2007-02-21 04:57:53 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
Hey, if you want the ten point bonus... don't insult the asker...
2007-02-21 10:12:38 · update #1
yes it is. what a good analogy. i would have never thought to put it that way but it could not be more true. just because there is a smoking section does not mean that the smoke does not go over to the non-smoking. i agree with you 100%. hope this helps. good luck.
2007-02-21 05:28:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm a non-smoker, I have also always owned businesses so I see this differently perhaps than some others. I think that the business owner should have some choice, whether he wants to worry about non-smokers or not. However, now there are laws, and in most places ban smoking altogether in restaurants. There are adequate filtration and air-conditioning systems available (used a lot in casinos in Las Vegas and elsewhere) limiting pollutants to acceptable levels....often lower than right outside the door on the street.
I find it amazing in the USA that we subsidize growing tobacco, but try to stop the use of it. Stupid system.
Oh, to answer your question. Not exactly, spraying that chemical disinfectant automatically into the air in toilets probably harms more people than smoke drifting from the smoking section to the non-smoking section. If all the smokers peed in your pool, that would be a problem for sure.
2007-02-21 05:43:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It depends entirely on the situation. Yes, there are some businesses where the analogy to a "peeing section in the pool" is entirely accurate. I have been in some places where smoking is allowed only in one portion of a room with no apparent division - it seems ludicrous to say you can smoke only because you are sitting on this side of the room.
Those businesses that have a separate but somewhat open room for smoking are slightly better.
But I have also been in establishments that had two separately enclosed areas, with separate air conditioning systems, for smokers and for non-smokers. This in no way fits the analogy.
As a smoker, I would not object to legislation that required that those businesses wishing to offer a smoking section have two separately enclosed areas with separate air conditioning systems. But I do find the total smoking bans to be offensive, not so much as a personal rights issue, but as it infringes upon the rights of business owners to make decisions regarding the use of their property. If they find it more profitable to have an area that caters to people who smoke, and those people who smoke are of age, then I see no reason for the government to place undue restrictions on these business owners.
2007-02-21 10:02:36 · answer #3 · answered by JenV 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The difference is that the pool owner is allowed to let his potential customers decide if they want to pay to swim in his pool. In many cities, restaurant (and night club) owners do not have the liberty to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking in their privately-owned business.
Because of the success of the smoking bans, there is now legislation that regulates what ingredients restaurants can use to prepare their foods (legislation against trans-fats). If this goes through, perhaps in another decade it will be illegal to use meat, sugar, salt, or caffeine.
This isn't a bad thing in a socialist or communist country since their government routinely makes personal decisions for their people. But in a free country, individuals should have the right to be informed and make their own decisions about what type of private business they want to frequent.
I have no desire to go into a smoke-filled bar but I will vote to ensure that the owner of that business does not have more of his/her liberty stripped away by the government. I see nothing wrong with requiring a business to advertise that they allow smoking, but anything more than that is too much governmental interference for me.
2007-02-21 07:21:34 · answer #4 · answered by Witchy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because you can't separate the air with the smoke in it from the air without smoke in it. I've always wondered why people thought that they were doing anything good for their health (other than not actually having to suck in the smoke of person next to you) by sitting in a different area of the same room, with the same air being circulated into that room by an "air conditioner".
2007-02-21 05:08:14 · answer #5 · answered by cat14675 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ha i would congratulate you on a really witty quip. However i also use it cuz i saw a comedian say it on the "mock the week" quiz show about a year ago.fair play on tryin to pass it off as your own though! "I made it up" i hear you cry, You dirty rotten liar.
Best not to urinate in a public swimming pool tho, they put this purple dye that shows up where traces of urine are found,can be rather embarassing.
2007-02-21 05:37:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nahh enable the individuals who smoke smoke. see you later as some thing individuals do not ought to sniff it. There must be a marijuana smoking area at the same time as it turns into criminal mcdonalds inventory would go by the roof.
2016-12-04 11:23:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because the pee would go all over the pool were as the smole stays inside the glass. Also thats online all over the place, some creativity would be better
2007-02-21 06:10:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, because you can't smoke in a restaurant without being identified as the smoker.
2007-02-21 05:01:15 · answer #9 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
yeah it is because the smoke still trails to the other parts. most cities have done away with smoking sections though
2007-02-21 05:05:34 · answer #10 · answered by ~*~Veronica~*~ 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