• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?

Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?

  • Total voters
    107
clownboy said:
Coal power still accounts for 42% of the electricity in the US.

page1-776px-Electricity_by_Coal.pdf.jpg


If you live out in the Western states you're far less likely to ever see a coal plant.
Click to expand...

I live 5 miles from a coal burning power plant. If cigarette smokers were required to smoke at least 5 miles away from me, I'd never complain;).
 
Cigarette smoking kills thousands every year.....It should be banned everywhere.
 
iguanaman said:
They came in expecting food not cancer causing smoke. If the place was called "The Cancer Castle" maybe you'd have a point.
Click to expand...
If smoking were legally allowed, they would be seriously naive and mistaken to expect a smoke-free environment. Case dismissed.
 
Hatuey said:
You don't have to buy it. There are thousands of fires started yearly thanks to irresponsible smokers. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, but show me the statistics of smokers starting fires in restaurants.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Very liberal thinking there Navy.
Click to expand...

Well, it does go to show that the government doesn't care at all about the people. They only care about the money. :mrgreen:
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, but show me the statistics of smokers starting fires in restaurants.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter? The possibility of an accidental fire which isn't covered by insurance is enough of an incentive to disallow it at a bar. :shrug: It's a preventative ban not one based on statistics. If anything, it's more than likely that the reason cigarettes are banned is the possibility of an accident as opposed to statistical evidence based on it. There's less evidence of people dying from 2nd hand smoke than there is of accidental fires started by misplaced cigarettes.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

Approximately 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations annually in the United States
Click to expand...

An estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia annually
Click to expand...

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/

An estimated 43.8 million people, or 19.0% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes.1 Cigarette smoking is more common among men (21.6%) than women (16.5%).1
Click to expand...

So you have less than 1% of the people around smokers actually being harmed from 2nd hand smoke

vs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...he-most-deadly-cause-of-house-fire-fatalities

Smokers are being reminded today that careless disposal of cigarettes is the single biggest killer in house fires. Habits such as smoking whilst drinking alcohol in the home or lighting up in bed are responsible for one in three (36 per cent) of all accidental house fires resulting in deaths.
Click to expand...

36% of all accidental house fires started by smokers.

Yep, I'd say that's a good enough reason to ban smoking if I ran a bar.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Why does it matter? The possibility of an accidental fire which isn't covered by insurance is enough of an incentive to disallow it at a bar. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It is, but I don't think that's the main reason. Bars and restaurants allowed smoking for years and years before all the information about second-hand smoking started coming out.
 
ChrisL said:
It is, but I don't think that's the main reason. Bars and restaurants allowed smoking for years and years before all the information about second-hand smoking started coming out.
Click to expand...

You're right. People also drove cars without seat belts for 60+ years. Try finding an insurance company that will cover you if you weren't wearing a seat belt during an accident today. The same logic applies to bars. A bar owner whose establishment catches on fire because of some smokers leaving a cigarette in the wrong place will be **** out of luck. Why take the risk to begin with? It's far easier to ban smoking at the bar.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
You're right. People also drove cars without seat belts for 60+ years. Try finding an insurance company that will cover you if you weren't wearing a seat belt during an accident today. The same logic applies to bars. A bar owner whose establishment catches on fire because of some smokers leaving a cigarette in the wrong place will be **** out of luck. Why take the risk to begin with? It's far easier to ban smoking at the bar.
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely wrong. Smoking is also banned at many other public places. I don't think it has to do with fires either.
 
ChrisL said:
I think you are absolutely wrong. Smoking is also banned at many other public places. I don't think it has to do with fires either.
Click to expand...

If you can find me a better reason than the possibility of accidental fires that aren't covered by insurance, I'll concede. I don't buy the possibility of somebody getting a whiff of 2nd hand smoke as the reason. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
If you can find me a better reason than the possibility of accidental fires that aren't covered by insurance, I'll concede.
Click to expand...

I already have. :roll:
 
Smeagol said:
I'm not sure if coal creates less pollution than gas but I agree, both are pollutants. You hear of smoke warnings (caused by gas) in Los Angeles but I live about 5 miles from a coal burning power plant and its clear skies and fresh air where I live.

The increased interest in electric cars is also creating a push for cleaner energy production. Telsa Motors is pretty public about eventually developing carports and garage roofs make out of solar cells for home car recharging.
Click to expand...

Coal is likely overall dirtier, gas and gas engines have become very good in the modern era in limiting pollution. But while there is a "push" for new energy, there isn't really a push. We have these little things on the side, wind and solar, but we shun nuclear and invest way more in finding new ways to blow each other up than for finding a better, cleaner source of energy. We'll see where Tesla Motors ends up.

