In response to Dagolar
Dagolar wrote:
Really? I've never heard of that. Why would attendance go up, do you think? Bars have often represented a real link between smoking and drinking...

Probably because in this largely non-smoking portion of the world, people like me are about 100x more likely to entertain the idea of going to a bar if we don't have to deal with smoke.

Or Kareoke, which drove me out of the only bar I ever really frequented. It was a very nice place above a restaurant (same owner) with leather seats, big tables, big windows...great place to get together with friends. Then they brought in The Machine...it quickly became unbearable.
I honestly don't care enough about the issue to form a firm opinion...lol I'm not a smoker, yet I'm also not bothered by others smoking around me... Second hand smoke is not something that worries me, and I don't have any trouble breathing in the presence of cigarette smoke...

So it really doesn't affect me in any way that I care about for it to go either way... Ban it or don't ban it... It's all the same to me...

However, if I had to make a decision, I'd say that I'm against banning it from private businesses...

Just because a property is opened to public access, does not mean that that property is public... It's still very much privately owned, and therefore, it's private property... That decision should be left to the business owner... Allowing the government to regulate this issue is no different than letting them tell you what you can or can't do in your own home...

Any government that has these sorts of laws has overstepped its bounds... It's one step closer to 1984...

As for what's going on locally in regards to this, I really don't know... Like I mentioned above, I don't care enough about it to bother...lol

But since we're on the topic of smoking/non-smoking... I'd like to bring up something that I've always found to be funny...

Why is it that some restaurants with "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections have them in the same room with nothing but a partition with fake plants along the top in betweeen them? Do they honestly think that's going to do the trick>? lol
In response to Scoobert
Scoobert wrote:
But, if a business decides to ban smoking and another doesn't, than the other will most likely do better. Thus businesses don't want to ban smoking because its bad for business. See the problem. Now if all businesses had to ban smoking, it would help the whole world. Not only would people smoke less, less people would get second hand smoke. Also smoking decays the atmosphere, not very fast, but it's just one more thing.


No, it's not a given that the buisness that banned smoking would do worse.

If the commiunity where the business was located had more non-smokers who didn't patronize places that allowed smoking, then the ones that ALLOWED it would do worse.

You cannot say that people would smoke less. Many people just won't go to places that don't allow them to smoke. Thus, if there are more smokers than non-smokers in an area, this law is hurting those businesses.

As to whether or not smoking decays the atmosphere, that is irrelevant for so many reasons.
In response to Dagolar
Dagolar wrote:
Yes, it's mainly health concerns that have gotten the governments of many municipalities to address second-hand smoke. From my research, it's not smoking itself that is being address; it's the infliction of second-hand smoke.

-Dagolar

(p.s. I responded with another question in a response listed above. [Health concerns])

Don't be fooled into thinking it was about health concerns. If it was about health concerns, then a law that required a sign posted at any business that they allowed smoking. Then non-smokers could decide or not whether to go in and it would have the SAME effect on the people exposed to "secondhand smoke."

Making this into law has little do with health concerns and more to do with politics.
In response to digitalmouse
I agree.

A law requiring private businesses that allow smoking to post a sign on the door or in the lobby or something so that people could decide BEFORE they go in, that would be appropriate.

The all-out ban is just a heavy-handed political maneuver and has nothing to do with health concerns.
In response to Geminidomino
No its not irrelevant, do you want to live in a world where its 110 degrees all day? I dont think so. You make very little sense mr.
In response to Dagolar
Dagolar wrote:
Really? I've never heard of that. Why would attendance go up, do you think? Bars have often represented a real link between smoking and drinking...

-Dagolar

I have maybe three friends who smoke, and a whole pile of them who drink. It's simple math, really.

In fact, one of my smoker friends says she can't stand bars because they're too smokey. Go figure.
In response to NeoHaxor
You should, as a nonsmoker, be able to go where you want to. You should not, as a person, be able to force a place that you almost want to go to to change the one thing that prevents you.

