Should smoking be legal?

[RDK]

I completely disagree with the private school analogy.

Smoking is a major health risk to others around you--it's not the same as drinking at a restaurant. If you want to have a smoke, go outside so nobody has to inhale your fumes involuntarily. There are some things that just should not be allowed in public restaurants, and smoking is one of them.

 

[derek.haines]

I don't know of one, but I thought private colleges had no laws regarding their admissions process, however what derek.haines says here may disagree:



Ostensibly that only applies to interstate commerce, which the gov't showed was the great majority of the hotel's revenue. However apparently it was also used against Lester Maddox in his Atlanta restaurant. I think that violates his rights, personally, and I disagree with the ruling. I'm willing to bet that this ruling applies to private colleges as well, which would mean I'm wrong about there being allowed to be 'black (or whatever) only' colleges. I just think if you don't get any direct funding from the government, they shouldn't be able to tell you how to run your establishment (outside of making sure it somehow is not a danger to others, like fire safety for example).

And they haven't tried that with smoking because they don't discriminate based on a person being a smoker or not (which would be the appropriate analog), but whether they actually engage in the act while in their restaurant.

The Supreme Court has used the, for lack of a better word, theory of interstate commerce to rule on a number of different matters, discrimination and segregation amongst them. It's a clever little tactic allowing them to have jurisdiction where they "technically" don't.

I don't think there's an actual "black" college anywhere, there are simply historically and vastly majority black colleges. Actually, because of affirmative action a college cannot receive government funding if they do not meet certain diversity requirements for admissions. A private college of course can simply not receive the funding--which they likely don't need anyway--and just let in whoever they want. But I don't think any institution can establish general admissions criteria that is discriminatory.

And, I suppose I should be more specific about my thoughts on using it towards smoking in restaurants. I was going more for the "freedom of association" than the Heart of Atlanta ruling, really. Smokers could challenge anti-smoking legislation by using the stance that the Constitution grants them the ability to associate with whomever they please, and if a restaurant-owner wishes to allow smokers in his establishment then he should be allowed to do so free from government intervention. Actually, on second thought that probably wouldn't work (and I wouldn't agree with the stance, anyway) because the actual text of most anti-smoking laws focuses on the "health aspect". I think that gets them out of any "freedom of association" defenses.

I very, very much disagree that Lester Maddox's rights were violated in the ruling, because I believe that the government has the moral imperative to guarantee the equality of opportunity of all of its citizens, which includes the places they are allowed to patronize. But that is a different discussion for a different thread (and certainly a good idea for one).

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I completely disagree with the private school analogy.

Smoking is a major health risk to others around you--it's not the same as drinking at a restaurant. If you want to have a smoke, go outside so nobody has to inhale your fumes involuntarily. There are some things that just should not be allowed in public restaurants, and smoking is one of them.

Nobody is forcing anyone to dine at a restaurant where people can smoke. If you like, perhaps there should be a law that requires them to conspicuously post that smoking is allowed inside, so that people don't start dining there and are then beset by smoke.

And, I suppose I should be more specific about my thoughts on using it towards smoking in restaurants. I was going more for the "freedom of association" than the Heart of Atlanta ruling, really. Smokers could challenge anti-smoking legislation by using the stance that the Constitution grants them the ability to associate with whomever they please, and if a restaurant-owner wishes to allow smokers in his establishment then he should be allowed to do so free from government intervention. Actually, on second thought that probably wouldn't work (and I wouldn't agree with the stance, anyway) because the actual text of most anti-smoking laws focuses on the "health aspect". I think that gets them out of any "freedom of association" defenses.

But nobody is attempting to discriminate against SMOKERS, just the ACT of smoking.

I very, very much disagree that Lester Maddox's rights were violated in the ruling, because I believe that the government has the moral imperative to guarantee the equality of opportunity of all of its citizens, which includes the places they are allowed to patronize. But that is a different discussion for a different thread (and certainly a good idea for one).

We can discuss that whole thing in a separate topic, suffice it to say I disagree with the government being able to decide morals for other people.

 

[derek.haines]

Nobody is forcing anyone to dine at a restaurant where people can smoke. If you like, perhaps there should be a law that requires them to conspicuously post that smoking is allowed inside, so that people don't start dining there and are then beset by smoke.

