• 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
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.

If an individuals action leads to violence then that individual should be held responsible.
 
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.

Or used by us that actually believe it.
 
You taking your kids to bars?

I only know a few bars in this area that doesnt serve food and children cant go into. There was nothing in this thread that said it was bars only.
 
I only know a few bars in this area that doesnt serve food and children cant go into. There was nothing in this thread that said it was bars only.

I'm just wondering where this care of the children ends. Strip clubs, taking your kids there too?
 
I'm just wondering where this care of the children ends. Strip clubs, taking your kids there too?

There are none in this area, however, no they shouldnt go there. What does this have to do with this discussion though? Nowhere did it say bars only, it said bars and restaurants.
 
There are none in this area, however, no they shouldnt go there. What does this have to do with this discussion though? Nowhere did it say bars only, it said bars and restaurants.

Well if it's all about the children, then adult businesses should be allowed to have smoking, yes?

No where did it say bars only, but you Lovejoy'd so now we're exploring the limits of your emotional argument.
 
Well if it's all about the children, then adult businesses should be allowed to have smoking, yes?

No where did it say bars only, but you Lovejoy'd so now we're exploring the limits of your emotional argument.

Then say so. I dont play games. No children allowed bars, I could comprimise on. I am not going to try to write the law here though. Voting for or against the law would be a case by case basis.
 
Then say so. I dont play games. No children allowed bars, I could comprimise on. I am not going to try to write the law here though. Voting for or against the law would be a case by case basis.

You are playing games, you're playing the "OHHHHH won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN" game. It's an emotional argument to elicit an emotional response that has nothing to do with the basis of government force against the free exercise of rights that you endorse against your fellow "freeman".
 
You are playing games, you're playing the "OHHHHH won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN" game. It's an emotional argument to elicit an emotional response that has nothing to do with the basis of government force against the free exercise of rights that you endorse against your fellow "freeman".
It's only a game to those who don't agree. Those that think similar to me, we are serious about it.
 
And I know my motivation is to help other people, especially the children (see, I played the children card).

And how exactly are you helping them instead of just imposing a view on someone else's property? As always there are some exceptions. Restricting smoking in buildings and facilities that cater specificity to children is reasonable. The current laws that restrict smoking in cars with children is reasonable. Outside of that, then it's not the business that is the problem in exposing children to second hand smoke, it's the parent that chooses to take their child into a second hand smoke environment.

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.

Bloomberg would seem to disagree with you, among others. After all, one's poor eating is driving up health care costs, so I hear. Sadly, much of what we do, even those that we allow by law and by morals, affect many around us, for positive or negative. Affecting another as a criteria simply isn't enough of a reason to allow or ban an activity or decision.
 
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.

What church you go to can certainly have an effect on the others around you. What foods you eat does too. If you eat bad foods and need medical treatment due to weight related issues many times tax payers have to pick that up. Just as one example. Me smoking in a restaurant only effects you if you decide to put yourself into that situation. Also I am not saying everyone should be allowed to smoke anywhere, I am saying that if I own a restaurant it should be my choice to allow to ban smoking at my discretion. If the general public has a problem with my choice my business will suffer. People, consumers should be making those decisions, not the federal government trying to decide what is best for us.

I am curious, why is it you feel you aren't capable of making your own choices in life?
 
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?
Big Government at its inglorious best. The ban basically killed the pub scene over here. I was surprised that the government wilfully implemented measures that would rob them of considerable revenue. Prior to this travesty, non-smokers clearly weren't so concerned that it dissuaded them from frequenting licensed establishments. With any luck, a more enlightened administration will rescind the legislation. At the very least, such a move should have followed a referendum.

Prohibition sucks ****.
 
It's only a game to those who don't agree. Those that think similar to me, we are serious about it.

Oh I know the crusaders are serious about subjugating people to their desires and whims through the use of government guns. It's just absurd mini-Despotism. But it requires these emotional games. Such as your Lovejoy argument. Of course the actual answer to that is that it's the parents job to watch over their kid and not the rest of society. As such if you do not want your kid exposed to second hand smoke you could simply avoid the businesses that allow it. Again, no government force, just intelligent consumerism. But that takes effort and some would rather just hold a gun to someone's head and force their whims upon the populace.
 
