Smoking Bans??

[Makedde]

Why should you have a "right" to change the atmosphere of an establishment to fit your tastes?

I can never support restricting another citizen's right to do something legal simply because I wouldn't participate in that activity myself. How anyone can claim to justify such a thing (and still claim to support freedom) is beyond me.

I don't believe I have the right to change the atmosphere of an establishment, but if that establishment infringes on the rights of others, and could potentially damage their health, then I support such changes. I have no problem with people smoking in their own homes, no problem with them smoking in the open - providing they are respectful - but in an establishment which is to be enjoyed by both smokers and non smokers, one group is getting a raw deal. This way, smokers still have their right to smoke, but non smokers also have the right to dine in and enjoy a meal free from smoke.

 

[Accountable]

I think the government want to encourage people to quit smoking,

YES!!

and they believe that by banning smoking in certain establishments, they can protect the health of others, and also give smokers a push to quit.
I would be interested to find out how many people have actually quit smoking since these bans went into place.

The ends never, ever, justify the means.

 

[Makedde]

Publicly-owned establishments are a different category, as I posted earlier. I wouldn't support banning smoking on a private beach.

Nor would I.

 

[Alien Allen]

Smoking starts at a young age when it is illegal. We are a joke when it comes to enforcing underage smoking the same as drunk driving in this country.

In my city if you are an underage drinker and get caught there are some serious issues to deal with and the expense is nothing to sneeze at. I can not speak for others but I can tell you that most people I know take it very seriously and their kids do also.

If we made the same effort to control underage smoking it would solve a lot of issues as hardly anybody starts smoking later in life.

So I see this as all govt bullshit. They dont give a rats ass about anything but control

 

[Accountable]

I don't believe I have the right to change the atmosphere of an establishment,

Of course you do! You believe you have the right to force it to become nonsmoking.

[...]- but in an establishment which is to be enjoyed by both smokers and non smokers, one group is getting a raw deal. This way, smokers still have their right to smoke, but non smokers also have the right to dine in and enjoy a meal free from smoke.

No one is getting a raw deal because no one is forced to go there. Non smokers have the right to dine in and enjoy a meal free from smoke ... if the owner decides to ban smoking there. Beyond that is infringement.

 

[Accountable]

Nor would I.

And yet you would other privately owned businesses. :humm: Could it be because you don't go to private beaches that often?

 

[Alien Allen]

so we ban on a public beach because of cigarette butts left behind??

or did I miss something.

Using that logic then maybe we should ban US presidential inaugurations because DC is a friggin shit hole today after the mess the pigs left behind. Not cigarettes either.

 

[Accountable]

Smoking starts at a young age when it is illegal. We are a joke when it comes to enforcing underage smoking the same as drunk driving in this country.

In my city if you are an underage drinker and get caught there are some serious issues to deal with and the expense is nothing to sneeze at. I can not speak for others but I can tell you that most people I know take it very seriously and their kids do also.

If we made the same effort to control underage smoking it would solve a lot of issues as hardly anybody starts smoking later in life.

So I see this as all govt bullshit. They dont give a rats ass about anything but control

YUP! YUP! :clap

 

[Accountable]

so we ban on a public beach because of cigarette butts left behind??

or did I miss something.

Using that logic then maybe we should ban US presidential inaugurations because DC is a friggin shit hole today after the mess the pigs left behind. Not cigarettes either.

Places owned by the public have to cater to everyone. Cigarette butts are hazardous to curious little kids that dig around in the sand.

 

[dt3]

Of course not, but you should have the right to dine in that bar without risking your health. Everyone should. People can smoke at home, or outside. There is really no reason for people to smoke while eating or drinking.

People can eat at home too. Maybe we should ban eating out? Hell, McDonald's is a threat to public health. Let's shut them down too.

The legal activity is illlegal because it infringes upon the rights of others - not only customers, but the bar staff, who have the right to work in an environment which is dedicated to protecting their health.

Yes, non smokers don't have to enter, but is that really the point? The point is about the health of staff and customers being preserved. Smokers also have the freedom to smoke outside, you can agree. Why must they smoke inside?

It is not just non smokers complaining, the smokers are complaining that they are being banned from smoking on the beaches - and the vast majority of rubbish on our beaches are cigarrette butts. Do people need to smoke on the beach? Is it vital that they smoke on a beach? Of course not, just as it is not vital that they smoke in a bar or pub.

You choose where you want to work. Many jobs carry an inherent risk. If you choose to work in a smoking bar, then you run the risk of exposure to smoke. I work with high-voltage electricity (1000 volts DC and 600 volts AC). It's a choice I made to work in this environment. When I made that choice, I accepted the risks associated with it.

Okay, a cigar bar. I didn't read that part. If the business is to 'promote' smoking, then I guess that would be fine, but with an ordinary bar or club, is it necessary that one smokes? I don't think so. Non smokers have the right to dine out without going home smelling like an ashtray, and smokers have the right to enjoy a cigarrette, which they can do, with just a few changes.
Smoking isn't completely banned in pubs and clubs, you know. They are allowed to smoke outside or in the gardens - which are owned by the business also. The government is only ruling that smoking is banned inside that establishment. The bans do not mention outside, as being outside, the smoke is blown away by the wind, which cannot infringe on anyone's rights.

What you're talking about is infringing on one group to appease another. That's illegal.

