or should it be up to the business? If a store owner, bar owner or club owner decides he's going to allow smoking in his establishment, should the Government have the right to tell him "no", or should it be left up to each individual business owner?
2006-11-09 04:34:25 · 14 answers · asked by Enterrador 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
elmjunburke - Here's a little common sense for you. Murder is against the law, Smoking is not. Therefore, no matter where you murder someone, you have broken the law. Smoking is not against the law, therefor if you smoke, you are not breaking any laws.
2006-11-09 04:54:29 · update #1
The problem with allowing smokers to smoke in private businesses is largely an issue of interstate commerce and healthcare. Both of those are issues that the Federal Government can legislate and therefore regulate. So legally speaking, while the government is allowed to regulate.
Let's not dismiss the potential benefits for this regulation: there could be a decline in health problems that result from second-hand smoke. Smoking not only affects the patrons of the establishment but also the employeers/employer. A poor college student who can only find decent wages at a bar, but doesn't smoke, shouldn't be subjected to inhaling the smoke from patrons.
There is a correlation (note, not established causation) between second-hand smoke and the decline in one's health. The costs of health care premiums are absorbed by US . . . not by a stranger in middle management and not by your annoying co-worker.
HOWEVER, opening up this door and allowing the government to go about regulating and prosecuting violations of these smoking bans is also costly. Patrons decide to buy alcohol and stay home because they can smoke at home -- or they smoke at a friend's. They spend less time at those places of business because smoking is a daily habit and if they're forced to go outside everytime they want to smoke . . . they're probably not going to spend as much time at that place of business as they previously did.
Unless the government also provides financial compensation for those businesses, they lose money. They then have to cut jobs. That hikes up the unemployment rate. THAT hikes up the unemployment checks (that are, once again, paid by us). And this sounds like awfully bad decision-making for the economy which is already struggling.
The decrease in jobs means the decrease in spending which means money isn't being put back into the marketplace which means prices go up which then causes purchasing to go down. And that sucks for everyone.
The Government should be more concerned with how we're going to handle this war in Iraq and less concerned with smoking bans. Perhaps they can enforce regulations like smoking only allowed in certain establishments or "rooms" or at certain times.
2006-11-09 04:53:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the business is open to the public it becomes the work of the Government to protect those people.
Lets say that you believe the owner of a beer garden should have the right to permit the general public to come in and have their lungs damaged by the thick smoke often found there. Because he ownes the place, he shouldn't have to go by the law.
Okay, what if someone is murdered in his joint ? Is that also a private affair that the police should keep their noses out of ?
2006-11-09 12:49:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't like the smell of smoke but I think the government should stay away from telling business owners what to do.
2006-11-09 12:39:16 · answer #3 · answered by Fly Boy 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
A business is a private enterprise and the owner should be allowed to set his own rules. If he wants to allow smoking it should be his choice. It is my choice to either use his business or go down the street to the one who does not allow smoking.
2006-11-09 12:43:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should be a case of businesses deciding for themselves whether they allow it or not - their decision to run their property in that way should be backed up by law.
It is just a way of government interfering in people's lives to find new ways of levying fines and acting like busybodies.
2006-11-09 12:42:24 · answer #5 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes of course! What is a Government if it cannot look after the wellbeing of the citizens that elected them to serve in good terms.All know that smoking kills people little by little irrespective of the place where they smoke.Any government has the power to ban smoking in public places except in the smokers own residents.
2006-11-09 12:41:15 · answer #6 · answered by JILMAAL 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
it should be left up to the business owner. not the gov. we don't live in a communist country. although we have people who are demanding are gov suppress the American citizens. when any job or the gov try's to suppress me or my family, i will slap a law suit on them. big fat one.
2006-11-09 12:56:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course they should! We can't have a bunch of unbridled personal freedom and a Constitutionally limited government or such nonsense - this is America!
2006-11-09 12:52:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If it is the will of the people, then it should be banned. That has proved to be the case in Ohio and perhaps in other states.
yet another personal freedom disappearing.
2006-11-09 12:43:30 · answer #9 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Businesses are private property. Allowing government to say what goes on in private property is a slippery slope.
2006-11-09 12:37:57 · answer #10 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