If a place is full of smoke, then you don't want to go there. You want to go to a place like there, but without the smoke. Let's say the color orange hurts your eyes or annoys you for some other reason. Would you be in your rights to compell Burger King to change its color scheme so you can patronize them, because you'd love to go to a restaurant just like Burger King but without the orange? Hey, there's sports bars around me that serve great food... I would love to go there if they'd turn off the damn football games and horse races every once in a while. Should I get a law passed compelling them to be a piano bar?

Don't go to McDonald's if you don't want to eat carb-loaded, fat-drenched foods... don't go to Smoky McCancer's Goode Olde Time Barre and Grille if you don't want to inhale smoke. If people are smoking outside, the smoke is somewhat dispersed but it's actually much, much harder to avoid being exposed to it.
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
The question here is the definition of a public place. Is a private business automatically a public place because you let people in to do business? If I set up a wet bar in my home, serve drinks to my friends, and ask that they chip in with the cost, then I get to choose whether or not people can smoke. If I turn it into a commercial venture, then nothing has in essence changed, but all of sudden my private place has somehow become public.

Again, the government has an interest in preventing business owners from maintaining an atmosphere that's harmful to health, so I wouldn't say the government can't restrict smoking... that would undermine their ability to protect us from hazardous chemicals used in paints, cleaners, etc. At the same time, though, there's got to be some common sense used... while I believe the government should have the power, that doesn't mean it's always appropriate for them to use it.

Actually a thought occurs to me here: There is a difference between this and hazardous chemicals, and that's where the argument for a ban really breaks down. (Although it's a lot more tenuous for places like offices, and other regular businesses. If it becomes daily exposure for a majority of people who'd rather avoid it at a place they have little choice but to go, then there's room for a ban.)

The difference is, if you were to equate toxic waste with cigarette smoke, then for an analogy to hold up someone would have to walk into your bar or restaurant with a hose or a spray bottle or something and start squirting it on people, or perhaps come in with a drum of the stuff and set it on fire. That's illegal under various statutes because of the toxicity of the chemicals, and they're regulated materials. It'd be just as illegal in your own home.

So really, the only way such a ban for bars and such makes sense is if you declare cigarettes a hazard of a similar nature, and then they become outlawed everywhere.

Still, that said I've always liked that New York bans smoking in places like shopping malls and such (except in restaurants). I can't say it's justifiable under the arguments presented above, but I'm pleased with the outcome.

If we as non-smokers have alternative venues we can use, and smoking establishments are clearly and externally marked, then the choice is ours: enjoy the venue to the detriment of our health, or abstain.

There's about the only justification I find for the ban to malls and whatnot: Alternative venues weren't smoke-free either. However restaurants and bars are a breed apart, being highly tailored to a particular niche market or style, and they're also an environment where customers are expected to stay a certain amount of time in leisure. Because of that highly tailored nature, customers have a choice to go to one place or another, where some might be smokier and some smoke-free.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
I don't see it as being completely unrelated... the question here is the right/power of the government to regulate the substances people are allowed to expose themselves to. Having determined that lead paint or pesticides is harmful, the government puts out an advisory and bans their use in areas where people could easily wander into them. Now, lead paint is pretty well banned outright, but many pesticides are still legal to use on your own property and with the proper precautions. Different toxic substances are banned to varying degrees and in varying places, depending on whether or not they have a usefulness to someone.

To say that the government can't ban smoking in a restaurant or other accomodation on the basis of "but it's a private property" calls into question their power to regulate the use of harmful chemicals on private property.
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
I don't see it as being completely unrelated... the question here is the right/power of the government to regulate the substances people are allowed to expose themselves to. Having determined that lead paint or pesticides is harmful, the government puts out an advisory and bans their use in areas where people could easily wander into them. Now, lead paint is pretty well banned outright, but many pesticides are still legal to use on your own property and with the proper precautions. Different toxic substances are banned to varying degrees and in varying places, depending on whether or not they have a usefulness to someone.

