Who should determine a business' smoking policy - the government or the owner of the business ?

Question

I live in Colorado where the state passed a law banning smoking indoors. Many bar/restaurant owners are suffering because of the new policy.

Shouldn't a business owner decide what policies are acceptable (or not) in their establishment ? If there is a need for non-smoking businesses, shouldn't we let the free enterprise market determine that ?

Answer 1

the customers

Answer 2

Absolutely the business owner. Smoking is a legal activity and therefore does not fall into the category of crack etc. Non smokers and smokers would have a choice and the business owner would decide which is more profitable. However since the anti smoke group's only reason for existence is to ban smoking, their paycheck depends on not reaching an equitable solution with anybody who disagrees because that would be the end of their purpose. America no longer has a free enterprise system where this is concerned thanks to those pathetic professional, money grabbing anti smoking organisations.

Answer 3

In most places that have put statewide bans, the bars have been fine. (It is a different story when just a county or a city does it because then the smokers can go to someplace local to smoke and drink.) I would suspect these bar/restaurants that you speak of in Colorado would be suffering even without the ban. These places go out of business all the time. This just gives them something to ***** about.

My parents own a bar and grill (and I tend bar there a few times a month). I'm all for a ban. I know they wouldn't have a problem if the state banned smoking because they don't smoke and hate the smell and health effects. My dad says that when he goes to tavern league meetings and conventions he's amazed at the numbers of bar owners that are smokers, and he's convinced they are against a ban because they wouldn't be able to smoke. (I think most likely if the ban were to be passed in my state, it wouldn't effect my parents place because they have good smoke eaters in place and would probably be exempt. That's not saying they wouldn't just go smoke-free if a ban came, though.)

To actually answer your question, it is a matter of public health, so I'm okay with the government intervention.

For the life of me, I don't know why people smoke. It's not like sixty plus years ago when it was thought to be healthy. We know the effects. I, personally, like to breath fresh air...

Answer 4

You are speaking of our government as if it were some sort of alien entity, like a foreign occupying force. Our government represents We the People, and (theoretically) acts to promote our interests. It is in the best interest of We the People to have smoke free public areas, while preserving the right of individuals to smoke in private. Of course it shouldn't be up to the business owner -- what next, business owners determine for themselves whether or not to have fire exits rather than mandatory compliance with the public safety code?

Answer 5

Scotland introduced a smoking ban in all indoor public places. Many pubs, cafes and restaurants have actually reported an increase in profits since the law came into place, about time the rest of the UK followed our example.

Answer 6

I think it should always be on a case by case basis .. like nightly .. in every business .... someone lights up and the anti-smoking people try and stop him or her ... then a melee ensues each night with the winning side getting there way for the evening. It keeps the government out and the entertainment value alone would be excellent!

Answer 7

I think the business owner should be the one to decide, however, in bars and restaurants I do think that there should be a non-smoking area to cater for those that don't!

Answer 8

answer me this: i will pass to a bar, the position i will drink poison, eat foodstuff of a questionable beginning and difficulty, have interaction in risky sexual habit and probably get my head chop up open by a pool cue, yet i will;t smoke because it will be risky to my well being? i'd compared to those who smoke, besides the undeniable fact that it is not any reason to regulate them like monsters

Answer 9

Yes, non smokers have the right to boycott a business that allows smoking. There are more nons then smokers so it would be money talks and smokers go outside if they applied it. By the way I am a liberal.

Answer 10

I agree, the market should determine it....Why don't we stop serving alcohol in restaurants and bars?....Hell it causes a lot more problems than cigarettes.....Drinking causes health problems, not to mention, when moron's drive while drinking they cause horrible accidents, its hypocritical and political!

Answer 11

i think it should be up to both.

but the business owner cant make any policy that contradicts the governments policies.

if it were just up to the business then couldnt they also say people could snort crack or shoot up heroine? tobaco is a drug and it it is regulated first and foremost by the government.