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

[Truth Warrior]

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.

Hear, hear!

+ 10,000

QFT!

The country is going to HELL and folks have their panties all in wad about smoking, for crying out loud.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

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.

Right on the money. Good engineering and good space separation can and does mitigate the conflict, no reason in the world why any private business shouldn't have every right to be smoking, non-smoking, or cater to both with well engineered space separation. Though I'd probably replace pansies with another p-word: prohibitionists- people who prefer to impose their will on everybody through gov't force and aren't the least bit interested in well-crafted private solutions.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

As of the new year smoking is now illegal even in bars, taverns and clubs here in Utah. I personally am a non-smoker, but have many family and friends that do.

For years now I have been going to two clubs; one was non-smoking, the other allowed it. When at the smoking club I don't complain, or gripe at the smokers. I choose to go to that club. Almost all the patrons and employees of that club smoked.

Now with the new laws at least 3 employees have quit and this was the slowest weekend for the club EVER. The owners are not even sure if they will survive for 6 months. I personally am against smoking, but I do not have the right to force others to agree. Now some of my friends have jobs on the line. Great new law huh?

 

[Knut Schreiber]

Non-Smokers who dislike smoke and fear for their health can easily protect themselves by avoiding restaurants where smoking is allowed. No need for government intervention. The smokers can have a smoke in restaurants that allow smoking and the non-smokers can enjoy themselves in non-smoking restaurants. All fine.

And that's coming from a non-smoker.

 

[Knightskye]

Uhh, what the hell is a "public restaurant"?

 

[RCA]

Uhh, what the hell is a "public restaurant"?

A restaurant that is open to the public.

 

[mport1]

I'm against all public places. Problem solved.

 

[BlackTerrel]

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...

Someone of a difference race sitting in a restaurant shouldn't affect your health. A smoker in the restaurant DOES affect my health - that's the difference as I see it.

 

[cybloo]

It sucks. In Iowa, the smoking ban affects every establishment except for the Casinos. What a surprise.

 

[Conza88]

I'm against all public places. Problem solved.

Haha... !

 

[nodope0695]

It should never be, or ever been, legislated. The choice to allow, or disallow smoking in a PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT should be left to the owner of said establishment. Regardless of the supposed harm second hand smoke is supposed to cause, the gov't has no place legislating what goes on in a private establishment.

Same thing with seatbelt laws. Since when should the gov't be allowed to dictate to me what I do INSIDE MY PERSONAL VEHICLE? If dont wear seatbelt and get hurt, who's rights have I violated? NOBODY'S!!!!

Call me crazy, but I still believe in the Constitution, too bad its essentially dead....and unless some sort of uprising occurs, it will stay dead.

 

[Conza88]

It should never be, or ever been, legislated. The choice to allow, or disallow smoking in a PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT should be left to the owner of said establishment. Regardless of the supposed harm second hand smoke is supposed to cause, the gov't has no place legislating what goes on in a private establishment.

Same thing with seatbelt laws. Since when should the gov't be allowed to dictate to me what I do INSIDE MY PERSONAL VEHICLE? If dont wear seatbelt and get hurt, who's rights have I violated? NOBODY'S!!!!

Call me crazy, but I still believe in the Constitution, too bad its essentially dead....and unless some sort of uprising occurs, it will stay dead.

!

By not wearing a seatbelt, you increase the risk of when in an accident - your body will fly out the window and potentially damage the other vehicle.

It is imperative that we minimise all POTENTIAL risk. On the same exact PRINCIPLE, as those espusing the Drink Driving legislation... I mandate that vehicles should not be driven beyond 10 miles per hour, ever. There would be a compulsory bomb attached to each car that would detonate just like in the movie SPEED. But instead of going below, it is timed to blow - if you go over.

That way the roads will be much safer and we will lower the risks of accidents and death! (zomg don't cnt the deaths caused by government / state - policies / ownership of roads etc.)

This way we get instant justice. No trial, no jury, no judge. Instant justice - you go over the limit and increase the risk of injury to others, you die. Simple.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Someone of a difference race sitting in a restaurant shouldn't affect your health. A smoker in the restaurant DOES affect my health - that's the difference as I see it.

Then just stay at home in your bubble and live forever.

 

[nodope0695]

Uhh, what the hell is a "public restaurant"?

A "public resturaunt" is a PRIVATE establishment open to the public...therefore anybody who goes there is a VISITOR on PRIVATE property and subject to the rules of the owner. If they don't smoke and are pussys about it, then they can find some place else to eat. IMHO.

 

[nodope0695]

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

Based on whose word, the media's? Oh, yeah, they're the ones who told us about Global Warming too, right? They're the ones who suck Obama's dick every day....oh yeah, the MSM is a reliable source.

 

[nodope0695]

A smoker in the restaurant DOES affect my health - that's the difference as I see it.

Hey how about this for an idea: GO FIND ANOTHER RESTURAUNT!!!!!!!

Nobody is forcing you to eat there. Its not your "right" to eat there. If the owner allows smoking, then thats that. It is a PRIVATE-FUCKING-ESTABLISHMENT. If you don't like it, lump it!!!

Okay, I feel better.

 

[kathy88]

My friend owns an Office Supply Store. The State (PA) recently passed a law that you MUST display their "no smoking" signs or be fined. BULLSHIT. They even have to be placed in specific locations. Nanny State.

 

[nodope0695]

My friend owns an Office Supply Store. The State (PA) recently passed a law that you MUST display their "no smoking" signs or be fined. BULLSHIT. They even have to be placed in specific locations. Nanny State.

Why would you be smoking in an office supply store anyway? But yes, nanny state. Freedom is dead....uprising is required.

 

[Kludge]

I don't care so long as it's consistent. Either explicitly criminalize 2nd hand smoking or legalize it.

 

[Kalifornia]

Your restaurant, your rules. If people dont like it, they can go somewhere else. This problem can be readily solved with market forces. If the government wants to cure smoking, just educate people on the dangers. Simple.

They had "no smoking" restaurants long before smoking was banned in restaurants.

This is all about public health crusaders pissed off that most people dont mind smoking in bars. Tobacco and Alcohol go together like Macaroni and Cheese.