Legislation: What's your view on smoking bans inside public restaurants?

[RCA]

At first, it appears to be a violation of private property rights. But isn't banning segregated restaurants also a violation of private property rights? What about smoking in public buildings such as the courthouse, etc? What about non-smokers right to freedom from smoke inside public restaurants? I think it's these hairy issues that prevent many of the people from "converting to liberty". What do you think?

 

[Madcat455]

Privately owned restaurants/ personal property.... up to the owners.

Public buildings, parks, sidewalks, streets.. Decided by local, county, state Gov.


FWIW.. Most local restaurants were going "smoke free" here LONG before the state "banned" it.

 

[RCA]

But even Michael Badnarik who wrote "Good to be King" says that businesses "open to the public" shouldn't segregate based on race, religion, etc. But he also says that you have a right to turn away anyone you want from entering your house. So, your home, which is private property, you can turn away someone based on their color, but you shouldn't if you own a restaurant? If both are private property then what's the final verdict? If I get confused over these "gray areas" no wonder the average joe doesn't even bother trying to wrestle with it.

 

[Madcat455]

What a business "should" or "shouldn't" do is up to the owner/s.... somebody writing a book has NO right to dictate what I do in my store.

Businesses will decide their policy in the same manner as been done in years past..... MONEY.

If they have a greater amount of "non smoking" customers that will refuse to patron them because of the smoke.. than "Smoking" customers who will refuse to patron them after the ban... The business will err on the side of greater profit and to satisfy the greater amount of customers.

as far as Race/Religion.. .etc. I can turn away anybody I want... just have to use a different reason lol

 

[Pennsylvania]

At first, it appears to be a violation of private property rights. But isn't banning segregated restaurants also a violation of private property rights? What about smoking in public buildings such as the courthouse, etc? What about non-smokers right to freedom from smoke inside public restaurants? I think it's these hairy issues that prevent many of the people from "converting to liberty". What do you think?

I think a convincing argument for allowing discrimination is an insurance company. Insurance companies have every right to decline their services to people based on their poor lifestyle habits: smoking, excessive drinking, and promiscous sexual intercourse. By doing so, they create an incentive for people to change their poor lifestyle habits on their own, rather than forcing healthy individuals to pay for them out of their pockets.

I see this as an argument in itself, but there is an added benefit: pressuring individuals to abandon unhealthy lifestyle choices by removing their safety nets will also cut down on the amount of smokers in general, thus minimizing the significance of the smoking ban issue. People generally don't like to take stances on things until they get big; the size of an issue determines whether people will treat it as an issue at all.

 

[RCA]

I tend to fall into the category of "anything goes" with a business so long as the activities of that business don't violate the rights of the patrons, competitors or citizenry.

 

[Madcat455]

I tend to fall into the category of "anything goes" with a business so long as the activities of that business don't violate the rights of the patrons, competitors or citizenry.

and I think that's where the Race/religion card is separated from "smoking".. one can't change their skin or religion.. smokers need only not "light up" till their out the store.

I personally don't like the idea of some1 not being allowed into a store because of race/religion...

 

[RCA]

and I think that's where the Race/religion card is separated from "smoking".. one can't change their skin or religion.. smokers need only not "light up" till their out the store.

I personally don't like the idea of some1 not being allowed into a store because of race/religion...

Actually, I was meaning that I think any form of discrimination on the part of a private business should be allowed. Now, I guess the issue gets cloudier when you're talking about a "public" company.

 

[gls]

They are a ridiculous breach of private property rights; I don't see how anyone who cherishes liberty could argue otherwise.

But isn't banning segregated restaurants also a violation of private property rights?

Yes it is.

What about non-smokers right to freedom from smoke inside public restaurants?

What is a "public restaurant"? I assume you mean privately owned establishments that allow for public access. Non-smokers "right" to freedom from smoke ends the moment they step through that door.

 

[Hamer]

I tend to fall into the category of "anything goes" with a business so long as the activities of that business don't violate the rights of the patrons, competitors or citizenry.

Race and nationality etc... are completely different than ones choice to do or not to do something.

Keep in mind the role of Governement is to protect Life, Liberty and Property.

You can't change your skin color or your nationality; although you can decide to put your shirt and shoes on or not simply light a smoke where they do not allow it.

People have a right to smoke but people that don't smoke have every right not to have to breathe your smoke where they are eating. I am a smoker, my wife is not and I do not smoke in the house because my bad habit I will not subject my wife and kids to endure what I do. Courtesy also goes a long way although some on this forum just act like asses by stating I have the right to do what I want. I uderstand you the the right to be an ass but I also have the right to tell you when you are being an ass and also ignore your ass.

