What gives ANYONE/Government the right to ban smoking in a business that wants to ban NON-Smokers?

Question

If I owned a bar, and if I wanted to, I would ban NON-Smokers from both working and partaking of my services. Sounds to me like that is the right of the business owner, not the non-smoker or the government. What are your thoughts and please, try to make some sensible argument that grants people who have NOTHING invested in something, making the rules?

PLEASE READ THE FRIGGIN' QUESTION.

OK, I am asking YOU, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ENTER MY ESTABLISHMENT WHEN I ADVISE YOU THAT IT IS FOR SMOKERS ONLY? READ THE QUESTION!!!!!

I'm NOT doing business with the general public. I'm doing business with SMOKERS. READ THE QUESTION.

Remember this folks. Gerald Ford said: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Answer 1

Because the freedom of choice has been taken away. If you pay taxes and run your business as it is suppose to run you should be allowed to have smoking in your establishment. The system has brainwashed people to their way of thinking. If they do ban smoking then they should ban sex(because of all the incurable diaseses) in homes,Ban diesel trucks,cars,ect off the roads(because it pollutes the air)ban certain tybes of shoes( they destroy the feet-back) although Shoes won't kill you I'm just making my statement. Looks like we can't fight the government what they say goes. Good Luck ,hope I helped a little.to all the rude and nasty people that talk about how second hand smoke is worse you are being brain washed if you choose to act uppity because someone smokes that is your right but look how simple you look when acting in such a manner.I grew up in a house full of smokers and I'm healthier and just as strong as the next guy.We smokers have more respect for you than you have for us. Make your point just don't be so smart *** about it. Sorry For rambling on.

Answer 2

When the smoking ban was initially introduced it did not have an immediate impact because the smokers went outside. Of course as the weather became colder people either had to go without or stay at home in the comfort of their own home. As for the non smokers, well, they are happy that they can drink in a smoke free environment but how long will it last? As the pubs close down due to lack of business, it will have an effect on the non smokers eventually because there will be no pubs or clubs to visit. People who said that they would now use the pubs because they are smoke free can't replace the revenue that Landlords have lost, and with the extra taxation on alcohol they will of course purchase less. It is a downward trend unless the government re-introduce smoking into social areas again. You can't have it both ways.

Answer 3

I am non-smoker and really dislike cigarettes.

That said, the bar or resturant or other business belongs to the owner. I have the choice of not going there if I so choose. Since I don't like the smell of tobacco I probably wouldn't go there. That does not give me the right to tell others they cannot go there or that they must go there. It does not give me the right to try to force others to quit smoking either.

All the claims of the non-smoking terrorists are an invasion of privacy along with a bunch of self righteous tripe. Certainly, smokers should be courteous of a non-smokers right to a smoke free environment, a non-smoker also must be just as courteous to the smoker and their right to do whatever they wish to their own body. Nobody has to work in a smoking bar if they choose not too. The fact that they freely choose to work in a place where there is smoke makes them responsible for their own actions.

The tax issue is another question altogether and is laughable, if it wasn't going to end up costing each of us huge sums of money. As higher taxes are charged for tobacco products government revenue increases which is then commited to one thing or the other. As the number of smokers decreases the tax dollars decrease but the government has already committed that money to something so must raise the revenue elsewhere. That elsewhere is your pocket and mine. In the long run it is just another means of reaching deeper into every pocket.

Lastly is the most ominous part. Where does it stop? Seatbelts, helmets, smoking, now they are starting to attack fat. How long before being overweight is illegal? Its for our own good, of course (heavy sarcasm). And what comes after that? Suntanning maybe? The noose tightens on us every day. Why are people so eager to give up their rights to an ever increasing tyranny?

Answer 4

All I know is that California was a nice place where I could go into a restaurant or bar or whatever and feel comfortable. Then I went to Texas and couldn't breathe when I went to the same kinds of places - and there where little kids and so on sitting in the same restaurants with smoke so thick the ceiling looked grey.

I kind of like being able to breathe better, and those laws make that possible.

Edit: Okay, well, smoking negatively affects everyone around the person doing it, detrimenting their health and degrading their quality of life, and I think it has long since come to the point where the government must intervene to protect people's rights. But I guess I really can't see any problem with someone opening an establishment whose intent is to cater to smokers if that's clearly what it is - bar, airline...fine with me.

Answer 5

Legislation has the right.

We live in a country that dictates that in order to own a business you have to abide by certain rules.. such as zoning restrictions, retail laws, etc. your acceptance of this and the laws are what gives you a permit for operation (license if you will)

If you don't want to operate under those rules and laws you can turn in your license, but if you just decide not to submit to the rules.. you'll be cited and fined.. and eventually (especially with health-code violations) be shut down and closed forcibly.

This is a free country, but we are not anarchist because we have the RULEs and LAWS that make us such.

edit-----
As far as the ability to ban anyone from your establishment, this is considered discrimination and there ARE laws against this. Pursue that avenue and you'll end up with legal ramifications.

Answer 6

I think that the non-smoking laws truly suck and infringe on my right to choose what is best for me or mine. It is a runaway train gathering more and more momentum banning smoking everywhere from state beaches to bars and public places. It is wrong! If you choose not to frequent an establishment due to smoke or no smoke, that is your right, but banning it in the interest of public safety....BS!

I opt for your idea of banning the self-righteous non-smokers!

By the way, I am not a smoker.....so save it!

Okay.....you should have the right to serve anyone or any group (at your privately owned business) without the interference of government. AND you as the proprietor should have the right to ban whomever you choose from your establishment! Don't get testy. LOL

Answer 7

It's just the big government once again interfering in our lives. By debating these type of issues they don't have to deal with the real problems in the Country.

I don't smoke nor do I like smoking but I am much more offended that these types freedoms are taken from us and yet vulgarity, sacrilegious speech & acts, have to be tolerated by decent people who are as offended by this as smoking to the government controlled liberals.

Our children are increasingly becoming addicted to pornography, contracting AIDS and other sexual diseases, drugs and the fight to give women all the morals of immoral men have enslaved women to men.

I just wish the U.S. Congress, Senate, Judges, would spend our money on strictly National issues.
We have simply become more corrupt by our 'heroes, role models. We know when they are lying but we keep voting for them.

Answer 8

You could disallow non-smokers, but you wouldn't get very many of them, if at all anyway. As for not hiring workers, you may have an issue there with some discriminatory practices. I'm sure the government has that regulation somewhere in their books, right?

Answer 9

That is a great idea! You are totally right that it should be the business owner who decides smoking rules. I don't smoke nor do I enjoy breathing second hand smoke. But I love second hand smoke because it means we have freedom and it is unbelievable that smoking is being made illegal in bars, as it was in my state CO last year. Now the govt is trying to make it illegal in casinos. Many jobs have been lost and many more will be lost as our govt shifts to Socialism. Tragically that is what most people want--for the govt to tell them how to live 24x7. The day where innovation and freedom ruled and people built enormous wealth serving others is passing. Good luck in the meantime and fight on!

Answer 10

Only if you has the bar owner planned on paying for the medical costs associated with the smokers and second hand smoke in your establishment.

Smoking is so bad because the second hand smoke can be more dangerous than what the smoker inhales.