That, I feel, works it out fairly well. While it's not the exact situation I would have in a perfect world, it's one of the best compromises between both the two parties that I've heard. Personally, I'm not sure why the old restaurant system that is being thrown out virtually everywhere didn't work, what with having smoking and nonsmoking sections. But, thus is the way the world turns.

But nobody is attempting to discriminate against SMOKERS, just the ACT of smoking.

Yeah, I sorta said that towards the end of my statement. The laws banning smoking in public facilities do not focus on smokers, but rather simply smoking and the possible health implications.

 

[AltF4]

This is a matter of rights:

What exactly gives a person the right to go into a public place and slowly poison everyone around them? I can't imagine what.

 

[victra♥]

Nobody is forcing anyone to dine at a restaurant where people can smoke. If you like, perhaps there should be a law that requires them to conspicuously post that smoking is allowed inside, so that people don't start dining there and are then beset by smoke.

I can use the same argument against you: Nobody is forcing you to smoke. Being a smoker doesn't mean you can smoke wherever you please; It's not as if you were blind and you needed seeing-eye dog or you're an old man who needs to bring an oxygen tank. It isn't too hard to go into a restaurant and enjoy your meal without lighting up a cigarette. It's common courtesy after all. Referring to what AltF4Warrior posted above, there's no right that allows you to disturb a public place with poisonous (and unpleasant) fumes. Also i don't see why it's such a problem for smokers to smoke somewhere private. It's actually quite selfish otherwise.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Referring to what AltF4Warrior posted above, there's no right that allows you to disturb a public place with poisonous (and unpleasant) fumes. Also i don't see why it's such a problem for smokers to smoke somewhere private. It's actually quite selfish otherwise.

What about the right of the PRIVATE establishment to allow such activities? Why should the government be able tell me I can't have a restaurant or club or whatever where people can't smoke, if that's what I want to have? Why should someone be able to walk in to my establishment and DEMAND that everyone stop smoking because I'm violating their rights all of a sudden?

Again, it's not like people in there would be all of a sudden assaulted by smoke; I suggested a law that said that customers must be informed that it is a smoking restaurant.

 

[AltF4]

Establishments such as bars and restaurants are not private, but public. As such they are subject to public health codes. Smoking bans are just a health code regulation.

For example, in the comfort of your own (private) home, you can prepare your food however you like. Including while not having washed your hands. In a restaurant, however the restaurant owner MUST prepare all food with washed hands. He does not have the option to establish a "hands washed" and "unwashed hands" sections, even though he may like to. It is a matter of public health that all food MUST be prepared with washed hands.

Similarly, smoking is unhealthy to everyone in the vicinity of the smoker. Its ban takes effect only in public indoor areas. So obviously nobody is stopping you from smoking in your own home, nor is anyone stopping you from smoking outdoors (where the negative effects of second-hand smoke are negligible).

The ownership of the establishment is NOT what determines whether or not it is "private" or "public", but rather the type of business license the establishment has. A Museum is still a public place in the eyes of the law, even if it is "privately owned".

 

[Vro]

Being a smoker, I don't like obeying the smoking bans in Illinois, but I respect them. However I do find them flawed in a case.

For instance, I'm not sure if I can light up a cigarette in a public park. Why is that? I'm a very courteous person in general, and make sure I don't smoke around people. People can move away from me, but neither them or me in a forced situation. Also, it's outdoors.

Similarly, smoking is unhealthy to everyone in the vicinity of the smoker. Its ban takes effect only in public indoor areas. So obviously nobody is stopping you from smoking in your own home, nor is anyone stopping you from smoking outdoors (where the negative effects of second-hand smoke are negligible).

What if it is agreed upon that the people in the vicinity don't care? In bars, bowling alleys, and billiard halls, I know it's common to smoke. There are places that don't allow smoking, but I think that if it is agreed that smoking is okay in the building, why can't that be accepted?

I know that certain places in Illinois are still permitted to have smoking indoors, such as a hookah bar. I think that's great, because by entering it, you basically agree to be in a smoky environment, whether you choose to smoke or not. Can't this work with other establishments based on the owner's discretion?

