i agree with you, but thank your liberal friends for that one, but understand something, half the states have that law already, if i were a bar owner i would be pissed off, i would think that they lose a lot of business cause of that
2006-07-06 16:07:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
Hi, I'm from California, and they have banned smoking in bars, restaurants, and pretty much all indoor public places for a long time now. My husband and I own a bar/pool hall and we love the fact that it's smoke-free. The ban was imposed to protect employees from second-hand smoke. Imagine being a non-smoker who is subjected to second- hand smoke for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. That's like smoking several packs of cigarettes a day, without the benefit of a filter. To me, that's way less fair than a smoker having to step outside for the duration of one cigarette. There is a loophole in the law, though. The law states that an employer can not subject his employees to smoke. If the owner of the establishment is also the bartender, then he isn't subjecting any employees to smoke. Maybe you could try to find a bar like that. Also, some bar owners would prefer to keep paying the fines, and let people smoke anyway. Smokers have been imposing thier smoke on everyone else for a long time now. I think it's about time the tables were turned, frankly. But I'm sure you'll be able to find a place that suits you. You could always try a cigar lounge...
2016-03-27 07:21:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yeah I'm with you on this one man! I'm a non smoker but for God's sake, probably the majority of people who go to bars probably smoke! In a bar they really should not ban smoking. If you don;t like second hand smoke, tough, don't go to a bar! I don't care too much for smoking at restaurants except two exceptions: Good ole Waffle House and any establishment that serves alcohol and has an outside eating area. Good question!
2006-07-06 16:24:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by toughguy2 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, if there was an effective way for smokers to contain their smoke to themselves then there should be no reason to ban it. the concept of smoke is just invasive. yes, one should always be free to smoke but if it becomes invasive to another, then the cause of the problem should be stopped. Unlike eating, where one only harms or benefits the person doing it, smoke invades all around. Just like a burning demon about to die in the movies, the smoke tries to get more victims at the last moment. If there is an intelligent smoker-inventor out there that could create a device where you stick the cigarette, light it and smoke is encapsulated, and after, smoke is dicarded outside or somewhere. what a nice free world it would be for most if not all. but as for now, yes, the law is hard, but it is the law. made to favor most as they claim, but never to make everyone happy. smoking is so minute and small a problem compared to the 'right to bear arms' issue.
2006-07-06 16:17:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by mimosopher 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
This has got to be the best question I Have seen here!!! I live in Canada and on May 31 of this year we got a stupid law that came into effect..no smoking in public places, no smoking at hospitals, nursing homes, etc unless you are 30 meters from the doors. I work at a nursing home and am now not allowed to go for my smoke breaks because no matter where I go on my 15 mins, I am not 30meters from a door (small lot in the city)..I still go out and smoke and I have been reported to the DOC for it..WHATEVER!!! I smoke I did not commit a crime. Years ago smoking was acceptable and so were the huge taxes the government reaped from smoke sales, now we are treated like friggin murderers.
Obesity is the number 1 health risk in North America right now, but instead people show compassion and pity for the fat pants' that can't walk by a bakery without going in, or order biggie fries for and extra 30 cents.. It's crazy..Sure my lungs may be black and I cough phlegm, but my knees are good, I can still walk long distances and I can see my feet! So..here I go to light up..I am at home..it is still legal to do that! (for now)
2006-07-06 16:13:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by hipergirl22 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I live in California, and they banned smoking in ANY indoor establishment years ago. In restaurants, I can understand the no smoking rules, because most are family establishments, and kids go into those places, and I don't think that smoking in an enclosed space with children is very cool. When it comes to bars, it is infuriating that you cant smoke in there anymore. I think that alcoholic beverages, and cigarettes go hand in hand for a lot of people! I have to wonder how many bars actually lost business because of these rules...They say it isn't fair for a bartender to have to breathe in secondhand smoke, but in that instance, if you cant handle the smoking, maybe that isn't the right place of employment for you! Ah look, you just got me going, lol.
2006-07-06 16:09:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by nellieb_959 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Second-hand smoke from cigarettes is nothing like wood smoke, so don't attempt to compare the two. That's pathetic. And mentioning junk food is pathetic as well, because one bad habit does not excuse another.
And if you hate smoke-free laws, you should move out of the US. Close to 20 states have comprehensive state-wide smoke-free laws, and several more have such laws pending and soon to be passed by voters.
Oh, but if you want to move out of the US to escape the smoke-free laws, don't head to Canada. They've got the laws too. Even the UK recently proposed a law to ban smoking in pubs. There are even cities in Italy that have passed smoke free laws.
The fact remains that these laws have been overwhelmingly passed by the voters in direct votes. The majority of people want these laws. Isn't democracy wonderful?
2006-07-06 16:26:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chris 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I researched what was behind it and it actually does make sense. The reason is because of the employees not the customers. An employer can't require you to be a smoker before he hires you then they can turn around and say that second hand smoke from work harmed them.
Funny thing is that some employees are firing ppl now who smoke even when not at work. Yet, an employer can't hire smokers-only. Welcome to the new republican government = big government watching and controlling everything you do even when not at work.
2006-07-06 16:08:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, restaurants I can understand. People go there to eat, people go to bars to drink, if they were all that concerned with their health they wouldn't be there to begin with. I live in California where you can't smoke on the street in some cities. I think it's bad for you to smoke and to be around it,but I have to agree with you that being grossly overweight or drinking too much will kill you just as fast if not faster.
2006-07-06 16:09:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Beat the hell out of your liver, rough up your kidneys, kill a woman and small child while driving home drunk but for THE LOVE OF GOD please don't kill me slow with that second hand smoke!!!! It's retarded.
I understand it in family establishments and eating establishments but not in a bar. People go to bars to drink and hook up. Sex causes terminal illnesses like... kids! Drinking harms every organ in your body and though second hand smoke has been shown to cause death years down the road drunk driving has been shown to be an instant killer. I think the laws banning smoking in an establishment that is based around slowly (and at times very quickly) killing ones self and others are slightly moronic. But hey... that's just me.
2006-07-06 17:25:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by sullenmoon79 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I live in california and you can't smoke anywhere inside. A lot of the bars have an outside area that you can smoke at. You get use to it after a while.
2006-07-06 16:07:03
·
answer #11
·
answered by davlvsevie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