do you think smoking regulations should be the choice of the owner of the facility,and not a board of five ppl

Question

would like to know how people feel about this

dont people understand it is our decision what to do with our lives, not the governments, when will we wake up and think for ourselves? and for all the people who are going to say that they are non smokers and dont feel they should have to breath second hand smoke.... it would be your decision to enter the bussines, you dont like it dont go there. am i out lf line with this?

and for those who use the cancer thing..........do you realize how many things in this world cause cancer and nothing is done about it. at christmas time do you string lights? read the tag it says can cause cancer by handling, better ban christmas lights.........

oh by the way we better not recycle either, who wants to work in a facility where copper and lead are........ they also cause cancer

Answer 1

Smoking should be at the owners discretion. There should be smoking facilities and non-smoking facilities. No one should tell someone they can't smoke or let people smoke on their own property. Give people a choice whether they want to go to a smoking establishment or if they don't. To me that's the freedom that I thought this country was founded on. I personally think its gotten ridiculous.

Answer 2

I don't really care if the board is made up of five "ppl" or five hundred. If second hand smoke is unhealthy, why should I have to put up with it? Why should people be allowed to do things that are unhealthy to the people around them? It's seen as a public health issue, not a civil rights issue. No one is telling people to quit smoking, or they're not legislating it anyway. The governent makes tons of tax money off of smokers.

You can smoke lot of different places. I only have one favorite restaurant. Why do you get to tell me to leave?

EDIT: So what, because nothing is done about other cancer causes, nothing should be done about smoking? Try again, genius.

Answer 3

No. It is up to a board for the town/ city/ state because smoking bans are to protect employees of said facilities. These people are out ranked by the owner and might be forced to work in an unhealthy condition because their boss didn't want to ban smoking at their place of work. Smoking has been proven to cause cancer. And can cause cancer from second hand smoke. My uncle has been told he has emphysema and he never smoked once in his life. BUT he suffered second hand smoke growing up from his parents and others and as a result has a problem now. You are selfish and are only thinking of your smoking habit and not of those who need protecting. Workers and other nonsmokers who dont want to suffer health consequences from your sick habit.

Answer 4

I feel that smoking should be banned in all public areas, and within 25 feet of any building entrance in the United States.
Where I live we banned smoking in all public areas (restaurants, bars, etc.) and are working on adding the entrances to buildings soon. It has impacted our community greatly. Everyone can enjoy cleaner air. Even if the smokers can't see it they are better off too.
People who don't smoke have a right to clean air, and smoking in public imposes upon that by polluting it with secondhand carcinogens...Which by the way kills as many if not more people than actually smoking.
If it were up to me, smoking would be banned entirely, (put that in your pipe and smoke it lobbyists!) and the number who agree are growing by the day. As the rate of lung cancer (caused by smoking and smokers) is killing the
state run medical care funds. People who really want to live deserve that money much more than those who would willingly pollute their bodies with carcinogens.
Blessings, I am sure these opinions will run the gamet!

Answer 5

I am a non-smoker and I feel that in some instances smoking should be banned like in restaurants. No matter where u are seated smoke is in the air. It is not the smokers choice to decide whether my child should be breathing in second hand smoke. Smoking is harmful to the body and is harmful to those who inhale second hand smoke. For those of us who choose to lead a healthy clean lifestyle, we should not be forced to be subjected to those unhealthy elements. When a persons life is at stake you are not the decision maker nor is the owner of the facility. My husband smokes but he is supportive of this decision. He does not smoke in my home or around my children. He goes outside even in the freezing winter. He knows what smoking has done to him and his coughing proves it. He isn't so stubborn to not admit that smoking is bad for you. It isn't his right to smoke in a room with my children right there so when they become adults they get cancer from his poor decision. He admits this and you should do the same thing!!!!!