Also, you can't smoke within a certain distance from buildings. So altho you say it is negligible, it seems the government thinks that choke point shouldn't have to suffer thru smoke. Doesn't that inconvenience the other party tho? What if I want to have a smoke break and respect the smoking ban. So I go outside and have to walk 15 feet outside the building. What if it's raining? The building is too far away to provide shelter, and you're standing there as if the people going into the building are more privileged than you.

---

It seems that those who don't smoke have to be respected more and those who do smoke have to have limitations set upon them. Is that really fair? Pollution is just as prevalent as second hand smoke. Why can't smokers and non-smokers respect each other? I'll never smoke near someone if they're uncomfortable. And if they're uncomfortable, they can move. I don't feel that one party should have to sacrifice its comfort, but that we should accommodate both sides.

 

[redgreenblue]

Alcohol and tobacco are pretty hard drugs, but I don't think making them illegal would do any good. However, less toxic drugs like weed, mdma, and lsd (well... lsd is a tough issue) should be legalized. How fair is it that the drugs that kill you are legal while the ones that don't get you in jail for using?

 

[Deleted member]

Sure, the bigger chain of restaurants will be able to afford sealing off sections of their restaurant for a designated smoking section - but will the little man?

Probably not. That's a lot of money in renovations just to be able to keep up with richer establishments.

Banning smoking in restaurants levels the playing field - not only for the businesses who now don't have to worry about trying to win smokers back, but also the patrons themselves. It makes the entire restaurant smoke-free.

Is this off topic?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Sure, the bigger chain of restaurants will be able to afford sealing off sections of their restaurant for a designated smoking section - but will the little man?

Probably not. That's a lot of money in renovations just to be able to keep up with richer establishments.

Banning smoking in restaurants levels the playing field - not only for the businesses who now don't have to worry about trying to win smokers back, but also the patrons themselves. It makes the entire restaurant smoke-free.

Is this off topic?

So the premise is, some restaurants can't afford a certain feature, so we're going to ban it so that nobody can have it? That's just silly. You could use the same logic to justify a ban on any number of things that the 'little man' can't afford. If he can't, that's his problem. There's no reason everyone should be force to play at the lowest common denominator. Not to mention it's a gross violation of free market principles.

 

[Deleted member]

Hmm...

I think you may have misunderstood. I'm simply positing an idea I thought of while reading the thread.

We've already established that banning smoking in restaurants is utilitarian. All I was doing was providing further justification.

"Now that we've decided that banning smoking in restaurants is for the greater good, do we ban smoking all together, or demand fire-code regulation style designated smoke rooms? Maybe it's just easier for all businesses to not force them to upgrade and waste money to try and compete."

It isn't a violation of free market principles - some things are regulated by the government. Did you know that there is a minimum price for beer?

 

[mzink*]

I agree that simply increasing smoking awareness would suffice, banning it all together is going too far. In public places I think it is just situational, if you're outside I don't really see a problem, people can move away from you if they choose. As for the addiction and the harm it can do to you, I have never been a smoker so I am not familiar with that addiction however I believe that if someone truly felt they were causing serious harm to themselves and needed a change, they would have the willpower to make a change.

As for kids getting pressured into smoking at a young age, I'm not sure of my stance on that. How long does it take for one to become addicted to cigarettes? Would someone young be able to bounce back from curious experimentation if they started getting into it with their friends? I do believe however it really isn't that hard to decide no I don't wish to do that. My friends were always cool with it and they were always cool if I felt the smoke was getting to me too much and wanted to move away.

As for the banning of smoking in restaurants I'd say I agree with that one. Though I think it is situational as mentioned by someone before, like in places like bars and such.

I do want to bring one point up that I'd like the input of others on and that is young kids being exposed to smoke through no choice of their own, like through a careless family member. I've seen little kids in constant clouds of smoke because their parents are big smokers. Could there be any possible way to regulate this?

Overall I believe people should have the freedom to choose whether they want to smoke and that regulations should be situational.

 

[AltF4]

I just couldn't help but respond to this...

Being a smoker, I don't like obeying the smoking bans in Illinois, but I respect them. However I do find them flawed in a case.

