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.
There is a big difference in public safety and "public health." It can be persuasively argued that government -- on some level -- has a compelling interest in regulating matters which the average person cannot be expected to discern for themselves. Tainted meat is a good example. Hidden fire hazards are another. Etc.
However, there is literally no end to what can be mandated in the name of "public health" in controlling the private property rights of others. Ones health comes down to a matter of individual choices and lifestyle. As has been said repeatedly, if a person has an aversion to smoking, then don't go into a place it is allowed.
Likewise, if you're so inconvenienced by no smoking laws, by all means refuse to patronize those establishments. Otherwise, feel free to continue to light up whenever you please. Outside.
Likewise, if you're so inconvenienced by no smoking laws, by all means refuse to patronize those establishments. Otherwise, feel free to continue to light up whenever you please. Outside.
Actually, I am not inconvenienced at all. I gave up smoking some years ago and never did like to be smell other peoples smoke even back when I did.
Anyway, your attempt to reverse my point fails because yours doesn't first address the underlying question of to whom/what a private business belongs to being with. The owner(s) or the government? And exactly what is meant by "public health" if the latter has a compelling interest in it?
Point is, before you flip it all around as in "feel free to light up (subject to smoking ban laws)", then pray tell at least establish a foundation as to why "you" are the controlling authority in this area. As opposed to the owner of the establishment itself?
Neither alcohol or tobacco or necessary requirements in life. If you are going to ban smoking in public, you should ban drinking and make both the smoker and the drinker save that for the privacy of their home. That way you will kill 2 birds with one stone--less public air pollution and less DUI's.
i agree smoking bans ate not fair.they should have smoking and non smoking places.why don't we ban cars.they have smell when running and ruin the
ozone.
They should also ban kids under a certain age from going in restaurants. I mean...the little bastards are annoying, run around all the time, are loud and make huge messes.
If that sounds ridiculous then so should the government telling bars/restaurants if they can let people smoke in their private business or not.
I don't smoke, and I hate the smell of it - gives me headaches, burns my nose and sinuses. That said, banning it in bars is going to far. If one doesn't want to be in smoke, don't go in. If one doesn't want to work around it, don't apply for a job there. Big Bro is getting way to damn nosey.
The thing is it's not about what our neighbor is doing, it's a public area and the fact is second hand smoking has negative affects, not to mention it makes non-smokers feel sick. We aren't saying you can't smoke in your house, but if it affects other people around you in public, there is no problem regulating it. It's the same thing as if I was having sex with my gf in the middle of the restaurant. Well, if you don't like listening to her moan, then leave the restaurant. Is that your arguement?
For most people, it is about what their neighbor is doing. People are psychologically built to ignore their own problems and find it very comforting to point out the faults of others. Trying to control someone else's life is so much easier than trying to control their own. How many on here that complain about secondhand smoke are obese? How many are drinkers? How many are unhealthy due to other reasons that are every bit their own fault as much as smokers?
In Virginia, our "beloved" governor signed a bill into law that will make Virginia a Smoke-Free state as of December 1, 2009. What I find interesting is that he signed the bill in Virginia Beach at a restaurant that was already smoke-free by choice. One of the waitresses interviewed said that when they became smoke-free some time ago, they saw an influx of business from their decision. In fact, I was one of the patrons of that place because it was smoke-free. I wonder how much business Croc's will lose because they're not one of the only smoke-free places? Because, really... I only went there because there was no smoking. As of 1 December, I will be free to visit any place I want... and will probably never again step inside Croc's.
Simply put, I am not a smoker. I avoid smoke like the plague. However, I do not agree with smoking bans unless the general public gets to vote for it. I'm not quite impressed with a bill becoming law simply because a group of lobbyists have pushed for it. Now, if there was a vote back in November (or even a special referendum) and the general public voted for the ban, I would be okay with it.
Hypocrites,they ban smokers but if smokers create a bar for smokers some idiot non smoker created a lawsuit because it is a "smoker's only" bar and it infringes on his "rights".
So much for freedom to assemble in this country.
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.