Again, just leave it up to the business owner. Everyone has the same right to eat/drink at any restaurant. If you choose to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, you accept the risks associated with it. If that risk outweighs the benefit of the restaurant, you will choose not to go there.

What you're advocating gives the ultimate freedom of choice to non-smokers as they could go anywhere without being exposed to smoke. But smokers would have no choices whatsoever. That's wrong.

 

[kelvin070]

I always believed in legislation. Peiople's health is at stake. Its also not fair to non-smokers. Inhaling second-hand smoke is an easier route to cancer than the smokers

 

[wasred69]

i have that lung disorder thing...cant spell..and frankly I think that if its an all adult area ...like kidz not allowed...thenit should not be a problem...people can leave if it bothers them example... if your eating in a eating place and you see a tornado coming would you sit there and continue eating or remove your self from harms way...

 

[Makedde]

Of course you do! You believe you have the right to force it to become nonsmoking.
No one is getting a raw deal because no one is forced to go there. Non smokers have the right to dine in and enjoy a meal free from smoke ... if the owner decides to ban smoking there. Beyond that is infringement.

I can see we are obviously not going to agree on this.
No one is being forced to go there, but they should be given the privilege of dining in without the smell of smoke. No rights are really being infringed on - meaning the smokers rights. They still have the right to smoke on that property, just not inside. There is no law stating they are unable to smoke outside the establishment in the enclosed outdoor areas.

And yet you would other privately owned businesses. :humm: Could it be because you don't go to private beaches that often?

I assume a private beach belongs to someone who can afford to buy a few metres of sand, and they can choose who enters their property or not. Restricted access to certain people. A bar/pub is not really the same. Anyone is allowed access, provided they are not stoned or drunk, or violent.
Smoking on a beach also doesn't potentially harm the health of others, whereas smoking in a bar/club does.

People can eat at home too. Maybe we should ban eating out? Hell, McDonald's is a threat to public health. Let's shut them down too.

McDonalds food, like all fast food, is bad for you - but only to the person actually eating it. You could sit down beside me and eat 3 Big Mac's, a large fries, large coke and six cheeseburgers, and I may be revolted by the fat and grease you are consuming, but my heath would not be at risk from your eating. With smoking, it's a little different.

You choose where you want to work. Many jobs carry an inherent risk. If you choose to work in a smoking bar, then you run the risk of exposure to smoke. I work with high-voltage electricity (1000 volts DC and 600 volts AC). It's a choice I made to work in this environment. When I made that choice, I accepted the risks associated with it.

If you were electrocuted, who would suffer? You would. No one else would have their lives or health put at risk if you made a mistake and sent a thousand volts through your body.

What you're talking about is infringing on one group to appease another. That's illegal.

I am sure there are many laws that infringe upon the rights of others, don't you?

Again, just leave it up to the business owner. Everyone has the same right to eat/drink at any restaurant. If you choose to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, you accept the risks associated with it. If that risk outweighs the benefit of the restaurant, you will choose not to go there.

There is no real loss to the business. If a smoker wants to smoke inside the establishment and cannot, can I make the argument that they now have the choice to go elsewhere?
As I said, they can still smoke at a pub/bar, they are just restricted from smoking inside.

What you're advocating gives the ultimate freedom of choice to non-smokers as they could go anywhere without being exposed to smoke. But smokers would have no choices whatsoever. That's wrong.

Smokers have the right to smoke, no one is trying to take that right away from them - as much as I would like to. If your smoking can potentially harm the health of others, then there is a problem. Smoking at home creates no such problem, but smoking in an establishment frequented by members of the public does.

 

[kelvin070]

i have that lung disorder thing...cant spell..and frankly I think that if its an all adult area ...like kidz not allowed...thenit should not be a problem...people can leave if it bothers them example... if your eating in a eating place and you see a tornado coming would you sit there and continue eating or remove your self from harms way...

How abt this secenario. I am a bartender and the bar is full of smokers but I am a non-somker. So tornado has in fact arrived and its still not too late for me to run for my life but I need the damn job man

 

[Makedde]

How abt this secenario. I am a bartender and the bar is full of smokers but I am a non-somker. So tornado has in fact arrived and its still not too late for me to run for my life but I need the damn job man

Which is exactly why people stay in those jobs, despite the fact their health is being compromised. It's not that easy to just quit and find a new job.

 

[Accountable]

Ya makes yer choices ya takes yer chances.

 

[wednesday]

As a smoker..i feel very strongly about not smoking in public.
I hate walking down the street with a smoker puffing in front of me...i get the back draft!!
Why , because I choose to smoke, everyone else should tolerate it?

As for smoking around children...this makes my blood boil so badly. If i ever saw someone smoking in a car with children id "give da wedz evils"..those kids dont get a choice.
I have always gone outside to smoke,...its my habit...not everyone elses.

 

[wednesday]

Places owned by the public have to cater to everyone. Cigarette butts are hazardous to curious little kids that dig around in the sand.

If thats the case then why not cater to alcoholics and drug abusers?...after all , they are public too right?

 

[jctauss]

my two cents....... If a bar or club owner wants to allow people to smoke then thats their perogative, if you dont like it dont go there.

 

[skyblue]

the irony is is that when smoking was banned in britain it was decided that it would still be allowed in the bars in the houses of parliament.....2 different laws.....us and them.....big brother