For instance, I'm not sure if I can light up a cigarette in a public park. Why is that? I'm a very courteous person in general, and make sure I don't smoke around people. People can move away from me, but neither them or me in a forced situation. Also, it's outdoors.

Well what is it? Banned or not?

What YOU'RE doing is trying to make the smoking bans seem unreasonable by saying "I'm not even sure if I can light up a cigarette in a public park". By saying this, you're insinuating that it's not legal when it clearly is.

You're just trying to mask a lie by saying "I'm not sure if..." and hope nobody notices. Well I noticed.

What if it is agreed upon that the people in the vicinity don't care? In bars, bowling alleys, and billiard halls, I know it's common to smoke. There are places that don't allow smoking, but I think that if it is agreed that smoking is okay in the building, why can't that be accepted?

I know that certain places in Illinois are still permitted to have smoking indoors, such as a hookah bar. I think that's great, because by entering it, you basically agree to be in a smoky environment, whether you choose to smoke or not. Can't this work with other establishments based on the owner's discretion?

This has already been responded to. Safety regulations are not optional. Just as one cannot choose whether or not to have fire alarms in their restaurant, one also cannot choose whether their patrons are allowed to spread poisonous gas.


And here comes the REALLY low blows...

Also, you can't smoke within a certain distance from buildings. So altho you say it is negligible, it seems the government thinks that choke point shouldn't have to suffer thru smoke. Doesn't that inconvenience the other party tho? What if I want to have a smoke break and respect the smoking ban. So I go outside and have to walk 15 feet outside the building. What if it's raining? The building is too far away to provide shelter, and you're standing there as if the people going into the building are more privileged than you.

---

It seems that those who don't smoke have to be respected more and those who do smoke have to have limitations set upon them. Is that really fair? Pollution is just as prevalent as second hand smoke. Why can't smokers and non-smokers respect each other? I'll never smoke near someone if they're uncomfortable. And if they're uncomfortable, they can move. I don't feel that one party should have to sacrifice its comfort, but that we should accommodate both sides.

Rather than conveying a cohesive logical argument as to why allowing smoking is in the best interest of the public, you just go for non-sequitor jabs at emotion. Lovely.

First, you paint a picture of a poor person, forced to go outside smoking in the rain. Non-smokers are walking into the building, clearly more PRIVILEGED than the smoker. I bet he even has to sit in the back of the bus on his ride home, too huh?

Then you have the gall to suggest that non-smokers don't respect smokers. This is baseless and inflammatory. All you're trying to do in this entire post is make veiled personal attacks at non-smokers in the hopes that nobody would notice.

 

[GhostAnime]

This has already been responded to. Safety regulations are not optional. Just as one cannot choose whether or not to have fire alarms in their restaurant, one also cannot choose whether their patrons are allowed to spread poisonous gas.

so shouldn't fast food fall in the same category?

besides, why must this go for ALL public places? what about public places that are basically MEANT for smoking? a ban like this is just too extreme and it's much better for the public to choose for this kind of thing.

in fact, don't they already?

 

[Vro]

What YOU'RE doing is trying to make the smoking bans seem unreasonable by saying "I'm not even sure if I can light up a cigarette in a public park". By saying this, you're insinuating that it's not legal when it clearly is.

I didn't mean to make the ban seem unreasonable. I said I respect it, and I'm not trying to slip a "I'm not sure" into a fact. A public park is public, and in my mind, more public than a restaurant. I've asked friends around me and have made a small effort into looking at the specifics, but I'm still not sure. If you can smoke, then that's okay, I was just trying to be respectful of the ban. If you can't, it seems slightly strange to not be able to smoke outside.

Rather than conveying a cohesive logical argument as to why allowing smoking is in the best interest of the public, you just go for non-sequitor jabs at emotion. Lovely.

First, you paint a picture of a poor person, forced to go outside smoking in the rain. Non-smokers are walking into the building, clearly more PRIVILEGED than the smoker. I bet he even has to sit in the back of the bus on his ride home, too huh?

Then you have the gall to suggest that non-smokers don't respect smokers. This is baseless and inflammatory. All you're trying to do in this entire post is make veiled personal attacks at non-smokers in the hopes that nobody would notice.

