Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?

Ikari said:

So you presume ownership of others property and labor. They're there to serve you and you get to mandate what they can and cannot allow on their property even if it's legal activity.

It's not necessarily "public" business. Just because people can walk through the door doesn't mean they must be served.

Click to expand...

I dont own it. My vote was placed to install the rule that the government can regulate it.

paddymcdougall said:

Thank goodness we live in a time where more people agree with me than with you.

Click to expand...

So when more people agreed with slavery that made it right?

annata said:

So take it outside, sorry you're dieing for a smoke, but don't take me with you, on that trip.

Click to expand...

How about instead you stay outside if you don't like that people are allowed to smoke inside? What is so hard about that concept?

Amandi said:

I dont own it. My vote was placed to install the rule that the government can regulate it.

Click to expand...

You're pretending like you own it. Despite not paying any of the bills, not working towards the success of the business, or anything of the sort. You're entitled to use government force against the free exercise of rights by the property owner, that's your argument. You presume ownership of other people's property and labor. You should at least understand the logical conclusions of your position.

Amandi said:

I dont own it. My vote was placed to install the rule that the government can regulate it.

Click to expand...

Well hell let's regulate what you can't do in your home as well. Why stop there? We'll regulate what you do in your car. There is no place private. It's all government controlled.

maquiscat said:

How about instead you stay outside if you don't like that people are allowed to smoke inside? What is so hard about that concept?

Click to expand...

Entitled folk don't understand this. They feel that everyone needs to bend over backwards for them and that they should never be inconvenienced at any point. Responsible consumerism and free exercise of rights doesn't seem to be a concern.

Ikari said:

Entitled folk don't understand this. They feel that everyone needs to bend over backwards for them and that they should never be inconvenienced at any point. Responsible consumerism and free exercise of rights doesn't seem to be a concern.

Click to expand...

I agree, I think entitled folk do feel this way.

maquiscat said:

Well hell let's regulate what you can't do in your home as well. Why stop there? We'll regulate what you do in your car. There is no place private. It's all government controlled.

Click to expand...

We already do.

Ikari said:

You're pretending like you own it. Despite not paying any of the bills, not working towards the success of the business, or anything of the sort. You're entitled to use government force against the free exercise of rights by the property owner, that's your argument. You presume ownership of other people's property and labor. You should at least understand the logical conclusions of your position.

Click to expand...

I understand that your logic leads to this. My logic works differently.

Amandi said:

I understand that your logic leads to this. My logic works differently.

Click to expand...

Your logic results in government force used against the free exercise of rights. The fact is, you have choice and you always have choice. Just because other people choose differently than you doesn't mean you can call down the guns of government to force your way. Responsible consumerism is a non-violent way to influence local business.

Ikari said:

Your logic results in government force used against the free exercise of rights. The fact is, you have choice and you always have choice. Just because other people choose differently than you doesn't mean you can call down the guns of government to force your way. Responsible consumerism is a non-violent way to influence local business.

Click to expand...

And I do that. I dont go to Chic-fil-a or buy Jelly Belly jelly beans, I am not telling any government force to do anything about that. Smoking affects others, I would have no problem banning it entirely.

Amandi said:

And I do that. I dont go to Chic-fil-a or buy Jelly Belly jelly beans, I am not telling any government force to do anything about that. Smoking affects others, I would have no problem banning it entirely.

Click to expand...

Smoking only affects others when they are near it. Because you don't want to have to take the time and effort to be informed if it is occurring in a business or because you want to shop somewhere where it is occurring, you (this is the generalized you of the anti-smoking crowd) instead get laws passed to impose on other people's rights to do as they wish with their private businesses. It's really that simple.

maquiscat said:

Smoking only affects others when they are near it. Because you don't want to have to take the time and effort to be informed if it is occurring in a business or because you want to shop somewhere where it is occurring, you (this is the generalized you of the anti-smoking crowd) instead get laws passed to impose on other people's rights to do as they wish with their private businesses. It's really that simple.

Click to expand...

Only if you're hanging around smokers, which wouldn't be the case if you avoided establishments that would allow smoking.

Amandi said:

And I do that. I dont go to Chic-fil-a or buy Jelly Belly jelly beans, I am not telling any government force to do anything about that. Smoking affects others, I would have no problem banning it entirely.

Click to expand...

A business should be allowed to choose what they allow in their establishment. If people dont like it, they dont have to shop their. Consumers influence will drive what is important to people. If most Americans are offended by smoking and refuse to shop at my store simply because of that, I am likely to make changes. Allowing the government to state that severely limits freedoms. Because it is best for society should the government be allowed to tell you what church to go to? What foods you can eat? What car you can drive? Do you think that you should be allowed to make any decisions of your own?

