What do people think about the business smoking bans?

Question

Should government be able to tell individual business owners to ban smoking?

My family owns a tavern. We believe that people are well aware of the health risk in volved when entering a smoking establishment. 90% of our business comes from smokers and we would rather have them in our establishment so we do not have to close the doors. If you do not want to be in the smoke dont come in is our take on the ban. As a business paying a lot of tax and liscensing fees we should be able to say we permit smoking in our establishment--if you are worried about the health effects you should probably not enter.

My family owns a tavern. We believe that people are well aware of the health risk involved when entering a smoking establishment. 90% of our business comes from smokers and we would rather have them in our establishment so we do not have to close the doors. If you do not want to be in the smoke dont come in is our take on the ban. As a business paying a lot of tax and liscensing fees we should be able to say we permit smoking in our establishment--if you are worried about the health effects you should probably not enter. Sending our patrons outside to smoke opens us up to other exposures. Falls in the parking lot, slipping on ice..... those kind of things.

Answer 1

Unbelievable. Don't you just love it when the government comes into privately owned locales and tells you what is best for you and your own? Not only are the smoking bans completely without foundation in the U.S. Constitution (apologies if you're not American), but they are an infringment of an individual's right to do what he or she pleases in a place that he or she owns. Property rights are fundamental to a free society. If a restaurant owner wants to serve fatty foods and show pornographic films on big screens, they should have the right to. Other people do not have the right to come in with scientific studies saying that fatty foods are bad for you and that pornographic films are offensive to certain people and tell them that they CAN'T serve dessert and they CAN'T show 'Acid Sex'. If you don't like it, you're free to leave. There are plenty of places that are 'smoke-free' environments without any laws enforcing them.
Also, the effects of 'second-hand smoke' are NOT scientific fact. There is a certain disagreement within the scientific community as to the nature and danger of this phenomenon.

'Don't tread on me'

Answer 2

I think it is outrageous . Smokers are people to. I smoked till I got pregnant then quit. I have been on both sides .Still enjoy one on occasion ( twins are 5). The smoking non-smoking section was enough. Smokers pay more taxes than anyone.Think what would happen if there were no tobacco taxes . The government would be in deep trouble.It is bad for your health but so is overeating, drinking,caffeine,Fumes from oil and gas,and so on.Why pick on just the smokers. People should be able to have a smoke friendly or a smoke free business . If you don't want to be around it take your business elsewhere.

Answer 3

As a smoker, I can agree that the government should be able to tell business owners that they must specifically provide a place for non-smokers (after all, I don't really want to smoke where the people around me are going to be full of constant complaints, anyway). And although I don't have children, I don't smoke around children, because the second-hand smoke is very bad for them, and I understand that my habit is a bad one.

On the other hand, I don't believe the government has the right to tell businesses that they CANNOT have a section set aside for those who wish to smoke. They'll find that smoking customers will stick around just a little longer - maybe buy that dessert with their meal rather than rushing out quickly after dinner to have a smoke. After I began smoking, I can honestly say that I don't recall one occassion when I've had dessert in a non-smoking restaurant.

Just as I wouldn't think it was right for the government to specify that a business MUST offer a smoking section - if a business owner doesn't smoke and doesn't want to promote the habit, there's no reason for them to have to have that section, find workers willing to work in the area and take the responsibility for cleaning.

Answer 4

It is double standard. The people who benifit the most from the tabacco industry IS the government. It is a multi billion industry.

I do agree that smoking should be banned in "all" businesses, as the non-smokers should not have to be put through second hand smoke, however, to go as far as controlling a persons individual choice is not acceptable.

Smoking goes hand in hand with social events, specifically where the drinking is involved. If they are going to ban smoking everywhere, it is not fair to take away everything from that smoker, they should at least provide a smoking room, which is not part of the main building/office.

The government goes out of their way to tell us how the cigaretts are bad for us, how it will kill us. So, why is it not illegal? This is what I mean by "double standards". Cokain is illigal (and it should be) but it kills less people a year then cigaretts do, so, do you see who is really benefiting from all of this, wheather there is some sort of ban or not?

From the ex-smoker of 17 years.

Answer 5

Hi we are a non smoking family.. Howeve both my husband and myself were raised in smoking households.. neither of us have ever smoked.

Because we were raised around smokers we have a good idea of how addictive it all is...

But as non smokers I was thrilled to see non smoking eateries!
Frankly as a non smoker you can really smell it and we had stopped eating anywhere smoking was allowed.. which was about everywhere..

Business owners where welive were NOT doing a good job usig smoke eaters or other things to help make the patrtonage of thier place more inviting to non smokers let alone less of a health risk.
I do agree that the Governemtn is running the industry out.. and I think its great... Its a huge health hazard,, not only for smokers but those around them, and it needs to go.

Doors to companies close ALL the time and folks lose jobs... WE have been there ourselves.. you move on get a new job and make do...
SO my vote is YAY for the non smoking in businesses., and I look forward to the day teh tobacco companies close thier dooors!

Good Luck

Wismom

Answer 6

Personally speaking, I am perfectly happy with the smoking ban. As a non-smoker, this will likely come as no surprise, however I have a reason other than simply not being a smoker. Smoking kills. It is a well known fact. Why should I, as a non-smoker, have to endure someone smoking next to me in a public place without a care for my health or those around me? I personally believe (IMHO) that smokers very often do not think about the people round them when they light up without a second thought, blowing smoke at non-smokers (most of the time, without intent to cause any harm and probably without realising they are doing it).

The ban benefits those who work in environments like pubs/bars/restaurants/etc who have no choice about breathing in anther's smoke. In Ireland, for example, banning smoking in public places has (by all accounts) improved the health of the staff who work in those environments.

Maybe, if smokers gave it some thought, they would realise that others do not want to breathe in their poisonous fumes and would move outside/away of their own volition to save the ban being necessary but alas, 99% of smokers will not even ask people around them if it is ok for them to smoke.

This is an argument that can go in both directions as smokers see non-smokers' griping being an infringement on their Human rights. If you want to kill yourself by smoking, do so away from me, I prefer life to a choking, cough filled and likely painful, death.

Thanks for listening and please note that my intention is non-confrontational and is not intended to cause offense or start a flame war, it is simply my opinion. :)

Toanswer the question, in the case of smoking, I believe the answer I would give is a resounding Yes!

Answer 7

I feel it is up to the business owner if he or she wants to ban or allow smoking. Customers have the choice to patronize the business. As a former smoker, I understand how strong the attraction is for smoking. There is plenty of scientific evidence relating to the harmful effects of both smoking and second-hand smoke. Some goods are complementary items. Seems like smoking, drinking and gambling are together a lot of the time.

Answer 8

We've had this law for years in California & it has worked out for everyone. We go OUTSIDE to smoke & the people who don't like smoke can see the smokers & avoid the area if the smoke offends them. How lazy do you have to be to NOT take your butt outside to smoke? All the gasses from the cigarettes are causing lung & respitory problems when they are kept in a closed room with the people. You'll adapt, just like we did!

Answer 9

It is a public health issue in my opinion. Like making restaurants clean there floors and use water that is the right temp to kill germs. I think that people have more rights than business and the majority don't smoke and don't want to be exposed. If you want to smoke you should do so in your car, with no kids around, at home and in a back ally like a dog

Answer 10

I think our governments are trying hard to run the cigarette industry out of our country..another blow to middle-class Americans - where else are there jobs starting at over $21.00 per hour plus good benefits including a 401k plan. How is it the government can enforce laws which take away our rights but can't enforce laws against illegal aliens?