Is it right for government to impose a smoking ban? Or should it be up to the business owners?

Question

Tell me what you think. I think that it is infringment on a smoker's rights to ban smoking in public places. If a restaurant or bar wants to be smoke free, that should be the business owner's decision. Tupelo, MS recently passed a ban that goes into effect in October. Not only can you not smoke in a public building, but you cannot smoke within 25 feet of the front door, or 10 feet of the back door. Thus, you cannot walk down the street and smoke. As a smoker, this irritates me. As a member of a "free and democratic society", this infuriates me. Last time I checked, tobacco was a legal substance. What about all those irritating people who wear enough perfume to choke a dead horse? Betcha they won't ban them from firing up my allergies!!!!

Thanks for all the answers so far. But the question is not about smoking -- it's whether or not government has the right to tell private business owners that their patrons cannot smoke in the private businesses.

Answer 1

I would agree that government buildings and such can ban smoking or such, but no level of government (Federal, State, Local) should be able to impose such acts against owners of restaurants, bars, etc. While the argument about "the right to 'not' breath smoke" is often brought up, the fact that no one forces anyone to enter into such establishments is rarely used to counter. Since we are a capitalistic society with a strong belief in free enterprise, then the government should allow patrons decide. If, though I do not think there is precedent for such, if eminent domain is invoked, then just compensation should be provided to those who can show monetary loss.

Answer 2

I think it should be up to business owners. I think if people go into a bar they expect people to be able to smoke. But then if someone was running a family restaurant, then their choice would probably be to not allow smoking. My college also passed a law that people couldn't smoke within 20 or 30 feet of a door of a public building, which pretty much eliminates every place on campus except the football field. Smokers were very upset about it.

Answer 3

It's sad, but most states which have passed such laws have used it under a public health issue, and are enforcing it that way. They'll fine the business owner if he allows rules to be broken. You can walk down a street and smoke, however, don't stop in front of an establishment while smoking. Don't patronize businesses which are subject to the laws, such as bars or restaurants in Tupelo. If it's OK outside city limits, then patronize those there.

Answer 4

I applaud a government that bans smoking. Most business owners won't do it on their own, so it will require government intervention. I don't want to breathe that smoke, and don't want my children to breathe it. I couldn't sit in a business and spray perfume or Febreze around without causing problems, I am sure, but smokers can pollute all the air with their smoke. And I shouldn't have to leave due to others inconsideration. It's fine if you smoke in your own plastic bubble, but if your smoke, or your loud music or your argument carry over into other people's space, then there is a problem.

Perfume affects your allergies, but not smoke? Hmmm...

Edited a few minutes later to add the following that I just read at MSNBC.com; "CHICAGO - About one-third of attention deficit cases among U.S. children may be linked with tobacco smoke before birth or to lead exposure afterward, according to provocative new research."

Answer 5

It should be up to the business owner for the most part. It is hardly inconvenient for a grocery store or mega mart to ban smoking since most people aren't in it for an extended time period. However, restaurant and bar owners should have a choice. I like in Washington State which passed a law so restrictive that it destroyed businesses set up specifically to allow smoking (cigar "clubs"). I don't smoke and am not particularly fond of the smell, but I also was smart and polite enough not to frequent places that allowed smoking. That way I didn't bother the smokers and they didn't bother me.

Answer 6

Oh Yes ! Its the governments right, and actually, their responsibility to protect its civilians, especially the ones who would otherwise be powerless to protect their own health and well being. Your freedoms should be extensive as possible, but only up to the point where your freedoms violate the freedom and well being of other people. Your smoke goes into the noses and lungs of people who choose to not smoke, who choose to maximize their health and longevity and comfort, then its wrong of the smoker to do it, and government should be involved to protect the other people. Think of it like sex. If someone wants to have sex, it shouldn't be done all over the public, and sex on everyone that's around you, sex on people who don't want it, that would be rape, right? Government should control that too, no rape of its civilians,... Smoke is the same ethic. I don't want smoke. Government should protect non-smokers. I have brain allergy to it. Business just cares about making more money. They won't be responsible for the well-being of individuals. They'll say its none of their concern.
You're right about the perfume too. That should be done more responsibly too. Its catching attention as an issue in offices in Canada already.

Answer 7

I think it is an infringement on everybody else's' rights for smokers to insist they have the right to smoke. (I'm an ex-smoker). They may, but they don't have the right to inflict the smoke on me. I just don't eat at restaurants where they allow smoking. And, I tell the hostess why I am leaving, as I walk out of the door. "Smoking areas" are a joke. Worthless. There are enough pollutants in the air without adding to them. Besides, cig smoke ruins the taste of a good meal.

Answer 8

If the enterprise is open to the many times used public it turns into the artwork of the government to guard those human beings. shall we are saying which you have self belief the owner of a lager backyard ought to have the superb to enable the final public to return in and function their lungs broken with the aid of the thick smoke often stumbled on there. because of the fact he ownes the placement, he shouldn't ought to circulate with the aid of the regulation. ok, what if somebody is murdered in his joint ? Is that still a private affair that the police ought to keep their noses out of ?

Answer 9

Anti-smoking NAZI's are the same as Nazislamic Fascist
Instead of forcing their belief on everyone and impairing a smokers rights
They should get off their dead @$$ and work to make tobacco illegal not take the rights of the USA's citizens to use a legal product.
So much for tolerance and freedoms from the anti-smoking Nazi's
Make it illegal if you hate smoking and America's freedoms so much.

Answer 10

The government should not be placing smoking bans on restaurants and business. That is over stepping it's bounds. Most will say that it helps protect the children, but it is also infringing on a business right to serve who they want.

In Arkansas, we passed a state law saying that there is no smoking inside where children can be present. Some places have started to ban children period in order to cater to smoker...I say good for them.

Smoking is bad. I don't smoke. But if a smoker wants to smoke and I don't want to breathe it ... then I'll go somewhere else. There is no definite proof that second hand smoke causes lung cancer.