Kreton said:

A business should be allowed to choose what they allow in their establishment. If people dont like it, they dont have to shop their. Consumers influence will drive what is important to people. If most Americans are offended by smoking and refuse to shop at my store simply because of that, I am likely to make changes. Allowing the government to state that severely limits freedoms. Because it is best for society should the government be allowed to tell you what church to go to? What foods you can eat? What car you can drive? Do you think that you should be allowed to make any decisions of your own?

Click to expand...

Businesses can't serve drinks to underage patrons

Businesses can't refuse to serve someone because of their ethnic background

Businesses have to maintain a certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen

Businesses have to collect sales taxes

AND - businesses can't allow smoking indoors because of the impact of second hand smoke.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Or maybe you also think the other restrictions are unreasonable as well?

re what car you can drive - the cars you drive have to pass certain safety standards; the car companies can't sell you an unsafe car. Is this an unreasonable restriction on their private business? I don't think so. Some of you might.

There is no inherent right to own a business; you have to follow the rules.

paddymcdougall said:

Businesses can't serve drinks to underage patrons

Businesses can't refuse to serve someone because of their ethnic background

Businesses have to maintain a certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen

Businesses have to collect sales taxes

AND - businesses can't allow smoking indoors because of the impact of second hand smoke.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Or maybe you also think the other restrictions are unreasonable as well?

re what car you can drive - the cars you drive have to pass certain safety standards; the car companies can't sell you an unsafe car. Is this an unreasonable restriction on their private business? I don't think so. Some of you might.

There is no inherent right to own a business; you have to follow the rules.

Click to expand...

Drinking underage is generally illegal
Protected classes are protected classes due to historic trends
Health and safety is required for government in areas consumers are unlikely to see to ensure proper food handling. If it were common to tour the kitchen of a restaurant before sitting down, it wouldn't be necesseary
Government loves taxes
Smoking is a legal activity and barring underage smoking, it should be up to the property owner as to whether or not they wish to sell alcohol.

I don't know why anyone wants to use government force against the free exercise of rights when they already had previously so many options available to them.

paddymcdougall said:

Businesses can't serve drinks to underage patrons

Businesses can't refuse to serve someone because of their ethnic background

Businesses have to maintain a certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen

Businesses have to collect sales taxes

AND - businesses can't allow smoking indoors because of the impact of second hand smoke.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Or maybe you also think the other restrictions are unreasonable as well?

re what car you can drive - the cars you drive have to pass certain safety standards; the car companies can't sell you an unsafe car. Is this an unreasonable restriction on their private business? I don't think so. Some of you might.

There is no inherent right to own a business; you have to follow the rules.

Click to expand...

Honestly yes i do have a problem with most of those things. I dont think the government should be allowed to create laws unless those laws are designed to specifically protect other citizens rights. Murder, assault, theft, ect should illegal and the state/government should have the power to punish people who violate the rights of others. Beyond that it is an abuse of power. I get that some people are too weak willed to make their own decisions, but that doesn't make it right.

Kreton said:

Honestly yes i do have a problem with most of those things. I dont think the government should be allowed to create laws unless those laws are designed to specifically protect other citizens rights. Murder, assault, theft, ect should illegal and the state/government should have the power to punish people who violate the rights of others. Beyond that it is an abuse of power. I get that some people are too weak willed to make their own decisions, but that doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

At least you're consistent, even if I disagree with you!

maquiscat said:

The one thing we'll probably agree on is the disgustingness of smoking. With sporting events, about the only restriction I'd go with is the immediate vicinity of the playing area.

Click to expand...

That is what I meant. Outside the stadium or in the lobbies is fine. There were times when some person would light up in the stands as we were warming up or competing. That was not acceptable.

Bodhisattva said:

That is what I meant. Outside the stadium or in the lobbies is fine. There were times when some person would light up in the stands as we were warming up or competing. That was not acceptable.

Click to expand...

I heard in the old days cyclists who competed in Velodromes would smoke before the event; that was because there was so much smoke from spectators in the event building that if they didn't smoke, they would be overwhelmed from the fumes.

Don't know if it's true or not, heard it from a cycling fan.

So glad now that when I go to a sporting event I don't have to worry about the fan in front of me lighting up and sending the smoke my way

paddymcdougall said:

I heard in the old days cyclists who competed in Velodromes would smoke before the event; that was because there was so much smoke from spectators in the event building that if they didn't smoke, they would be overwhelmed from the fumes.

