Smoking Laws?

Question

I am not a smoker and I generaly to not like the smell of smoke. In the past I did like to have a cigar in a bar once in a while. I do agree with laws baning smoking in public areas so that non smokers are not expossed to second hand smoke, but do you think that the ban should also include all bars?

My opinion is that bars should decide if they are smoker friendly or not. I want a place other than my home to smoke a cigar.

Answer 1

Yes. All bars. Otherwise by what criteria do you determine which are smoke free and which aren't? If you leave it up to ownership, then most would likely go back to smoke or smoking sections to attract a greater clientele. So, it pretty much has to be all or none, and the voters chose none.

Answer 2

This is a hot topic for me. I'm a non-smoker. I don't like the smell of smoke in my clothes after coming home from the bar. Sometimes I shower because it's in my hair and my skin. -----BUT---- I do not agree with the smoking bans.
We've lost rights. I no longer have the right NOT to smoke. Think about that. I don't smoke, I choose not to smoke - but now I CAN'T smoke - it's illegal. I've lost a freedom under the guise of health. It's a tiny one, but civil rights aren't taken away all at once. It's one piece at a time.

I feel that the establishment owners should have the choice on whether or not to allow smoking. The Free Market works great, and you vote with your wallet.

Consider this scenario, for those of you that tout health issues:
You're in a restaurant having dinner. It's a non-smoking establishment of course, since the ban has passed. You have your child(ren) with you. You order drinks with your meal. Now someone decides that drinking around children is unsafe. An organization begins lobbying congress to ban drinking in restaurants where children are present. Alcohol becomes banned except at places where it comprises 30% or more of the revenue. (That was how the cigar bars stayed alive, by the way). Now, you can no longer enjoy a glass of wine at a restaurant.

Smoking was the beginning - yes the beginning. Now trans fats are being banned. So what's next?

Answer 3

No I don't. Everyone has choices or at least are suppose to have. You don't need to go in a bar if it allows smoking, no one forces you to do that. The man that owns the business has a right to say yes or no to smoking in his establishment. If this bull keeps up, trying to control what other people can do because you don't like it, think of where this can lead. Next it will be, no fat people allowed...to hard on chairs. Only Christians allowed..anyone else will drag us down. Only age 40 or younger allowed, we don't like older people. When and where do you think this will all stop?

Answer 4

its hard to say what is right and what is wrong on this issue....

I am an ex-smoker....

On the one hand, banning smoking in bars will cripple that industry. Its unfortunately a well known fact that beer and cigarettes go hand in hand.
Smokers can argue that "well, if a non-smoker doesn't like it then they don't have to go to the bars"....the problem with that logic is that non-smokers have just as much right to go to a bar as a smoker does and they shouldn't have to feel that they have to jeopardize their health to do so.

This is another one of those issues that had 2 very legitimate arguments for both sides.....I'm not sure where I stand on it.

Answer 5

The UN's study was redone 4 times on secondhand smoke. The first three studies proved there is no relation to secondhand smoke causing illness in non-smokers. They had to manipulate the fourth study to get the results they wanted.

Check things out for yourself before believing these wackos who want to tell you what you can and can't do.

Answer 6

Yes. Bars are public places too. I like being able to go to a bar and have a glass of wine or a drink with friends and not have to deal with the smoke. We have a ban in all public places and as a non-smoker, I like not having to deal with second-hand smoke that can damage my health, let alone is annoying to me.

Answer 7

Well, that depends. Is your intent to help yourself, or to harm others? If you want to be places where people are not smoking, the free market will provide that. If others want to be places where they can smoke, the free market will provide that as well. And that is the problem for the puritans. They aren't trying to protect themselves from smoke! There are lots of places that don't permit smoking. All they would have to do is choose to do business with people who share their tastes. But if you want to harm others, then you need a law. Other people won't live their lives according to your standards unless you bring violence into the picture.

Of course, some say that they're so superior that it their right and responsibility to tell others how to live. But most of my friends would say that the assertion disproves itself.

Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Answer 8

I think it would be nice to split the buildings with see through walls and ventilate with outside suction to prevent it from coming on the nonsmoking side. Then the smoke from that side would poses no threat to the people but not segregate them from view. We created the monster so let deal with it. It might even entice them to quit, because in some way they would be like the leopard.

Answer 9

I think that whoever owns any particular establishment should be the one to decide whether they want to allow smoking or not. The government should not be able to tell privately owned establishments what they have to do with their own property.

Answer 10

Absoutley not, at least not all bars....thank God it's not the law here in Louisiana--yet