BTW, solar cells require massive arsenic strip mining.
 
Navy Pride said:
Cigarette smoking kills thousands every year.....It should be banned everywhere.
Click to expand...

Cars kill 10's of thousands each year. If death is the only qualifier, then obviously we should focus there as well.
 
Hatuey said:
You're right. People also drove cars without seat belts for 60+ years. Try finding an insurance company that will cover you if you weren't wearing a seat belt during an accident today. The same logic applies to bars. A bar owner whose establishment catches on fire because of some smokers leaving a cigarette in the wrong place will be **** out of luck. Why take the risk to begin with? It's far easier to ban smoking at the bar.
Click to expand...

While this is a logical reason for an individual to ban smoking in their establishment, it is not proper argument for government pushing the issue.
 
Ikari said:
While this is a logical reason for an individual to ban smoking in their establishment, it is not proper argument for government pushing the issue.
Click to expand...

I think the government has an interest in legislating reasonable safety measures that could shield a business from potential damage. There is no difference for me between this and having health standards for food.
 
Hatuey said:
I think the government has an interest in legislating reasonable safety measures that could shield a business from potential damage. There is no difference for me between this and having health standards for food.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but not enough so that it must ban it in bars everywhere. Health food standards particularly speak to that which the customer cannot see. We don't go into the back, we cannot necessarily inspect the food or watch it being prepared. The governments steps in, in a good number of cases reasonably so, runs the assessments and gathers the data, and then reports that data on the front of the establishment with a grade. That grade lets us know. But you'll never be surprised by an establishment that allows smoking. It's beyond fires at this point and was never about our safety so much as it was about our knowledge.
 
Ikari said:
Perhaps, but not enough so that it must ban it in bars everywhere. Health food standards particularly speak to that which the customer cannot see. We don't go into the back, we cannot necessarily inspect the food or watch it being prepared. The governments steps in, in a good number of cases reasonably so, runs the assessments and gathers the data, and then reports that data on the front of the establishment with a grade. That grade lets us know. But you'll never be surprised by an establishment that allows smoking. It's beyond fires at this point and was never about our safety so much as it was about our knowledge.
Click to expand...

I would agree if the reason for banning smoking in bars wasn't one which was meant to protect the owner and customers at the same time. While health standards and grades give an idea of the quality of the establishment, they also provide a reasonable amount of protection for businesses. A business who meets health and food standards can better protect itself in the case of a lawsuit. Likewise, smoking bans shield 1) bar owners from possibly bankrupting accidents and 2) customers from lawsuits stemming from possible accidents.
 
We could power cars with hemp or water.
 
radcen said:
Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?

Most states have blanket bans against smoking in all bars and restaurants. No exceptions. As a result, you often see smokers huddled in small groups outside partaking in cigarettes.

I am not, and have never been, a smoker but to me this in inherently unfair. IMO, the state should set aside special permits for a small percentage of bars and restaurants where smoking be allowed. To pick a number, I would say 10% to 15% of bars and restaurants should be allowed to have smoking inside. Have them post a large sign at each entrance notifying potentials customers, so everyone is fully informed and able to make their own choice. No one needs to go in and act surprised.

I don't see the need to make them age-restricted to 18+ or 21+, but I could live with that compromise.

What think you?
Click to expand...

You would have to have bar tenders and waiters who were smokers also, then it would be fair.
 
Carleen said:
You would have to have bar tenders and waiters who were smokers also, then it would be fair.
Click to expand...

I can envision bars and restaurants for smokers only. Fine by me.
 
vesper said:
It may be stupid, disgusting and invasive to others Bodhisattva, but the question was related to private businesses not sporting events or on an airplane. Even though you find it disgusting, others may not. Yet because you don't like it, it should be banned from all public establishments? What has happened to tolerance? Why can't business owners make their own choices? If you don't want to be around it, why can't you find a place that doesn't allow it? And if smoking is so bad then why isn't there an all out ban to abolish it? Is it because those who complain about it the most are enjoying the taxes it generates?
Click to expand...

With regards to restaurants if smoking were allowed then not enough people would stop going to the establishment out of protest because they would "tolerate" it. Stop going to favourite places in order to protest is something that most people wouldn't do. Same with other "private" places that the public goes to. That said the unhealthy aspect of smoking would be placed upon individuals again. Those that complain the most are seeing their insurance rates and taxes used to support a filthy and disgusting habit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom