This has probably been done before and to death, but I’ll post it here anyway as I couldn’t find it under the term “smoking”.
I live in a small city (20,000 people) that is currently debating banning smoking in all restaurants. (Bars can still allow smoking, but not during serving hours if they’re a restaurant/lounge.) The city I used to live in, Montgomery AL (app. 240,000) recently banned smoking and of course Boston and LA and other major cities are either in the process or have already banned it.
While I no longer smoke myself, I feel that this is major government infringement on private business. If the smoke problem is too bad at a particular place, nobody is REQUIRED to eat there or to work there and capitalism would supposedly derail the place. I understand requiring non-smoking sections, but I think anything more is too much.
DOH! I meant to put this in GREAT DEBATES, but my Mama handled that Propecia when she was pregnant and I messed up. Could you please move it, Mr. Moderator Man?
I agree with you. The restaurant, bar, whatever the case is, is a Private business, I find it scandalous that they force them to have the whole place non smoking.
I don’t know what’s wrong with having a smoking area (if somehow separated from the non-smoking).
It has worked very well in California, despite the pro-smokers saying that it would kill the restaurant business. Surpisingly, it has also worked just fine in bars & clubs.
Of course, a “smoking section” just forces every patron & employee to inhale smoke, regardless of what their wishes are. Sure, I guess dudes can just “eat & work elsewhere”, but you know that bit about “just work elsewhere” doesn’t work in a time of high unemployment. Thsu, the employee doesn’t really have “free choice to decide where to work”.
Smoking has been banned in restaurants here for quite some time and new anti-smoking laws come into effect for clubs and pubs next month.
I haven’t noticed any real problems with the laws to date. Many restaurants have some kind of outdoor area with seating, and even if they don’t, I can always pop outside for a quick puff if I want a smoke that desperately.
On a recent flight of course I couldn’t smoke. The lady in front of me however, was free to oh so slowly devour a stay fresh pack of tuna. The smell of tuna sickens me to the point of regurgitation. The point being, if the fish du jour is tuna, I choose not to eat at your restaraunt. If a person doesn’t wish to patronize a restaraunt that has smoking, then don’t. Pretty simple really.
A restaurant owner should be free to choose whether to allow smoking anywhere, in certain areas, or not at all. Customers are free to choose at which restaurants they eat, and where to sit in those restaurants. We do not need government to legislate these things for it.
btw, I don’t smoke and I find it positively nasty to eat in a smoky restaurant. I want the freedom to take my business elsewhere.
No one is required to enter these businesses, they are not owned by the public and for adults, smoking is a legal activity.
Government can ban it, require it or require the customers to stand on their heads as far as I’m concerned. The individual businesses can decide what they want to do about it and the customers will make their choice. I just think it silly for government to get involved in this.
Actually, Sampiro, the entire state of California has banned smoking in restaurants and bars (with certain exceptions, IIRC: private clubs). It’s not just Los Angeles.
As an asthmatic, I think it’s great, because generally speaking, “non-smoking” sections are still full of drifting smoke. I have numerous respiratory problems, which my doctors generally associate with both my parents being two-pack a day smokers while I lived in their home.
My city has a no-restaurant-smoking law. Restaurants are not reporting any loss of business, other than the bingo halls.
I’m more likely to spend cash at a bar that’s non-smoking, too. If there’s smoking, I stay away, and nobody gets my money. Apparently enough people feel the same way, in my city at least, that we have enacted, and are maintaining, this law.
There are already a ton of regulations on what private businesses can and can’t do. These regulations benefit the patrons and employees of private businesses. I’m glad they are there, and a smoking ban is not especially radical in terms of regulations that already exist… cigarette smoke poses a health risk. Socially it’s controversial… but saying the government has no business getting involved? Wrong. They can and should.
Well yes it does pose a health risk. So do lots of things like Big Macs. If you want to take care of your health you are free to do so. Check out ol’ Howard Hughes.
First of all, why is it OK to discriminate against smokers? We KNOW that smoking is addictive. We KNOW that it is marketed to youth and minorities. We KNOW that cigarette companies add chemicals to cigarettes to make them more addictive. Why should we make no effort to accomadate smokers? It is something of an addiction, and not totally a choice. in most areas, we now require all public building to be accessible for people of every disability… but not smokers…
Reprise: as far as your ‘going outside for a quick puff’ comment - keep in mind that in some of the colder climates, it isn’t at all enjoyable to pop out for a quick smoke.
How about this… if a restaurant owner wants a smoking section, require him to install adequate ventilation systems. There is no reason why no-smoking sections are ‘full of drifting smoke’. Now as far as small restaurants are concerned, and there is no possibiliy of a secure non-smoking section, smoking shouldn’t be allowed. But, if you have a large restaurant, with a good ventilation system, why shouldn’t you be able to have a smoking area?
IF I owned my own PRIVATE establishment I would want the gubbment to stay out of it as much as possible. If you don’t want to patronize, don’t. I think it’s just as asinine as requiring smoking.
It is indeed a choice to start smoking, and while it’s a very hard choice to stop smoking, it is a choice.
Smoking is not a disability, and I think it’s quite inappropriate for you to make that comparison.
Yes, well, those of us who live in “the colder climates” have to deal wtih it being cold whether or not we smoke. And it is not enjoyable for me to sit in a smoke filled room. Why should I have to go outside in the cold to get away from it?
Trust me, if someone’s smoking within 20 meters of me, I smell it. “Good ventilation” or not.
The purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of those who created it. The United States did not have any smoking laws for 200 years.
At the same time, any tavern, hotel, or restaurant, could have had their own rules over what people do on their property. For 200 years, all Americans were free to smoke or not smoke, to go to a restaurant or hotel which allowed or did not allow smoking.
We never needed a law to allow a property owner to allow or not allow smoking for 200 years, why do we need the government to get involved now?
I dont see how new smoking laws makes us freer?
I dont see how the government is giving us Americans more rights by making more laws.
Because there’s no legally recognized right to smoke in public places, or actually, at all?
Until that changes, smokers, as a class, do not enjoy the protection of law for their choice of recreation. I wouldn’t (wait for the pun) hold your breath (ahhhh) for that to ever happen, either.
We can make an effort to accomodate smokers when and if we wish. But the addiction thing, well, gee, sorry. And it was and is a choice – no smoker had to pick up that first cigarette, and no smoker is bound to remain such for the entirety of his or her life. The huge numbers of non-smokers and former smokers belie any suggestions that it is anything but a choice.
That said, any effort whatsoever to compare or equate accomodating people’s choice to smoke to ensuring accessibility for the disabled is simply disgusting and beneath discussion.
Boo hoo. Life’s hard. Don’t like standing out in the cold? Then pop down $40 for some Nicoderm instead of a carton of Marlboros.
The evidence shows that when anti-smoking laws are enacted, restaurants stay full and money is not lost. Under your proposal, restaurants would either remain all non-smoking or would have to install smoke-eater systems of questionable efficacy and considerable expense for no added increase in revenue. Why would they bother?
Gee, blivet, for the life of me I can’t remember the last time I was forced to eat a hamburger while the person sitting at the other end of the bar ate one.
We having smoking laws here. Restaurants were given a choice, they are either a bar or a restaurant. Bars allow smoking but no minors are allowed. Restaurants allow minors but no smoking whatso ever. It’s seemed to work fairly well around here…