Why is it good to ban smoking in bars??

Question

There is no benefit from banning smoking in bars. It should be the owners choice and it hurts business. It is also sucks for smokers!

Answer 1

Bars are NOT public places, as one person here argued. They're private establishments that have more or less an 'open door' policy to the public. That does not make bars public, though. Bars shouldn't be obligated to follow the same rules that public places must. Since they're privately owned, just like a person's home, the owner should get to decide who's allowed in and what they can do there, at least with regard to the law. If the owner wants to lose business or gain business by allowing people to smoke, that's his business.

Tobacco is a legal substance and smokers are being treated as though they're criminals. Also, if anyone complains about the medical cost, then the solution is not using taxpayer money to pay for anyone's health coverage, not restricting a person's liberty. I don't understand why people use authoritarian policies to justify their other authoritarian arguments, in this case using the fact that we have a socialized system to rationalize taking away a person's right to smoke.

I don't smoke, either. This is a matter of property rights and nothing else.

Answer 2

It is not good. We had a ban in effect for 3 months and there were bars that laid off employees and shortened hours. A friend of mine who owns a bar lost 40% of revenue during the ban. The non-smokers who said they would make the difference just never showed.

Answer 3

Even if you disagree with smoking bans, it's extreme to say there's NO benefit. It protects everyone, smokers included, from the secondary smoke--and people who DON'T smoke especially. It also works as a deterrant against smoking, and considering how much the world is paying for the medical costs of people suffering from smoke-related illnesses, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, you pay your insurance premiums every month (if you don't live in a country with socialized medicine), but one long stay in the hospital to deal with lung cancer, and several bouts of chemo, and the insurance company has put out more than you did.

I'll grant you that I wouldn't have a problem with a chain of businesses designated as Smokers Only locations, where smoking IS allowed... but that would only take care of reason #1, not reason #2.

Answer 4

I guess for the non smokers that don't want second hand smoke... but they are sitting there putting alcohol in their body's so they cant be to health conscious lol. I'm not a smoker but grew up around many, so i think its just mean to ban smoking from bars I hear drinking and smoking go hand in hand lol.

Answer 5

Banning smoking in bars--places that the banners don't go--is good because it makes anti-smoking lobbyists and legistlators feel good about themselves.

And as far as many of these nuts are concerned, it's good because it will very soon shut down the bars.

The American Revolution started in bars--in roadside taverns where people could get together and talk. John Adams first heard talk of revolution in a tavern.

The class of people engaged in banning smoking is the power elite, and they want to maintain their power.

Places where the common people gather and talk are very threatening to them.

The bans will soon be overturned or just ignored.

For one thing, there are many towns and juristictions in the U.S. that are letting go of their police departments.

So who's going to enforce this nonsense?

No one.

Answer 6

At some point the government decided people cannot make decisions for themselves.

If you are a business owner it should be your right to allow smoking in your Establishment.

As a customer it is your right to choose not to frequent the establishment if you don't like what they do inside.

It is that simple, Sad how freedoms are starting to go away simply by people accepting the things government is doing.

Answer 7

whilst i don't condone smoking, i will not ridicule or decide somebody else for doing so. i'm not a smoker and characteristic on no account been. i'm somewhat allergic to smoke and it will supply me an allergies extra healthful extra situations than not. I certainly have truly enjoyed going to eating places plenty extra in view that California has banned smoking in public institutions. Minnesota has long gone extra than California has with offering smoking factors exterior with heaters, etc. there became right into a sprint fuss while the no smoking regulation became into first applied, yet now i don't hear of any lawsuits. people will in basic terms in basic terms step exterior for a couple of minutes and characteristic smoke or they only wait till they get to their automobiles or homes, etc. people who smoke have the superb to smoke in the event that they desire to. that's their own bodies after all. on the different hand I certainly have the superb to a smoke loose ecosystem and to not have my well-being impacted with the help of somebody else's smoke. the place do you draw the line? the two way you go it is going to impact one crew or the different. with the help of how, congratulations on quitting smoking. i comprehend that's challenging to do. My grandmother became right into a multi-%. according to day smoker who on no account ought to end.

Answer 8

Why shouldn't the government step in to assist all of the health conscious drunks out there.

This only makes sense in Liberal world.

Answer 9

i think it should be up to the owner to.I'm a smoker,and i don't go to the bar's anyway.I've learned to adjust,in the restaurants.

Answer 10

Again I say ban fat people from eating in resturants also.I can't smoke but I can watch fat people eat that's wrong.