Would you support this idea instead of public smoking bans?

Question

Many cities in the United States and some places in Europe are passing smoking bans in restaurants, bars, theaters, and other "public" places.

Proponents of these laws claim they protect public health and keep people from being forced to inhale secondhand smoke. Critics claim the laws go too far, unfairly restricting the rights of property owners and placing a burden on smokers.

What about this idea as a compromise? The owners of restaurants, pubs, and theaters can decide if they want to permit smoking or not. If they choose to allow smoking, they must put a large sign on all entrances stating "THIS ESTABLISHMENT PERMITS SMOKING. SECONDHAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH." They must also have all new employees sign a form acknowleging that they choose to work in an environment with tobacco smoke.

This way, no one is forced to visit or work in a smoke-filled place. They can see the sign on the door, and make their own decision if they want to take the health risk.

I'm not asking if smoking is pleasant, or if bans are a good idea. Please try to address the ALTERNATIVE plan I described above.

I am not a smoker, by the way.

Answer 1

I have never smoked a cigerette in my life. I hate second hand smoke.

However, I have always believed it should be a decision of the business owner to allow smoking in his/her establishment.

I like your idea. If the public does not want to go to an establishment that allows smoking, then they do not have to go.

The argument about profits up/down, should have no bearing. It should be up to the business owner (and employees, as you pointed out).

We should let the market decide what business' survives, and what fails. Not laws.

I would support a ban on smoking in general, rather than one banning in certain businesses.

Answer 2

Well, I ride a bus frequently and they have smoking places reserved, however, most smokers that I have ran into are very inconsiderate and just go ahead and smoke wherever they want. So that makes me lose my rights to sit down in a public place to breathe in clean air, I have to be the the one to excuse myself just becuase somebody else wants to self-mutilate. Nothing is ever done about it. College students also smoke anywhere they want on campus. The doors say "Smoke 25 feet away" Yet when i come out, the first thing i encounter are faculty and students smoking by the entrances. In my opinion, if something is going to be public, it shouldn't be allowed at all becuase you have OTHER people to consider. Some actually care for their health and there are those who probably have breathing problems. Smoking and second hand smoke has been proving to cause alot of damage. So WHY would any place allow it? Just don't get it.

Answer 3

That makes sense to me, I'd support it.

I quit smoking 12-4-05 ... but the "No-Smoking" laws to "Prevent second hand smoke" are only benefiting the rich. If supporters of the smoking ban really cared about societies general health, they'd give up tax dollars they get from tobacco sales and just make tobacco illegal.

Sure this no smoking in restaurants helps the rich to dine there ... but what about the single mom who lives in section eight housing and is surrounded by smokers to her left, right, above, and below? How is she to live without second hand smoke? Or, I live in a suburbia house that's a good 20 feet from my neighbor, but when he smokes, I can still smell it. I think the selfish people who request these laws are just rich and spoiled.

I honestly believe that most of the damage done to the respiratory systems is attributed to asbestos and emissions from vehicles and industry ... but you don't hear non-smokers going "Pew" when they get behind that gas guzzling diesel school bus ... instead they're crying, why can't we have more school buses.

Smokers have rights too, and they do pay much more money to society through taxes ... I think this warning should replace the no smoking ban.

Answer 4

That sounds like a good idea, but I don't believe it would work very well. Restaurant and business owners do all they can to get as many customers as possible. I following your proposal, many probable customers who are either against smoking, don't like smoking atmospheres, and most importantly have health issues which prevent them from being in that type of atmosphere would be deterred from entering that establishment. This would inevitably cause the establishment to lose money.

Answer 5

I am not sure how this "alternative" would be any less restrictive on property owner's rights and how shifting the burden from the cancer causing smokers to the innocent non-smokers would solve the problem.

In your proposal, you are forcing business owners to choose between the respected non-smokers and the disrespected but well-paying smokers. How is that any more fair than simply asking property owners to have smokers smoke outside?

You are telling non-smokers that they are only welcome if they are willing to sacrifice their health for the privledge of being able to frequent certain establishments.

If you ban smoking in public places, you are not restricting the rights of anyone beyond what is necessary to protect the health and welfare of the public at large.

Answer 6

why is it that republicans have no problem freaking out over someone lighting a cigarette, but then they insist there should be no problem if we all drive cars burning oil all day?

i am too interested in science to worry about whether or not i hate cigarette smoke; how many adults do you know who survived years of secondhand smoke from their parents? we enact these bans over junk science and ignore real science. i think it is gross, but that is not a sufficient reason to ban something. prohibition was worse than alcohol because it generated a lot more crime.

those of you who insist secondhand smoke is AS BAD as smoking a cigarette yourself... where do you get that claim? what's your proof?

sorry, i know that wasn't what you were asking either... but this is getting freakish. in san diego they keep pitching a law that would make it illegal to smoke in a car with a child under 6. wtf? yes, you should not smoke around your kids, but how is a cop supposed to tell how old your kid is when he can barely see the top of his head? and beaches? is secondhand smoke that deadly when you're all outside in LA anyway?

Answer 7

Smoking should be banned altogether. The health cares costs that this habit drives affects all of us. The government should not allow the sale of tobacco products. This is a product that kills thousands annually.
If GM made a car that was defective and caused the deaths of one thousand people, the government would be furious demanding that GM pull that car. Look at the Ford Pinto.......
The simple fact is, the government likes the money it gets from taxes and tobacco special interest groups more than they care for the people.

Answer 8

What if every place became a smoke filled place.

Get over it.No restaurant would agree to that. Also profits areup in every city with the smoking ban in place. No restaurant bar or club will go back on that.

Answer 9

the health of the general public should not come second to the habits of individuals. Its not fair for someone to have to avoid the same public activities as a smoker, simply because that persons has a habit that effects people beyond himself.

The truth is that second hand smoke is just as dangerous as inhaling smoke directly from the cigarette. What about pregnant women? They cant be around second hand smoke because of the known health risks to the fetus, and yet they still enjoy eating out and other public events. The same goes for those with respiratory illnesses.

It shouldnt be allowed in public areas, and personally, for the sake of small children, it also shouldnt be allowed in cars. Me and my cousins, and my mother and aunt all have breathing problems due to the second hand smoke of my grandparents. We were children and we'rent able to open windows or get away to get clean air. We didnt get to make that choice for ourselves, yet the adults in our lives without caring made them for us.

That suffering is not fair. For anyone.

Lastly, i have waitressed, and I can speak for those who have in talking about how horrible it can be as a non smoker to wait on smoking tables. There are health effects, even after just a few months of working.

No one should have to suffer because of anothers personal addiction. Thats just not right. It creates a sense of segregation between the smokers and non.

Theres not always a huge ammount of choice in where to work, or where to eat. Besides that, what if the smoking place offers better food or better pay for their workers? Its just not fair.

Answer 10

Both my Mother and Sister-in-law just died from cancer caused by cigarette smoking...

If you had to watch someone die a painful death because of smoking you would never want to smoke again. Yes, they each had pain medication, my mom had 5x the limit on one of her meds and she was still in excruciating pain. So for those of you who think you can just be put out of your misery by pain meds, think again...reality is much different!

I live in a city where most restaurants and bars are non-smoking. It doesn't seem to be hurting business. In fact, most of these places report higher earnings since the smoking ban took effect.

PLEASE STOP SMOKING!