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

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by MTG#10

People talking loud isnt harmful to your health. Thats the difference.

If you are around it enough it is..

That and second hand smoke is still being argued as harmful or not..
Those facts they throw out are the same kind of facts that say mt. dew will make you sterile but then not tell you, you have to drink some odd gallons a day for a few years to do it..

[RNR]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

We all give up certain rights every day. For example, you can't drive at any speed you want. I own my car, right? Can't I use it however I'd like?

Public welfare demands reasonable speed limits. The same argument can be made Re: smoking in bars/restaurants. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard, and when a smoker lights up he/she takes away the ability of those around himself/herself to breath clean air. Cigarettes themselves aren't being banned. Smokers can still buy them and use them...just not in certain enclosed spaces where others that might not want to suck down carcinogens would be exposed.

You own the car but you do not own the streets and highways so yes you must comply with certain laws. However if I own a bar and I wish to allow smoking then non smokers enter at thier own risk (they do not own my bar) they do own the right to enter that is the right I speak of.

[2112]

Originally Posted by Joe Seahawk

We used to have a great Cigar lounge here called EL Gaucho, They had a special room where you had your own hemidor if you wanted..

The smoking ban here completely ended that..

BS if you ask me!

Cigar bars are still allowed here. and you can also smoke in Atlantic City for some unknown reason.


That's silly, why would anybody who didn't like cigar smoke go in there anyway?

[RJ]

Originally Posted by FAX

I don't understand the "rights" argument very well, Mr. RedNeckRaider.

I mean, you still have the "right" to smoke your tail off at home, correct? How is it a "right" to gas your poor neighbors? You have the "right" to stick a croquet mallet up your ass, paint your pecker purple, and walk around naked in your own house, but society has the "right" to curtail that sort of activity in public, do they not?

FAX

Your damn straight that's my right, and you can have my croquet mallet when you pry it from my cold, dead sphincter.

I have that on a bumper sticker, ironically enough.

[Chest Rockwell]

The clientel /ownership should decide....this is a democracy theoretically, no? No one's holding a gun to my head to patronize an establishment.

I would qualify myself as a non-smoker, but smoke doesn't bother me (asthma be damned)....at the same time, hand me a cigarette, pipe, cigar, etc. I'll chain-smoke it until I asphixiate myself...Not your problem and I appreciate that...suppose I have addiction issues. Mine, not yours. If I want to expose myself I will...if not I won't, and I won't blame anyone else.

Chalk another one up to the death of personal ownership/responsibility and the popular rise victimization.

Christ...looks like I'm a liberal who doesn't blame others for their problems...

I'm having an identity crisis here...

[RNR]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Is Bob Dole allowed to refuse service to blacks or women? I didn't think so.

He is allowed to make them obey the rules of his club.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

You own the car but you do not own the streets and highways so yes you must comply with certain laws. However if I own a bar and I wish to allow smoking then non smokers enter at thier own risk (they do not own my bar) they do own the right to enter that is the right I speak of.

You don't own the air in the bar.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

So Bob Dole's privately owned business (you know...the one where Bob Dole assumes all the financial risk) is now "public"?

That's not what I'm saying, Mr. Bob Dole. As I stated in my first post, the market should decide. The smoker's "rights" argument, however, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me because the smoker adversely affects those around him, majority rules, and the majority should be able to kick that smoker's ass. On the other hand, a person who owns a business should be allowed to say whether or not smoking should be allowed in his establishment and should be free to kick the non-smoker's ass.

Then, the government should pay reparations to all of us smokers and ex-smokers for spending billions of tax dollars on tobacco subsidies for the past 200 years. Problem solved.

FAX

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Not to be flip, but businesses go under all the time. If your business is that reliant on one demographic it's probably not a real secure business to begin with.

When bars have been around for decades and then lose all their customers who went there to smoke and drink, they are losing their demographic..

How hard is it for nonsmokers not to go to a smoking bar??? and vice versa???

The business owners should be given a choice...

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

With all sincerity, GFY.

Here's the deal. Smoking is a personal choice. NOT smelling, inhaling or smelling of smoke is also a personal choice. Since the smoker cannot control his own smoke in public they shouldn't smoke as it's a matter of manners, public health plus it's a dirty disgusting habit which just happens to violate the rights of others in public. Get rid of it. You sick bastards who need your fix should slap on a patch and save your lungs a lot of pain and stress. Don't believe me? ask Peter Jennings.

[alanm]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

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

Exactly my thoughts.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

You don't own the air in the bar.

That is a reach! So what if I don't own a car should I have to breath the smoke from yours? I mean how far do you want to take it? If someone owns a bar and wants to allow people to smoke in it they should be able to IMO The nonsmoker has the right not to enter.

[MTG#10]

I think smoking should be allowed in bars and restaurants that earn more than half their profits on alcohol. Anywhere else, banned.

[TN_Chief]

Also worth noting is that these laws vary a great deal from place to place. I already mentioned the laws (at least what they used to be) in Indiana. Memphis just passed the non-smoking laws this year, but the one there hinges (IIRC) on whether anyone that works there or is in the bar is under 18...if so, you can't smoke. If everyone is over 18 (and you don't allow patrons under 18) then smoking is alright.

Hey, at least I'm being forthright. I can't stand being marinated in smoke, so I like these laws. However, from a "theory" standpoint I have a problem with them because on some level they remove a person's right to choose.

Re: the whole "I own the establishment" argument...I suspect the way it breaks down is that while you're bar/restaurant is privately-owned it is a "public" place (i.e. open to the general public). I'd be interested to know how the law would be interpreted if a bar/restaurant owner turned his establishment into a "private" club...and then sold nightly "memberships" (AKA a cover charge)...kind of like "drinking clubs" in Salt Lake City.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

So Bob Dole's privately owned business (you know...the one where Bob Dole assumes all the financial risk) is now "public"?

Your business has a public responsibility that it must meet. It's not any different than keeping a clean kitchen.