I never intended to make any personal attacks. I said it seems that the differences between smokers and non-smokers is significant. So far as to have a law which inconveniences one party and not the other, seems biased. I understand the best interest of health, but banning smoking from any building available to the public seems to be a stretch. Why can't the other party observe its best interest of health and go somewhere not smoky? I'm not telling them to, but it seems unfair for one party to abide by rules just for having a smoking habit.

Please don't stretch my words. I'm not hiding messages in between the lines. I mean it when I said I respect the ban, but it seems slightly flawed. And I'll respect it while holding my opinion. Why is it only the smokers have to make a decision to not smoke? Why don't non-smokers make the decision of moving away instead of having the government do it for them?

Really, I just want to be able to smoke in a bar and maybe a billiards hall. I'm not asking for every establishment to allow it. I'm not asking for the complete overhaul of the ban in best interest of personal enjoyment. I understand health precautions. But I don't understand why only one party has to "suffer" while the other just goes on thru their day.

And no, I don't honestly mean suffer. Please don't stretch my words and accuse me of being a rude person. I try to think I'm courteous... =/

 

[AltF4]

so shouldn't fast food fall in the same category?

besides, why must this go for ALL public places? what about public places that are basically MEANT for smoking? a ban like this is just too extreme and it's much better for the public to choose for this kind of thing.

in fact, don't they already?

The difference is in who you're hurting. When you do things like eat fast food, chew tobacco, or skydive, you only put yourself at risk. I am fully in support of people being allowed to do things which is harmful to only themselves. Smoking, however, is harmful to everyone around you.

You can punch yourself in the face, but you cannot go around punching others.


Vro:

You're leaving the most important part of the debate out: Smoking is harmful to those around you. This is not a matter of one party being inconvenienced over another. This is a matter of one party being inconvenienced so that the other isn't unwillingly poisoned.

I would really like to hear an argument for why you think you're entitled to go into a public place and poison everyone around you and then force THEM to leave if they don't like it.

And lastly about the park: The smoking bans that are in effect in Arizona (and the ones I support) affect only indoor public places. In an outdoor park smoking doesn't harm anyone except the smoker, and thus isn't necessary to prohibit.

 

[Vro]

You're leaving the most important part of the debate out: Smoking is harmful to those around you. This is not a matter of one party being inconvenienced over another. This is a matter of one party being inconvenienced so that the other isn't unwillingly poisoned.

I would really like to hear an argument for why you think you're entitled to go into a public place and poison everyone around you and then force THEM to leave if they don't like it.

It's understandable why the smoking ban inconveniences only those who smoke, for they are the ones causing harm. However, what if everyone entering the facility smokes? You can say that second hand smoke is only increased and that it shouldn't be allowed, but the consent of the smoker seems to be there. I've seen strong ventilation systems in hookah bars and bowling alleys. Can only some public places explicitly state they allow smoking while installing safety precautions? Rather than people entering a facility and becoming frustrated when they see another person light up, could they enter the building knowing that might happen?

Again, I only want this to affect bars. Beer and cigarettes is just a fun time. Not all bars should allow smoking and I think that there should definitely be safety regulations, so you're not just suffocating from smoke. I think that preference to both parties should be offered, respecting each other's opinion on health.

And lastly about the park: The smoking bans that are in effect in Arizona (and the ones I support) affect only indoor public places. In an outdoor park smoking doesn't harm anyone except the smoker, and thus isn't necessary to prohibit.

I see. Maybe my friends just instilled that idea into my head. Or maybe I'm still trying to wrap my head around public vs. private. I'll hope Illinois is the same as Arizona the next time I feel the need to have a cig in the park then. It doesn't hurt anyone else either, so.. cool.

 

[GhostAnime]

The difference is in who you're hurting. When you do things like eat fast food, chew tobacco, or skydive, you only put yourself at risk.

so what risk is it at a bar where everybody smokes and/or nobody cares about second-hand smoke? wouldnt a ban be ineffective and wrong there?

you still didn't really answer my question about the public already choosing which place via free market.

 

[Deleted member]

You're insane. The vast majority of Americans do not smoke.

 

[GhostAnime]

that's irrelevant. i'm talking about majorities at individual places.

