I am doing some research for a school project on smoke-free restaurants and bars. I am against smoke free.?

Question

I am against the whole smoke-free legislation, and feel it would harm businesses and go against our rights as smokers in a free country. I am having a hard time finding research to support my points of view, and need some help finding sites I can visit to help me with my research

Answer 1

I agree with the other answer that you would have to show that restaurants/businesses can successfully segregate off rooms or sections for smokers so that no one is discriminated against.

I don't think you could make a business argument, but I would argue on legal grounds that
(1) smokers should not be discriminated against, especially if there are just as feasible ways to accommodate them instead of banning smoking (here you could make an argument that segregation would be a legally necessary alternative to prevent exclusion which is illegal discrimination; and THAT is where it would cost more money to business owners to set up and also more money to government to enforce)
(2) since people have different moral or personal beliefs about smoking and smoking laws, the government cannot make or impose laws that discriminate, but have to accommodate both people who are for or against. Again, this is more like a "religious freedom" type approach, to the principle of laws being based on "consent of the governed" [see Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence about the "just powers of government" based on "consent of the governed"].

So I think you could make a principle-argument first and foremost, and the business/financial argument could be a secondary factor once you argue that it is legally and Constitutionally necessary to accommodate all people without discrimination. Businesses could just as easily set up an outdoor area for smokers only, so that no one is infringed upon by others; and this would be more consistent with legal standards of equal accommdation and less expensive to enforce than banning and other such laws.

Sources:
(a) I would open with the quotation defining the powers of government as based on "consent of the governed" from the Declaration of Independence as the spirit of Constitutional laws and government; (b) the 14th Amendment on "equal protection" and non-discrimination or exclusion; and maybe (c) the Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination in public places. Even though I don't agree with using these laws to argue for what you are saying, and I think it is borders on abusing them to try to justify a personal opinion, I think you could still use these sources to argue that.

You would basically be arguing that respect for principle is more important for the public good, with the freedom to comply voluntarily, instead of imposing regulations to achieve the same effect that cross the line and overreach beyond governmental authority.

Answer 2

Against smoke free is going to be hard to do well, because smoking violates others. To disprove that, you'd have to show that restaurants can successfully separate smoking and non-smoking areas, as well as show that restaurants can supply ample space for non-smokers so that they do not have to choose between sitting in a smoking environment when the restaurant is busy.
Business rights is a bad angle, you have to attack from the other side. You can't say killing the bottom 10% of Americans with the lowest IQs would help the economy so it should be legal. You'd have to show that smoking doesn't affect the people around the smoker, and you won't be able to do that without using some really bad sources.

Answer 3

Restaurants I think should be smoke free because most are family oriented and children should not be exposed to smoke. However, what would be the point of having a smoke-free bar? Most people associate drinking and smoking together. I mean would a bar really be that successful if the ones who did smoke could not do so while they were having a drink? Or at least have a section of the bar that is smoke-free and one section for smokers.

Answer 4

You obviously will need some sources, but you would be suprised how much you can write without a good source.

What I would do:

Go to sites that are FOR smoke free restaurants. They should be a little more prominent. Get quotes from them, and get facts about the opposing side.

You can use the quotes by saying things like, "However, the opposition states that, 'smoke-free restaurants will not harm businesses."

Then, just say something like, "This statement, though, can be proven false for the following reasons."

Then list the reasons.

Answer 5

I agree - you're going to have a hard time finding credible sources for a stance like that. In truth, smoking in public places does violate the rights of non-smokers - people who have chosen not to take tar, nicotine, and many other harmful substances into their lungs. Unless you can find a way to let non-smokers and smokers be in the same area without second-hand smoke being part of the equation...and find it in a way that is lucrative for the business owner...you're going to have a hard time supporting your side.

Honestly, before the smoke-free legislation came to pass, I couldn't even take my son to a restaurant (in the non-smoking section) without him collapsing in an asthmatic attack and having to be rushed to the emergency room. Gotta say that affected my buying habits. Statistics will show that since legislation took place, restaurants, etc. have not shown a notieceable decrease in business - if anything, they've had an increase from people who can once again take part in their services.

Answer 6

go with the flow and use yahoo!
type in something like:
anti-smokefree views
or something like it

Answer 7

Search on:
www.yahoo.com
www.google.com
www.ask.com
www.hotmail.com
www.hot.com