virtually all places allowed smoking.

Pretty much everyone on earth lives "in a country where [they] are 'forced' by the government to do somthing and 'have no choice but to comply.'" It's called civilization.

[Cantabridgienne]

I personally don't like smoking bans, but I've accepted them. They are becoming the norm across the world, so I really do think you're just shouting into the wind here.

[city_data91]

Originally Posted by holden125

The owner's house is his "own personal property." A business, open to the public, is a place of public accomodation and subject to regulation. That's why the owner can't discriminate on the basis of race is his "own personal property." Unless you're like Rand Paul and think that law should be gone too.

The idea that a non-smoker should just have to avoid restaurants and bars that allow smoking is absurd. Not least of all because, as LRFox correctly points out, before the bans virtually all places allowed smoking.

Pretty much everyone on earth lives "in a country where [they] are 'forced' by the government to do somthing and 'have no choice but to comply.'" It's called civilization.

It was actually me that made that point.

Originally Posted by sambo2929

Read aloud and listen to what you have just said. You have just described a DICTATORSHIP city_data91. Do you want to live in a country where you are "forced" by the government to do somthing and "have no choice but to comply"? I know I dont!



What I wanted to say in my previous post but forgot to was this. Its not about wether or not you think bars owners should allow smoking or not, its so much bigger than that. Even if you like the idea of a smoking ban you should fight against it. Why? If for no other reason than to preserve our civil liberties. For example, in my state, there was a bill to put a limit on the interest that these payday loan places could charge. I like that idea b/c it will help to keep ppl from getting in debt over their head but i voted it down anyway b/c if it passed, that would be another example of the government dictating how a private business was run. If only I could help ppl to look deeper than the surface and see the bigger picture.

That's just called respecting the law. There are a lot of laws. Chances are everyone has at least one law they don't like. But we have no choice but to comply. A smoking ban is not a dictatorship. Smoking bans have to be voted on. That's why not all states have a smoking ban. Some states proposed a smoking ban but it failed to get passed because of not enough votes.

What's next, are you gonna say murder should be legal because you don't want the government telling you what to do? Are you gonna say jails should cease to exist because you don't want the taxpayers to have to pay for inmates?

The point I was trying to make is sometimes the government knows best.

[holden125]

Originally Posted by city_data91

It was actually me that made that point.

Sorry! I stand corrected.

[xS☺B☺s]

I was a smoker in BOS before the ban and quit before the ban too. Bars could easily offer a smoking patio outside if they thought about it. Just a little spot where smokers could go out and have a smoke. It's common down here in Dallas, although in BOS there just isn't as much patio space. And I would suggest it might be better to have it out back not out front. I'm not sure I would want to see Newbury St covered with butts (again).

Bottom line is when it comes to the smoking debate, and the personal liberty and property rights arguments are actually a red herring. The true smoking debate goes on inside the smoker (me) - man versus himself - or more specifically - man vs his inner junkie. Really it's all about nothing but that. Man vs his addiction.

If you want to experience personal freedom, quit smoking, and liberate yourself from the toxic tyranny of the Marlboro Man. Once you re-experience the joy of breathing fresh air again, you will see who is actually free and who is actually enslaved.

[sambo2929]

Originally Posted by city_data91

What's next, are you gonna say murder should be legal because you don't want the government telling you what to do? Are you gonna say jails should cease to exist because you don't want the taxpayers to have to pay for inmates?

The point I was trying to make is sometimes the government knows best.

First off, Holden125, that bar is the owners personel property b/c he most likely sank his life savings into it, money that he worked hard for.





Third, the whole murder thing is an argument ive heard many times before {usually when the debater is starting to run out of steam} and I will not dignify it with a response. That is completely diffrent on so many levels that its not even comparable.

[Cliff Clavin]

Originally Posted by city_data91

Also, what about people that have to work. Don't say "they can work somewhere else" because not everyone has a job waiting for them if they quit. And even if they quit to find a non-smoking workplace, that would be hard to find if there was no smoking ban.

^This.

The reason behind the smoking ban was to protect the health and well being of the bar employees. Not the patrons.

[Cantabridgienne]

The "smoking patio" thing doesn't fly here because if a bar is able to have extra outdoor space, it's put to more profitable use by having it be in the form of extra seating for patrons.

[city_data91]

Originally Posted by sambo2929

First off, Holden125, that bar is the owners personel property b/c he most likely sank his life savings into it, money that he worked hard for.





Third, the whole murder thing is an argument ive heard many times before {usually when the debater is starting to run out of steam} and I will not dignify it with a response. That is completely diffrent on so many levels that its not even comparable.

On a previous post, I gave an example of how an owner might be against smoking but allow it out of fear that he would lose business if he banned smoking. But then when the government passes a smoking ban, the owner is happy that he doesn't have to deal with people smoking and he doesn't lose business either. Also, he might think it's no big deal to allow smoking if there's no ban and he's used to having people smoke inside. But once the ban is enacted, he realizes how good it is to have a smoke-free workplace. Yes, this is an example of the government knowing best. The government passes a law and the owner finally gets to do what he wanted to do all along but was afraid to do before the ban.

And like I said earlier, I lived in Massachusetts before the ban and very few places were smoke-free. I know what I'm talking about. The idea of letting the establishment decide only works in theory.

[LeavingMA]

I'm a non-smoker and although it is great that places are smoke free now, I don't agree with the law. Yes, the law makes sense. I believe that lots of laws make sense in theory but are not constitutional. I don't think the government has any control over whether or not a business can be smoking or non-smoking. I am actually surprised they didn't make smoking like having an alcohol license and you would have to pay for that license as the owner.

If I decide to start a club or bar and my clients are mostly smokers I'm going to try to keep them. If I want to market towards non-smokers then do that. Foxwoods has done both, they have casinos where they allow smokers and also non-smoking casinos.