Do you think the law has a + or - effect? which prohibited the use of tobacco,tobacco products in restaurants.

Question

In restaurants or other similar areas.

Answer 1

A minus effect. A business owner should have the right to serve whom ever he pleases. All of the restaurants that I frequent have bent over backward to satisfy the non-smoker while allowing those who do smoke a place to enjoy a meal. I see no further need for any more repressive laws.

Answer 2

John Stuart Mill, a member of British Parliament in the 1860's, once said, ...'your rights end at the tip of my nose'.

You may have the legal right to own, but, not to misuse, destroy or harm in any way, anyone else with your property. If you set your house on fire, it is illegal. If you use a weapon that you legally own in an unlawful manner, you will be arrested. If you drive a car that you own and harm anyone or endanger property, you will be held legally accountable.

So, if second-hand smoke is dangerous to my health in any enclosed establishment, why should the owner or user of that cigarette be treated with any other regard than to be held legally accountable due to the harmful effects of second hand smoke?

Because you may own something, you cannot assume the right to use that item or property in any way that will endanger me or my health and well-being.

Answer 3

Any law prohibiting the use of an otherwise legal product on PRIVATE property is unconstitutional. I am fully aware the courts will disagree with me on that issue. The courts are wrong.

Answer 4

Non-smokers should not have to inhale the cancer-causing smoke from someone who does not value his own health. Here in California, smoking is prohibited in all public buildings as it should be. Smokers will still manage to find a place to ingest their poison, even if they have to step outside.

Answer 5

I should be up to the individual establishment owner.