Big Government at its inglorious best. The ban basically killed the pub scene over here. I was surprised that the government wilfully implemented measures that would rob them of considerable revenue. Prior to this travesty, non-smokers clearly weren't so concerned that it dissuaded them from frequenting licensed establishments. With any luck, a more enlightened administration will rescind the legislation. At the very least, such a move should have followed a referendum.

Prohibition sucks ****.

Smoking ban hasn't killed bars/restaurants/bowling alleys/etc here in the US.

What will hurt bars is if they lower the legal blood alcohol level for driving to .05 from .08... I haven't seen any studies to show that there are a lot of accidents caused by people with BAC between .05 and .08 ; until I see those, I disagree with lowering it.

Back to topic - "private" businesses use public roads, public police forces, public airwaves for advertising, public clean water, etc. When they apply for a license, they need to follow the guidelines. I think no smoking is a reasonable guideline. Before the laws were passed, there weren't any non-smoking restaurants; I had no choice. Now I can go to restaurants and not worry about getting cancer or having my clothes reek. Some of you think that is an unreasonable restriction on a business; I don't.
 
Smoking ban hasn't killed bars/restaurants/bowling alleys/etc here in the US.

What will hurt bars is if they lower the legal blood alcohol level for driving to .05 from .08... I haven't seen any studies to show that there are a lot of accidents caused by people with BAC between .05 and .08 ; until I see those, I disagree with lowering it.

Back to topic - "private" businesses use public roads, public police forces, public airwaves for advertising, public clean water, etc. When they apply for a license, they need to follow the guidelines. I think no smoking is a reasonable guideline. Before the laws were passed, there weren't any non-smoking restaurants; I had no choice. Now I can go to restaurants and not worry about getting cancer or having my clothes reek. Some of you think that is an unreasonable restriction on a business; I don't.

Because you think you have right to the labor of others and we don't. There were plenty of nonsmoking restaurants before the ban, fewer nonsmoking bars but the number wasn't zero. Restaurants on the whole had been trending towards nonsmoking for some times response to consumer pressure, which it's the proper avenue through which one brings about change in private business.

BTW, your home uses public roads public police force, blah blah blah. So can the government ban you from legal activities in your own home?
 
Smoking ban hasn't killed bars/restaurants/bowling alleys/etc here in the US.

What will hurt bars is if they lower the legal blood alcohol level for driving to .05 from .08... I haven't seen any studies to show that there are a lot of accidents caused by people with BAC between .05 and .08 ; until I see those, I disagree with lowering it.

Back to topic - "private" businesses use public roads, public police forces, public airwaves for advertising, public clean water, etc. When they apply for a license, they need to follow the guidelines. I think no smoking is a reasonable guideline. Before the laws were passed, there weren't any non-smoking restaurants; I had no choice. Now I can go to restaurants and not worry about getting cancer or having my clothes reek. Some of you think that is an unreasonable restriction on a business; I don't.
You had no choice but to hang out in restaurants and bars? Hurts to be you, eh? lulz And look. You chose to patronise such places, despite your abject terror of disease and premature death. You're a brave soul.

My point was that so sweeping a change should have been ushered in via public assent. Not a megalomaniacal administration, operating beyond the bailiwick of its electoral custodianship.
 
Because you think you have right to the labor of others and we don't. There were plenty of nonsmoking restaurants before the ban, fewer nonsmoking bars but the number wasn't zero. Restaurants on the whole had been trending towards nonsmoking for some times response to consumer pressure, which it's the proper avenue through which one brings about change in private business.

BTW, your home uses public roads public police force, blah blah blah. So can the government ban you from legal activities in your own home?

I'm not running a business from home. Big difference.

Maybe you had plenty of nonsmoking restaurants pre-ban in your area; I did not in mine.
 
I'm not running a business from home. Big difference.