Don't know if it's true or not, heard it from a cycling fan.

So glad now that when I go to a sporting event I don't have to worry about the fan in front of me lighting up and sending the smoke my way

Click to expand...

No idea about the cycling thing... I can only speak about my experiences competing. IF it was in Europe I bet it was pretty bad smoke.

paddymcdougall said:

Businesses can't serve drinks to underage patrons

Click to expand...

No one can legally provide alcohol to underaged individuals, so businesses are not isolated in this aspect as they are in smoking.

Businesses can't refuse to serve someone because of their ethnic background

Click to expand...

Actually that also falls under the same arguments as are being presented here and there is also currently another thread dealing with this issue more specificly.

Businesses have to maintain a certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen

Click to expand...

That falls under the normal limits of freedoms insofar as since one can't know what goes on in the kitchen one can't make an informed decision. This same reasoning cannot be made for smoking since it's pretty much an either or issue. Either smoking is allowed and you are aware of the danger of second hand smoke or it's not and you know you are safe.

Businesses have to collect sales taxes

Click to expand...

Only if they are in a state with sales taxes.

AND - businesses can't allow smoking indoors because of the impact of second hand smoke.

Click to expand...

Which is what we are discussing as to whether or not it is an overreaching restriction. The impact of second hand smoke is something that each individual controls. No one can be exposed to second hand smoke against their will within a building environment, short of a rules violation against the owner's wishes. If you know smoking is allowed then you are choosing to expose yourself to second hand smoke if you enter the building.

I don't know why anyone has a problem with this. Or maybe you also think the other restrictions are unreasonable as well?

Click to expand...

There are many unreasonable restrictions, especially when it comes to businesses. At some point in this country we have decided that private businesses are no longer private. At that point why not just make them all government run?

re what car you can drive - the cars you drive have to pass certain safety standards; the car companies can't sell you an unsafe car. Is this an unreasonable restriction on their private business? I don't think so. Some of you might.

There is no inherent right to own a business; you have to follow the rules.

Click to expand...

Actually there is. It's part of your inherent right to do with your property, time and life what you wish, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. Hence where the rules come in. The rules are to protect us from one another violating rights and freedoms.

Bodhisattva said:

That is what I meant. Outside the stadium or in the lobbies is fine. There were times when some person would light up in the stands as we were warming up or competing. That was not acceptable.

Click to expand...

I'm still for allowing it in the stadium, just not right near the players. Now this runs a very fine line with me and I would prefer it if it was a stadium owner who made such rules. But sports players are somewhat unique insofar as how they are considered employees. They don't get to fully choose where they work. If you had one team where the home stadium was smoke free, you'd still have to worry about the stadiums you visit. Additionally, a player can be traded and end up in a smoking stadium. Thus the limit in the immediate vicinity. However, higher up in the stands, if the owner allows it, light 'em up!

maquiscat said:

Smoking only affects others when they are near it. Because you don't want to have to take the time and effort to be informed if it is occurring in a business or because you want to shop somewhere where it is occurring, you (this is the generalized you of the anti-smoking crowd) instead get laws passed to impose on other people's rights to do as they wish with their private businesses. It's really that simple.

Click to expand...

And I know my motivation is to help other people, especially the children (see, I played the children card).

Kreton said:

A business should be allowed to choose what they allow in their establishment. If people dont like it, they dont have to shop their. Consumers influence will drive what is important to people. If most Americans are offended by smoking and refuse to shop at my store simply because of that, I am likely to make changes. Allowing the government to state that severely limits freedoms. Because it is best for society should the government be allowed to tell you what church to go to? What foods you can eat? What car you can drive? Do you think that you should be allowed to make any decisions of your own?

Click to expand...

What church you go to doesnt affect others around you. What foods you eat dont affect others around you. You shouldnt be allowed to make a decision that affects those around you.

Amandi said:

And I know my motivation is to help other people, especially the children (see, I played the children card).

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's usually just used by people with no other arguments and an immense desire to use government against the free exercise of another's rights.

Amandi said:

What church you go to doesnt affect others around you. What foods you eat dont affect others around you. You shouldnt be allowed to make a decision that affects those around you.

Click to expand...

Some religions teach incredible intolerance and harassment, occasionally spilling over into violent crime. Or those Christian Scientists who let their kids die cause they don't like medical care. Eating poorly costs us all money when you need to go to the emergency room or causes insurance companies to increase overall premiums to cover additional costs.