Answer 6

The easiest answer to the smoking facility/non-smoking facility debate would have been to make every place of "public accomodation" (eateries/bars/hotel-motel, etc) post one of two signs at their entrance:

"Smoking is Prohibited on the premises"

or

"Smoking is Allowed on the premises"

Then, let the public "vote with their dollars!" There are three possible outcomes:

1) Both types of enterprises would survive and prosper, making enough money to satisfy the owners of the enterprise.

2) Only the "Smoking establishments" would survive, as they serve both those who smoke, and those who will tolerate smoke.

3) Only the "Non-smoking establishments" would survive, proving that smokers are a minority with little or no influence on a capitalistic economy!

BUT, the Smoke haters were afraid that "outcome 2" would rule, as a non-smoking environment would not accept people who want to "light up" in public! They might LOSE!!!

That could not be allowed, so they villianize the smoker, and demand a law declaring every place of public accomodation non-smoking!

Yep, they certainly protected those people who work in bars! Protected them right into the unemployment line when the bars closed (due to lack of partonage) because the smokers bought a six-pack (or a flask) and went home ... to have a drink and a smoke!

Would I still hang out in bars, have a few drinks (and smokes), tip the wait staff, then take a cab home afterward if smoking were still legal in places of public accomodation? Probably! I LIKE a smoke with my beer! When I could no longer enjoy BOTH of my vices in a bar ... I took my six-pack and went home!

I no longer tip the wait staff (my place is "self serve"), I no longer patronize the cab services (I'm sober until I arrive at my home, then I drink! My friends sleep over, driving drunk is NOT COOL!)

What the bars lost, the convenience stores won! The cab drivers just plain lost, no winners there. I save cab fares (and so do my friends), a six-pack at the convenience store is way cheaper than 6 beers in a club (even without the tip), and we can get up a decent poker game without getting thrown out (my house, MY rules).

Hot DANG! The "smoke haters" done me a big favor! Let them have ALL of the "places of public accomodation"! My smoking friends and me will hang out at "my place" (private club, smoke haters need not apply for membership) and save a bunch of bucks!

Thanks "smoke haters"! Now I can enjoy THREE of my favorite vices at once ... smoking, drinking and POKER, and I don't even have to leave a tip, or pay for a cab!

Y'all are my heroes! Now if I made my living waiting tables, or driving a cab, I might be a little irritated at y'all ... but I don't, so I ain't! Thanks for saving me some serious bucks (I was a pretty good tipper!)

Answer 7

If you want it that way, fine, but the owner would end up being sued later when someone gets cancer.

I realize it's open season on smokers for most of the public. It's an accepted hatred towards people who are addicted to cigarettes with no compassion or thoughts of their own bad habits. But the law makers are only trying to stop cancer connected to that smoking.

Answer 8

I would like smoking regulations strengthened and enforced. I'd really like cigarettes made illegal because they are more hazardous to our health than a lot of illegal and prescription drugs.

I'm a former smoker, too... I love living in a state where I can go to any restaurant and know I can eat without being poisoned by someone else's habit. It's as bad as being hit by a drunk driver. He's got a problem and it shouldn't be mine.

We can all threaten to boycott an establishment for allowing or not allowing smoking. If restaurants and bars allow smoking, I and most of the people I know won't go there. If they ban it, smokers won't go there. So what should they do?

On top of that, people working there are subjected to the smoke as well. Should they be forced to find other jobs because smokers are too selfish to smoke at home or in their own cars, where they can poison only themselves and not innocent bystanders?

Answer 9

owner of the facility should make the decision...

why should smokers have to pass up their favorite restaurant because they cant eat and smoke cigs?

I think the non smokers should have to go somewhere else.. they didnt have a problem with it for how many years? and if they did, they went somewhere else... you never heard much about people smoking in public places, now you can walk outside the restaurant you just ate at, and light a cig, and someone will start talking to you about how you have to smoke 50 feet from the building, when the ashtray is right next to the front doors...

Answer 10

i smoke, but i can't stand it when people smoke when i eat. that is why there is a non- smoking section. and at bars it's a bar! i totally agree, it should be up to the owners. then there would be some smoking and non smoking places.