 

[Deleted member]

Individual establishments are not above the law.

 

[GhostAnime]

so what makes you, one person, have the right to tell me and my friends in a bar where everybody's fine and the owner wants it, not to smoke and use government mandate to enforce it even when you aren't forced to enter the place?

you aren't above the law anymore than i am. neither are the smokers. you also definitely aren't above the owner of the establishment. so why do you take authority over him?

how about you come up with a better way of enforcing bans rather than making it a blanket law.

 

[AltF4]

GhostAnime

Firstly, awesome avatar.

Secondly, the free market ensures only one thing: an equilibrium between supply and demand. It does not ensure the health or safety of individuals. Laws are needed for that.

Ever hear of child labor laws? They exist because the safety of children was not being upheld by the free market.

Hell, look at murder. Murder is clearly bad the the economy. It is purely destructive and not constructive. But the free market does not prevent murder. Laws set forth by the government are necessary to prevent murder and promote safety.

That whole argument from Free Market is ridiculous.

Thirdly, I'm not immediately opposed to allowing smoking in places where the business deals exclusively in smoking. I'm not familiar with Hookah bars, but I thought there wasn't any second hand with it. Like... the smoke stays in the Hookah or whatever.

Smoking in bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys is certainly prohibited though. A person should have the right to enjoy a drink or a bar's other activities without being poisoned.

 

[GhostAnime]

Secondly, the free market ensures only one thing: an equilibrium between supply and demand. It does not ensure the health or safety of individuals. Laws are needed for that.

laws are only needed if it is a necessity, however. i don't believe it is necessary to make a blanket law over everything.

the free market does more than ensure supply and demand. it also ensures (at least in this case) that the majority of everybody is happy at each individual place.

Ever hear of child labor laws? They exist because the safety of children was not being upheld by the free market.

but that's different. the free market HERE is for the worse while the free market for smoking is just giving people rights (indirectly or directly).

Hell, look at murder. Murder is clearly bad the the economy. It is purely destructive and not constructive. But the free market does not prevent murder. Laws set forth by the government are necessary to prevent murder and promote safety.

why is murder comparable? i mean there's a world of difference between instantly taking someone's life away and smoking near somebody where they could just as easily stand away.

Smoking in bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys is certainly prohibited though. A person should have the right to enjoy a drink or a bar's other activities without being poisoned.

then shouldnt they go to a place that will? how about simply not being near the smoker or asking them to move away? or maybe they can protest for smoking sections/ban, whatever. using the government is far too extreme in this case.

 

[AltF4]

But you still haven't answered as to why you feel that you have the right to go into a public place, poison everyone around you, and if they don't like it, make THEM leave.

What if I came into a restaurant you were eating at and took a huge **** right in front of you. Well, if you don't like it, then leave!

It's unhealthy to everyone around you. You do NOT have the right to go around injuring people in public as you see fit. Why do you think that you do?!

 

[GhostAnime]

But you still haven't answered as to why you feel that you have the right to go into a public place, poison everyone around you, and if they don't like it, make THEM leave.

you're right. i don't have the right to make you leave because of my smoke. you do.

of course i know you mean by force due to the smoke so here's a better answer: the owner has more rights than both us, so he'll do what he sees fit. perhaps a section, perhaps ban it, or perhaps allow it all over the place. i guarantee you that if he allows it all over the place... you most likely wouldn't be caught dead there anyway and i really hope you aren't one of those people who hate it even if there are different sections.

What if I came into a restaurant you were eating at and took a huge **** right in front of you. Well, if you don't like it, then leave!

you seem to think that smokers out right tell non-smokers to always leave and that they'll follow them all over the place just to annoy them. that's more of an issue with the person; not the smoke.

 

[Deleted member]

The reason it's banned is because it's a selfish act that directly involves others which may or may not be unwanted. Even if you were to have a Smokers Only restaurant, you will still have people coming in that don't smoke.

It's a public place. Sure, it may be privately owned - but the sheer fact that health inspectors come in regularly explicitly show that it is not the same as a residence.

Laws are still in effect. If enough people (re: vast majority) don't want to deal with your disgusting habit, a law passes to force those people outside.

