Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

[RNR]

I think it should be up to the owner, and would even be willing to have it up to the owner if you have to be 21 to enter. City wide is bullshit IMO

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Not if it has signs posted warning people smoking is allowed. The non smokers have the right not to enter.

I disagree. Listen, it rubs my conservative (personal liberty) instincts the wrong way to guys but you cannot deny the fact that smoking overall and to a lesser degree in private is a huge burden on public health costs. Personally, I have always found smoking to be offensive. It's a violation of the non-smokers rights to have smoke blown or drafting right into your face. The smoker can't control it and it just flat out stinks.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

I think from a practicality standpoint the bar/restaurant would lose a lot of walk up business and it would cripple most of them.

It seems like the argument I'm hearing is that the "regulars" are smokers and are the ones being driven out...and that the walk-up business (less reliable/steady) is non-smokers. If that's true, then I'd think the "regulars" would embrace becoming members in order to maintain their ability to smoke.

I think you'd have to try to structure it in a similar manner to the bars (AKA "drinking clubs") in Salt Lake City where you pay a "membership fee" (which is really just a cover) to get in and drink. SLC public establishments aren't allowed to serve alcohol (damn Mormons) and that's how the bars there get around that law...they're not "public", they're private clubs.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

It seems like the argument I'm hearing is that the "regulars" are smokers and are the ones being driven out...and that the walk-up business (less reliable/steady) is non-smokers. If that's true, then I'd think the "regulars" would embrace becoming members in order to maintain their ability to smoke.

I think you'd have to try to structure it in a similar manner to the bars (AKA "drinking clubs") in Salt Lake City where you pay a "membership fee" (which is really just a cover) to get in and drink. SLC public establishments aren't allowed to serve alcohol (damn Mormons) and that's how the bars there get around that law...they're not "public", they're private clubs.

Maybe it would work. I don't mind the concept because it would definately be an incentive for the owner to eliminate the smoking all together in the long run. I mean, why put up with the hassle of it all?

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

I am not saying smoking should be allowed in PUBLIC, I am talking about a a private business Where the OWNER allows smoking and you have the right not to enter! Sorry for yelling

Dude, a privately-owned business is often (almost always?) considered a public place. Restaurants, bars, etc. are all "public places". Hence my wondering about whether the law would be interpreted differently if you specifically structured your business as a private club. Just being privately-owned doesn't cut it.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

I disagree. Listen, it rubs my conservative (personal liberty) instincts the wrong way to guys but you cannot deny the fact that smoking overall and to a lesser degree in private is a huge burden on public health costs. Personally, I have always found smoking to be offensive. It's a violation of the non-smokers rights to have smoke blown or drafting right into your face. The smoker can't control it and it just flat out stinks.

You may have missed this post "I am not saying smoking should be allowed in PUBLIC, I am talking about a a private business Where the OWNER allows smoking and you have the right not to enter! Sorry for yelling"

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

You've got it backwards. It is the smoker who is imposing his choice/right on another person (the non-smoker). Let's not get this twisted. This debate should be defined as a health issue IMO.

If an establishment has a sign posted that says smoking is allowed then how is that an infringement on the rights or health of somebody voluntarily entering the premises?

Exhaust from vehicles is hazardous to your health as well. I find deisel exhaust to be particularly annoying. How about exhaust and deisel free cities?

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If an establishment has a sign posted that says smoking is allowed then how is that an infringement on the rights or health of somebody voluntarily entering the premises?

Exhaust from vehicles is hazardous to your health as well. I find deisel exhaust to be particularly annoying. How about exhaust and deisel free cities?

Have you heard of the Clean Air Act? If you lived downwind of certain types of factories you'd thank your lucky stars it exists. Ever had an emissions test done on your car?

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

You may have missed this post "I am not saying smoking should be allowed in PUBLIC, I am talking about a a private business Where the OWNER allows smoking and you have the right not to enter! Sorry for yelling"

I hear you amigo. My point is restaurants, bars open to the public are public places which are owned privately. Surely you would not argue that the kitchen of said bar/rest. is a private place therefore it's ok for the owner not to keep up with proper health codes. Same with smoking IMO.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Dude, a privately-owned business is often (almost always?) considered a public place. Restaurants, bars, etc. are all "public places". Hence my wondering about whether the law would be interpreted differently if you specifically structured your business as a private club. Just being privately-owned doesn't cut it.

You have a valid point, and that should be an option if a ban is passed. You still allow a person his rights.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

I hear you amigo. My point is restaurants, bars open to the public are public places which are owned privately. Surely you would not argue that the kitchen of said bar/rest. is a private place therefore it's ok for the owner not to keep up with proper health codes. Same with smoking IMO.

Well I see your point but we will have to agree to disagree

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Have you heard of the Clean Air Act? If you lived downwind of certain types of factories you'd thank your lucky stars it exists. Ever had an emissions test done on your car?

emissions tests allow a certain level of pollutants. It isn't an outright ban.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If an establishment has a sign posted that says smoking is allowed then how is that an infringement on the rights or health of somebody voluntarily entering the premises?

Exhaust from vehicles is hazardous to your health as well. I find deisel exhaust to be particularly annoying. How about exhaust and deisel free cities?

Because eventhough it is privately owned it is open to the public and therefore creates an open air health hazard IMO.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

emissions tests allow a certain level of pollutants. It isn't an outright ban.

Cigarettes/cigars/etc. aren't being banned either. Just restricted from certain places. The level in those places must be zero.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by Black Ice

why don't you go outside while we smoke?

Or the smokers could just stay inside while I wipe dogshit all over their clothes so they could smell it all night.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

Because eventhough it is privately owned it is open to the public and therefore creates an open air health hazard IMO.

How does it create an open air health hazard?