Many places started banning smoking for their own reasons before it became law for reasons such as burns in their carpets and tables etc... also it is very hard to get the smell of smoke out of a place unless you clean the walls and carpets etc... on a regular basis. Most decided to ban smoking because it was costing too much money to keep their place of business nice with people not caring if they burned holes in carpets. furniture or table cloths.

Hope this helps.

 

[Truth Warrior]

My view is Laissez Faire!

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)

 

[Call Me V]

I believe anyone should be able to make thier own decisions about what they do as long as it doesn't effect the health or safety of others.

Last time I checked 2nd hand smoke is not exactly healthy.

Not to mention they non-smokers have just as much right to eat a smoke free meal as the smokers have the right to smoke in the restaurants.

 

[Conza88]

Discussion I had with some non enlightened folk.

Author bjorn989 ®
If someone lights up a cigarette in a crowded room of non smokers, exercising their freedom to do so, they immediately compromise the rights of the non smokers to remain non smokers. It is a breach of the freedoms of every single non smoker in that room. They should be free to associate within that space, yet they have the smoke thrust upon them like an evil oppressor.

Liberty is like communism. It works great in flash animations, yet much of the time does not translate so well in practice.

Freedom to do what you want; without harming anyone else's property. Smoking harms other people's property (their bodies via second hand smoke).

So they shouldn't be doing it. It should come down to property rights.. if you own the property (bar) you should be able to decide whether smoking is allowed or not.

If the people don't like it, then they won't come... and you'll lose business. Or if they do, (smokers themselves) then more may come and business does better.

So it depends on the property owner. The individuals are not made to stay, they are there voluntarily. But essentially, the smokers should be made to leave the room - where they were violating other people's property (without consent).

"Liberty is like communism." = Oxymoron.

Liberty translates well in practice, you just haven't understood it properly.

Author fran_b__ ®
And what about the employees? Don't they have an even greater claim than the clients and customers?

Should they be compelled to choose between their health and their jobs?

Do the employees own anything? Do I as an individual have more rights than someone else? What makes you think they are any different than the clients and customers? They don't own the property.

Are they being FORCED or COERCED into working there? Do they not have the opportunity to work in a place that has banned smoking... they can VOTE; with their feet.

"Should they be compelled to choose between their health and their jobs?"

That is up to the subjective value of the individual. Do they value the money more than they value the potential health risk of developing lung cancer because of the second hand smoke?

--- This was about 6 months ago..

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[danberkeley]

What is a "public restaurant"? I assume you mean privately owned establishments that allow for public access. Non-smokers "right" to freedom from smoke ends the moment they step through that door.

This.

 

[Madcat455]

Actually, I was meaning that I think any form of discrimination on the part of a private business should be allowed. Now, I guess the issue gets cloudier when you're talking about a "public" company.

No.. I agree with you, private property businesses can make their own fkn rules..lol.

I was just stating my personal opinion...lol

I don't see why Publicly held Co's don't fall under that rule either... they have Elected Directors, that do as the stockholders say (as long as they actually vote..LOL). So "technically" their privately owned, just by anybody with a checkbook...lol.

 

[michigan wolverine]

Truly sad some of the responses to this. If I own a restaraunt I should be the one making all decesions that effect it. If I choose to allow smoking in it so be it. The non smokers in the crowd have the option of coming in knowing full well it is a smoking establishment or not.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Private property is exactly that... private. Nobody should be able to tell you how to run your business. If you want to open a restaurant that caters to whites only, you should be able to do so. However, you should expect your clients to be limited inbred Nazis, nightly interruptions by protesters and bad press. The market will always determine whether your business model is a good idea.

If I own a bar, I should be allowed to make the cover charge me punching you in the face. It's entirely up to you if you want to drink in my bar. Smoking is no different.

Race and religion etc... are completely different than ones choice to do or not to do something.

BS... Religion is a choice. Remember that whole free-will thing?

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

Everything started getting confusing only when people became pansies.

Remember going out to eat and being asked "smoking or non-smoking?"

Problem? I didn't have one.

 

[Hamer]

Private property is exactly that... private. Nobody should be able to tell you how to run your business. If you want to open a restaurant that caters to whites only, you should be able to do so. However, you should expect your clients to be limited inbred Nazis, nightly interruptions by protesters and bad press. The market will always determine whether your business model is a good idea.

If I own a bar, I should be allowed to make the cover charge me punching you in the face. It's entirely up to you if you want to drink in my bar. Smoking is no different.



BS... Religion is a choice. Remember that whole free-will thing?

Yes you are correct, I actually meant nationality not relegion. Thanks