A lot of cities in the US have made smoking in public places illegal - violation of personal/business rights?

Question

Or is it for the overall betterment of the public?

Has or will it lower health insurance premiums in those areas?

Answer 1

I don't see how it can be a violation of rights....I have the right to not have to breathe someone else's smoke.

Answer 2

I'm in Arizona, so it won't lower my insurance rates because of the immigration problem. I think it is a good thing because someone smoking around me violates my right to breath what clean air I can - we have a huge air pollution problem, so add anything extra and it makes it very hard to breath!

I don't completely agree with the laws they passed. I think it would be better to allow businesses to make the decisions, and ban it from all public areas. But bars, clubs and some restaurants should be allowed. For the most part, if a business doesn't allow it, smokers won't go there. It's as simple as that.

Answer 3

By the same token, a reverse argument could be made that smoking violates a non-smoking patron's rights. Personally, I have a biased opinion toward the rights of non-smokers because as a non-smoker I prefer smoke-free enviornments.

To be fair, I do not think it will have an overall effect on health insurance premiums. For everything that smoking is bad for, there are hundreds of other vices which are just as bad or worse.

Answer 4

I don't know about lowering the insurance premiums, but it has sure made it a much more pleasant experience being in the Public. It does not violate any rights since it is dealing with the overall welfare and health of the general public. If it were a private club then I could see them getting upset with rights violations, but it isn't.

Answer 5

I look at it this way: You have a right to free speech. From this you have a right to not speak at all (remain silent). Likewise if we say the gov't can ban smoking in private businesses then they have the right to require it.

It wouldn't take much to get a study that claims smoking a pack a day is good for your health....

Gov't should not be allowed to interfere. People who don't smoke and don't like smokey resturants shouldn't go there. This would cause non-smoking places to pop up to meet the needs of the customers. I believe in the people's and the market's ability to self regulate.

Look at how many organic stores there are. Does the gov't require me to go to Whole Foods because it's better for my health? No but burger king is going organic any way...

Answer 6

You should define "public". Many people think of a restaurant as "public" but in reality it is private property. Private ownership rights are essential to a free market society. A restaraunt owner has the, or SHOULD have, have the right to dictate what will be allowed on that property. If the owner sets such standards as makes people uncomfortable, business will decline. The owner will change his standards or close down. Either way, the market will take care of it.
Anything else is socialism -- or worse.

Answer 7

No more so than laws prohibiting urinating in public. Laws like this are categorized as public nuisance laws. They usually don't infringe on the peoples' "rights", although in some rare cases they have been found to conflict with some of the assembly, speech, and religion stuff.

Smoking is not covered under any of those. There is no protection for habits and addictions.

Answer 8

I think this is a violation of individual rights. If I own my business and the building I should be able to say if there is smoking allowed or not. If you don't like the smoke stay out. No one forces you to be there.
In NJ bar and restaurant owners are seeing a loss of income since the state banned smoking.

Answer 9

Maybe a betterment of the public but at what cost.

They have made it acceptable to limit smokers and now they are trying to tell us what kind of fats are good or bad.

How much of the nanny state is too much?


Right now I think I am hitting my limit of what I accept the government should tell me what to do.

Funny those who push such laws complain to know end about the evils of government encroaching on thier lives but all in favor of limiting it.
For example abortion they believe is a right that should have not regulations on it yet they are the same who want to limit the kind of foods we can eat.

What ever happen to my body?

Oh wait that would make them look like hypocrites never mind.

Answer 10

I don't know if it's legal, as I live in California, but a local bar has a smoking room. They don't allow smoking outside near the entrance, because it's illegal, but they don't want to make their customers have to leave and stand in the rain down the block. I think it's a great compromise. I don't have to smell yucky smoke, and they don't have to be sent outside like a bad dog.

Answer 11

If the real purpose was for overall betterment of the public, the damn things would be illegal.