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.
Smoke travels even outdoors. We have laws already where you can’t smoke so many feet from a public building doorway. In California you can’t smoke in cars with small children. Smokers are addicted they will have no trouble walking farther away to smoke or changing where they go so they can smoke. Is it inconvenient? Yes but a smokers convince does not override the public’s health.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,805,357 times
Reputation: 1932
I have seen an employee working in a smoking bar in an airport. And that is the rub. Employees would have to sit hours a day breathing toxic smoke just because weak willed people can't control themselves.
They can't handle the number of options the market provides?
I think smoking is a nasty habit, but I dont want to send men with guns into businesses to stop folks from enjoying their habit on private property. Imagine there could be smoking and non-smoking establishments right next to each other, consumers can then make a choice based on personal preference. Actually this scenario exists in many states and without any laws, but as we can see, many just cant accept the philosophy of "live and let live".
Now that smokers have been pushed outside by the indoor smoking ban, thus creating a new perceived hazard in shared airspace, AND most affected tavern owners haven't suffered financial losses as a result of banning smoking, could you support a modification to the ban on indoor smoking to allow tavern owners to decide?
At this point, only a small percentage of such businesses would go back.
I am not talking about any other type of business. Only adult businesses, like taverns, bars, etc. And they would have to display proper warning signage on the front door.
How do you know bar owners haven't suffered financial losses from banning smoking?
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 29 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,252 posts, read 17,124,258 times
Reputation: 15563
So many posts about economic results from either allowing/disallowing smoking how about let the owner decide. If they want to have a smoking establishment with employees who understand that is what they would be working in a smoking environment let them. customers can patronize them or not, free choice.
One of the problems with this smoking vs non smoking issue is that, left to their own devices, you can not trust smokers to do the right thing. Florida passed the clean air act years ago, and it prohibited smoking in the workplace. However, the one place where I worked, the management people smoked, so they conveniently ignored the law.
I would go into the break room and 2 or 3 of them would be puffing away in a cloud of smoke, and I am a non smoker with allergies. When I reminded them of the law, their comeback was "We all break laws, tell me you don't go over the speed limit sometimes.". After a while, I had had it, and told them I was going to report our company to the proper authorities, so they finally saw the light and smoking was banned entirely within the insides of the building.
All the non smokers came to me and said "Thank you, we were afraid to say something!" I hated to do it to my fellow workers who smoked, but they were keeping me from enjoying eating lunch or taking a break without sucking up their toxic smoke.
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.