Maybe you had plenty of nonsmoking restaurants pre-ban in your area; I did not in mine.

Most of your arguments were not unique to business, do they apply to you as well. And it may suck to live in a podunk town where restaurants allowed smoking, but you are still not entitled to the property and labor of others. You were never forced into the business, you always had a choice.
 
Back to topic - "private" businesses use public roads, public police forces, public airwaves for advertising, public clean water, etc. When they apply for a license, they need to follow the guidelines. I think no smoking is a reasonable guideline. Before the laws were passed, there weren't any non-smoking restaurants; I had no choice. Now I can go to restaurants and not worry about getting cancer or having my clothes reek. Some of you think that is an unreasonable restriction on a business; I don't.

Not an argument at all. I use public roads, public police force, public clean water. Are you saying that because of that my private residence should be subject to a smoking ban? Talk about absurd! When anyone uses a road, then the rules of the road apply and only when on them. You don't translate use of the public road to what occurs within the wall of the private property establishment. You're beyond apples and oranges here, this is apples and asphalt!

And I'm calling BS on your assertion about not being any non-smoking restaurants prior to the ban. If you want to clarify that with "in my area" then fine you can make that assertion. However, I can tell you that indeed there were businesses, and not just restaurants, that banned smoking on their premises prior to the ban going into effect. I use to make the conscious decision to frequent them over ones that allowed smoking.
 
So I don't think that preventing businesses from allowing smoking is any kind of "taking", any more than any law controlling what businesses can and can't do is. (For example, you can't have strip joints in many areas).

Obviously some of you disagree, and I doubt we'll ever come to agreement on this.

Moving on to private property - well, Berkeley is doing it:
Berkeley bans tobacco smoking in apartments, condos | Berkeleyside

Smoking cigarettes will no longer be allowed inside the units of multi-family housing developments in Berkeley, effective May 2014, after a unanimous vote by the Berkeley City Council on Tuesday night.

Seems to me it's unenforceable in private owned dwellings; but for rental dwellings, it could be put in as part of the lease agreement. It's pretty bad to smell a neighbor's smoke, so I understand why they want this law. But like I said, not sure it's something you can enforce in a privately-owned dwelling.
 
So I don't think that preventing businesses from allowing smoking is any kind of "taking", any more than any law controlling what businesses can and can't do is. (For example, you can't have strip joints in many areas).

Obviously some of you disagree, and I doubt we'll ever come to agreement on this.

Moving on to private property - well, Berkeley is doing it:
Berkeley bans tobacco smoking in apartments, condos | Berkeleyside



Seems to me it's unenforceable in private owned dwellings; but for rental dwellings, it could be put in as part of the lease agreement. It's pretty bad to smell a neighbor's smoke, so I understand why they want this law. But like I said, not sure it's something you can enforce in a privately-owned dwelling.

Another reason not to live in Berkeley. If it was part of the lease that sign that would be fine but that's not none of the city council business.
 
Should be up to the business owner, which in turn falls on the patron to decide whether or not to give said establishment any business. Let the cards fall where they may.
 
So I don't think that preventing businesses from allowing smoking is any kind of "taking", any more than any law controlling what businesses can and can't do is. (For example, you can't have strip joints in many areas).

Obviously some of you disagree, and I doubt we'll ever come to agreement on this.

Moving on to private property - well, Berkeley is doing it:
Berkeley bans tobacco smoking in apartments, condos | Berkeleyside



Seems to me it's unenforceable in private owned dwellings; but for rental dwellings, it could be put in as part of the lease agreement. It's pretty bad to smell a neighbor's smoke, so I understand why they want this law. But like I said, not sure it's something you can enforce in a privately-owned dwelling.

You could pull it off if the privately owned property was multi family dwelling, such as condos. Even without HOA agreements and other similar contracts, the enforceability comes from the fact that since the units are connected, you can end up encroaching upon another's right to not be exposed to 2nd hand smoke. This differs from business idea simply because it is their property that your second hand smoke would be going on.
 
Back
Top Bottom