To me if they go under because of a smoking ban they didn't plan ahead, and they didn't have much of a business in the first place. A really good restaurant won't go under because of a smoking ban. Also, good luck on the quitting smoking, it's a tough battle, but it can be done.I smoked for 20 years (I quit 2 days ago). I've seen businesses go under because of smoking bans. I've seen people lose their jobs because a business went under due to a smoking ban. If one person loses their job or their business because of a smoking ban, it's one too many. By supporting these smoking bans, you are also supporting nanny-ism. The left is guilty of it and so is the right. In either case, they are 110% wrong.
People will risk their health to make money, so I don't think it's necessarily their choice.I work in a casino where people are allowed to smoke. The employees choose to work in that environment and the guests choose to enter an environment. No one is having second hand smoke forced on them, it's a choice that they make. Any argument stating anything to the contrary would be a losing one.
There are no freedoms being stripped away. This is a public safety issue, and the government does have the right to regulate it. No business should put any of their customer's health at risk to keep customer's who have bad habits. Businesses are their to serve others, and they have to take in all of their customers not just a few.If I choose to go to a bar and have a drink after work, I'm making a choice to enter a smoking environment. Nothing is being forced on me because I don't have to go to the bar. I could simply go home, have a beer (or four since I'm already at home) and not be exposed to second hand smoke. Once again, it's a choice that I make. When the government starts mandating smoking bans, they are taking the rights of individuals and business owners away from them. It's no longer an issue of public safety and more an issue of freedoms being stripped.
Anytime you enter any establishment, or even outdoors where smoking may be permitted, it's being forced on the non-smokers. The non-smokers shouldn't have to make the choice since they aren't the polluters, it's the smoker's who bear the responsibility. Most smoker's won't control where they smoke if it isn't restricted.And if anyone is going to respond to my post, please provide an example of second hand smoke being forced on someone. But since you can't because one does not exist, I don't expect any responses at the same time.
Last edited by Marilyn Monroe; 01-02-09 at 10:02 AM. Reason: incomplete
"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.
So if a majority of a business's customers are allergic to a certain type of perfume, the government should be able to ban it? It's a public safety issue and their customer's health is at risk. Businesses are their to serve others but they should also be allowed to run their business the way they want to within the law, and last I checked cigarettes are still legal. For instance you say they have to take in all of their customers not just a few, for lots of businesses it's the other way around. Most of their customers are smokers and a few are not. So they now have to accomodate their few customers instead of the majority because of a law that forces them to.
Is what you're living for today, worth dying for tomorrow?
It is possible that the businesses that get support from smokers may be getting less support from non-smokers because the business allows smoking. Once the smoking ban took effect in Washington, D.C., I began meeting friends for drinks after work (instead of Starbucks) on a regular basis.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
So using your logic, the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City wasn't much of a business? How about Harrah's Resort in Atlantic City? Nah, neither of those are serious businesses. I mean they don't employ thousands of people do they? I know of quite a few people that lost their jobs because they were laid off due to the sudden drop in business in April when the smoking ban in AC went into effect. But since these aren't "much of a business", we should just dismiss it right?
Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.
From the OP:
I have an alternate interpretation which none of the smoker-haters have considered.A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is, government researchers said Wednesday. The study, the longest-running of its kind, showed the rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent in the three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect.
Perhaps what this study means is that, in the absence of life-giving second-hand cigarette smoke, 40% of the people who normally would've made it as far as the hospital when they had a heart attack instead flat-out dropped dead.
This is what happens when you rely on anecdotal evidence to make your case.
That is all.
There may be multiple factors at work here, of which a smoking ban may or may not play a role. Not all variables have been controlled.
However, they are not simply relying on anecdotal evidence, IMO. There is a statistical study here that they are using in conjunction with known events.