Actually I think the issue at hand is which substances they can expose others to, not themselves. The driving argument behind banning smoking in such places is the danger of second-hand smoke.

To say that the government can't ban smoking in a restaurant or other accomodation on the basis of "but it's a private property" calls into question their power to regulate the use of harmful chemicals on private property.

The use of chemicals in that manner would amount to a public safety or work safety issue, though, which is why those things can be regulated. Also, your earlier mention of the proper precautions bears on this: nobody really takes "precautions" to smoke. The two things are used in different ways and to different ends, so I think a legal line can fairly be drawn between them.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
When I say "are allowed to expose themselves to", I'm talking about second-hand smoke. If we have smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurants, then anyone who chooses to go into a smoking restaurant exposes themselves. Nothing passive is ocurring... they're walking into a room they know contains smoke.

The difference between cigarette smoke and other toxins is purely perceptual. We're used to thinking of cigarettes as a product at best, or at worst, a drug... but when we're talking about second hand smoke, though, the smoke itself must be viewed as a contaminant, an environmental toxin. I used lead based paint and pesticides not to show that cigarette smoke is like either one of them... it isn't, no more so than the paint is like the pesticide. I used it to show that different toxic substances are regulated in different ways, restricted to different extents... but all to the same end: ensuring public welfare.

The use of chemicals in that manner would amount to a public safety or work safety issue, though, which is why those things can be regulated.

Exactly why I'm opposed to curbing the government's power to ban smoking... on what other grounds can cigarette smoking be regulated? If the government can't say, "No smoking in restaurants... it is a detriment to the health of the public and a danger to those working there," then why can they say the same thing about lead based paint? And if that's not what the government is saying when it bans smoking, what exactly is it saying?
In response to Hedgemistress
On your views of the colour ORANGE. If, say, 50% of people that walked into Burger King complained, and that there actually was statistical backing that said that the colour orange on walls causes health damage. What then?

-Dagolar

p.s.- I'm trying to find the level that most people feel that something like this is not acceptable. So far, most people feel that government intervention is a very iffy, sometimes necessary, sometimes not...
In response to Hedgemistress
There is a lot of pressure coming from health organizations that cigarette smoke should have absolutely no contact with non-smokers. Does this view take precedence over the luxury of smokers to smoke in areas where non-smokers go? Should non-smokers have to avoid certain places because there is cigarette smoke inside? It's a very interesting debate because space is contested mainly on those grounds. People are not being told to STOP smoking altogether in this debate, simply not to invade those who do not want it. Very controversial, very interesting.

-Dagolar
In response to Deadron
In regards to the right of space, do you think non-smokers, backed by their health argument, have the right to be in a smoke-free environment, over and above those who would prefer smoking? Why?

-Dagolar
In response to Geminidomino
Health organizations, in Canada at least, have pressured the government to ban smoking mainly in outlets (restaurants, stores, malls, etc.). Regardless of political maneuvering, do you think non-smokers (who outnumber smokers 4:1) have the right, based on their health concerns, to have smoking eliminated in places they frequent?

-Dagolar
Since this thread seemed so popular (and thank you all very much for so many responses and so much opinion) I decided to add a headline which brought up a lot of resentment from people where I live. Check this out:


http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/17/judge_030117


This was a very controversial decision here at home. Read it and tell me what you think.

-Dagolar
In response to Geminidomino
You don't agree that health organization research literally world-wide that smoking is detrimental to health combined with the statistic that most people in all countries are non-smokers has little effect on government decision-making in this matter? What is it based on then? Why are governments so hard-pressed to take a look at this if it is not about health concerns?

-Dagolar
In response to SuperSaiyanGokuX
For some strange reason, if people cant see you smoking, most of them dont care. Funny thing, how that works.
In response to Jotdaniel
Most people? How do you figure? If I smell cigarette smoke, regardless of who it is, I don't want to continue smelling it. It's not a personal matter, it's just a nuisance.

-Dagolar

p.s.- I felt it was necessary to interject my opinion here.
Page: 1 2 3 4