Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans? - Page 6

**RNR** · 01-11-2008, 08:14 PM

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

**RNR** · 01-11-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

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.

This is not about how stupid it is to smoke, it is about the right to allow it in a place you own. A place non smokers can not enter if they choose. It is about rights and freedom.

Psyko Tek · 01-11-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

You don't own the air in the bar.

Mineral rights?

FAX · 01-11-2008, 09:16 PM

I thought the Chinese owned all the air.

FAX

**RNR** · 01-11-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

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

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

TN_Chief · 01-11-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psyko Tek

Mineral rights?

Yo've got to get clearance from Bob Dole's air traffic controllers before entering Bob Dole's airspace. If you don't, Bob Dole may shoot you down, creating an international incident.

Chest Rockwell · 01-11-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

However, from a "theory" standpoint I have a problem with them because on some level they remove a person's right to choose.

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a WINNNAR!!!

Kudos to you for being rational.

I as a "non-smoker" have a choice whether or not to patronize an establishment that allows smoking. If I do, I do so at my own "peril."

I fully believe that an owner has a right to allow or not allow smoking and the market will decide... Please have the decency to own your stupidity if you think it's your right to impose your will on others. If I think second-hand smoke is a danger I won't go someplace...I won't believe it's my constitutional right to...

ChiefaRoo · 01-11-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

This is not about how stupid it is to smoke, it is about the right to allow it in a place you own. A place non smokers can not enter if they choose. It is about rights and freedom.

It's about the public health and the right to choose. In theory a persons personal liberties are universal right up to the point where they negatively impact upon anothers liberty. Smoking in public is an attack on the non-smokers rights and it's an obvious health hazard.

ChiefaRoo · 01-11-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chest Rockwell

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a WINNNAR!!!

Kudos to you for being rational.

I as a "non-smoker" have a choice whether or not to patronize an establishment that allows smoking. If I do, I do so at my own "peril."

I fully believe that an owner has a right to allow or not allow smoking and the market will decide... Please have the decency to own your stupidity if you think it's your right to impose your will on others. If I think second-hand smoke is a danger I won't go someplace...I won't believe it's my constitutional right to...

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.

Chiefnj2 · 01-11-2008, 09:22 PM

I think if a bar or restaurant owner posts a sign on the outside that says smoking is allowed then smoking should be allowed. If you enter it is an assumption of the risk. Nobody is forcing you to dine, eat or work at the place.

TN_Chief · 01-11-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

In theory a persons personal liberties are universal right up to the point where they negatively impact upon anothers liberty.

Exactly. Like I wrote earlier, I'd be interested to see what the impact of turning your privately-owned "public place" (as virually all restaurants and bars are considered to be) into a "private club" would be. Would that enable the owner to permit smoking since presumably only "members" that were fully aware of and in agreement with the club's policies (like it's OK to smoke) would be allowed?

GoTrav · 01-11-2008, 09:24 PM

TN_Chief was put on the planet to make the rest of us miserable.

TN_Chief · 01-11-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Ice

TN_Chief was put on the planet to make the rest of us miserable.

It's quite possible.

ChiefaRoo · 01-11-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Exactly. Like I wrote earlier, I'd be interested to see what the impact of turning your privately-owned "public place" (as virually all restaurants and bars are considered to be) into a "private club" would be. Would that enable the owner to permit smoking since presumably only "members" that were fully aware of and in agreement with the club's policies (like it's OK to smoke) would be allowed?

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

**RNR** · 01-11-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

It's about the public health and the right to choose. In theory a persons personal liberties are universal right up to the point where they negatively impact upon anothers liberty. Smoking in public is an attack on the non-smokers rights and it's an obvious health hazard.

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

Chest Rockwell · 01-11-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

It's about the public health and the right to choose. In theory a persons personal liberties are universal right up to the point where they negatively impact upon anothers liberty. Smoking in public is an attack on the non-smokers rights and it's an obvious health hazard.

But when you remove that option, your remove the right to choose, no?

The imposition of a preference always infringes on someone's "rights."

The crux of the matter really comes down to how "important" the issue is to you personally. If I value an establishment enough I suppose I'll patronize it regardless of conditions. That is a choice.

I'm not taking this issue to you personally, just seems you've done a good job of illustrating the point of choice.

01-11-2008, 08:14 PM
RNR America is great assholes~ Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: In some people's mind~ Casino cash: $10027990	Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans? 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
Posts: 31,085

01-11-2008, 09:16 PM	#78
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	I thought the Chinese owned all the air. FAX
Posts: 44,492

01-11-2008, 09:22 PM	#84
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $6654388	I think if a bar or restaurant owner posts a sign on the outside that says smoking is allowed then smoking should be allowed. If you enter it is an assumption of the risk. Nobody is forcing you to dine, eat or work at the place. __________________ Mismanaging the clock.
Posts: 22,541

01-11-2008, 09:24 PM	#86
GoTrav Veteran Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Lee's Summit, MO Casino cash: $10004900	TN_Chief was put on the planet to make the rest of us miserable.
Posts: 1,018