I really don't understand the problem here. Health laws are not situational, and they're not up to the owners to debate.

 

[GhostAnime]

Even if you were to have a Smokers Only restaurant, you will still have people coming in that don't smoke.

isn't that their problem if the restaurant is solely for smokers? that's like giving into the demands of a person who wants well-cooked meals yet goes to McDonald's.

It's a public place. Sure, it may be privately owned - but the sheer fact that health inspectors come in regularly explicitly show that it is not the same as a residence.

and the sheer fact that smoking is legal in all 50 states shows that smoking is completely legal where it is allowed.

Laws are still in effect. If enough people (re: vast majority) don't want to deal with your disgusting habit, a law passes to force those people outside.

oh, look! common ground! why can't we apply this individually?

 

[AltF4]

And yet it's funny that you fail to quote nor address the last part of Del's post. The part that's the most important:

It's not up to the owner's to decide. It's not up to the free market to decide. In matters of public health, laws are made by government. (Which, not-coincidentally, are directly or indirectly voted in by the people)

The smoking bans in place in Arizona were passed as a proposition, and by a large majority. This is not the case of a small vocal minority. This happens to be the case that a small minority (smokers) are ruining establishments such as bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys by making them covered in smoke. Ever since the ban, such establishments have flourished.

(Though btw: this would be valid even IF it were by a minority. It is the role of government to protect the rights of minorities, not enforce the whim of the majority)

 

[GhostAnime]

if your only argument is force it because of health issues then why not ban fast food? you say that 'it doesn't harm everybody else', but you're even insistent on banning in places where no non-smoker goes to! it's virtually the same thing in that case.

even more problems arise when you do ban smoking in public places: you encourage people to smoke at home, where the kids and family members have no choice but to breathe in it there.

 

[Eor]

Fast food is a choice, me eating fast food next to you doesn't clog your arteries.

 

[GhostAnime]

and sitting away from a smoker doesn't harm your lungs. or sitting in a smoking section. yet we need blanket bans to fix what already can be fixed by simply rationalizing with the owner. if you're willing to ban it even where the people are completely fine, then you may as well ban all other things that are unhealthy.

if there are so many people worried about second-hand smoke in public places, why isn't the owner doing anything about it if it benefits him?

i'm curious: how would you guys feel if there was a sign in plain site that explained the smoking conditions inside?

 

[Crimson King]

Smoke is in the air, and the poisons will travel in the vents and such and cost a great deal of damage.

The owner has no reason to care. He actually loses business with a smoking ban.

 

[GhostAnime]

cost a great deal of damage.

do you mean like property damage? because then it'd actually be required WITHOUT the health reasons already.

The owner has no reason to care. He actually loses business with a smoking ban.

not all businesses. most grocery stores benefit from a ban. most bars benefit from loose smoking rules.

 

[lonejedi]

Smoke is in the air, and the poisons will travel in the vents and such and cost a great deal of damage.

The owner has no reason to care. He actually loses business with a smoking ban.

That's not entirely true. This might just be the exception to the rule, but i know there are alot of bars and owners of bars who were against the ban in our area, and after the ban, they had better business, and are now for the ban.

 

[derek.haines]

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/DayOfDefiance_v1H3.pdf

There's a part in that PDF near the end that details the loss of business in New York state, and it makes for a pretty good read. This is what smoking bans actually do to establishments.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I still don't see what the problem is with having a law that just forces establishments to post outside conspicuously that they allow smoking. That way it is a choice to eat at this restaurant in the same way it is a choice to eat at an unhealty fast food place. Nobody is all of a sudden beset by smoke unwittingly.

 

[AltF4]

Funny thing you mention that, Hyuga. When Arizona voted on the smoking ban, there were two propositions available: One that prohibited smoking in all indoor public places, and one which simply mandated large conspicuous signs be placed on establishments which allow smoking.

The reason the second did not pass was that it did not actually change anything. Everyone already knows which establishments are full of smokers, and they stay away from them. No signs were necessary. The problem isn't that people didn't know which establishments allowed smoking, it's that they allow it in the first place. It was just an attempt to defer the issue of whether smoking should be allowed in these indoor public places or not. The issue is not that we don't know which ones allow the smoking.