I think the smoking bans in bars and restaurants are pure bullsh"t! Who agrees or disagrees and why.?

Question

I think the only requirement should be owners of bars and restaraunts should have to post a sign on the entrance saying the are "a smoke friendly establishment" or if not a No Smoking sign. In advertisments they should also specify if they allow somking or not. This will give everyone the freedom of choice.

It`s not fair that the government is making the ban. It should be strictly the owners decision on all policies. He or she is the owner and it`s no different than allowing smoking in your house or not.

NOBODY has the RIGHT to a smoke free bar or restaraunt. If you don`t like smoke you can choose another place to go.

Feedback

and thanks to you guys in the States there trying to bring that here to Japan now. Thanks a lot
LOL

I`m jus teasing about blamming the States.
The bill was actually not approved here and we can still smoke here thnk GOD.
But I think if and when I decide to move back to the States I think I`ll go crazy LOL

Answer 1

What I want to know is why haven't they banned farting in bars and restaurants?

People fart and microscopic bits of excrement are secreted into the the air and are consumed by those innocent people drinking or eating.

I'd rather eat a few molecules of smoke than eat somebody's day old digested tuna fish sandwich.

Answer 2

I agree about the bars. They're not a place for children so their health is not put at risk. However, as far as restaraunts are concerned I think they should be non smoking. I'm a smoker and I don't want to make any non-smoker have to deal with my second hand smoke. I don't think leaving it up to the owners is a good idea because they're only concerned with their profits so, the freedom of choice for non smokers would not be much of a choice at all. I'm from Ohio and the state just passed the smoking ban. I would love to see some statistics on bars and restaraunts and how it affected the bottom lines.

Answer 3

I'm with you it should be the discretion of the owner, and then people would have the choice of where to go and work. As it seems to be the employees who complained about this too. If you don't mind working around smoke then go work there if not go to a non smoking place. As alcohol and cigs go together I promise the owner of the bar where you can smoke will have an advantage over the non smoking bar. On the other hand the restaurants that have no smoking polices would probably have more people eating at it.
With this new ban it sucks we used to have places that as long as the sections were completely seperated by doors and filtration systems it was allowed and no you can't even have that it sucks.

Answer 4

In the UK there is now a smoking ban. As a non-smoker it is nice to go in bars and have smoke free air.

On the other hand, it is a blatant ban on civil liberties, and as time goes on it will become increasingly difficult to enforce as pubs and some businesses find ways around the problem.

Its a difficult thing, as each side will only accept it totally in their favour. Either smoke full or smoke free, one way or the other it breaches the other's rights.

They should have just compromised, with bars and clubs having smoke and smoke free areas. Slapping bans on everything is a slippery slope into the realms of fascism.

Answer 5

I prefer keeping the government out of the affairs of business owners, but I'm afraid history has plainly shown that health and safety problems cannot simply be left up to the free market. As I recall, there were no bars or restaurants in my state that were smoke-free before the government bans, so what choice did we non-smokers have? Stay at home? Screw that. When given a choice, business owners typically try to accomodate everybody as cheaply as possible and wind up catering to the lowest common denominator. So at best they come up with half-@ss solutions like smoking and non-smoking sections, if they bother at all. If restaurants and bar owners would have been willing to provide completely isolated smoking and non-smoking sections so they would each have their own separate ventilation systems, then the government would probably have stayed out of it. But most of them are just too damn cheap to spend the necessary money on such renovations.

The fact is, now that people have gotten used to the clean air the majority of the public prefers having smoke-FREE establishments, and there's no way we're ever going to go back to the old system. I don't see how the rights of smokers are being violated, because they're not only affecting themselves when they light up in public areas. If they could somehow keep their drug contained within their own bodies then nobody would be complaining. But being around a smoker is like being around an alcoholic who forces his some of his drink down the throats of everybody near him. And I'm sick of hearing about this bullshi+ about "property rights". When you run a business that serves the general public, you are running a public accomodation so you have to follow public health and safety ordinances. It's no different than a restaurant owner having to follow laws regarding cleanliness in his kitchen, asbestos on his pipes, or allowing cockroaches and rats to run around on his tables. There's absolutely nothing new or intrusive about such restrictions.

Answer 6

I think the smoking bans in restaurants are appropriate. I'm a smoker, but when I go out to eat, it's a very minor inconvenience to wait until your meal is over and/or walk outside to smoke. I don't even smoke in my own home out of consideration for my children. I'd also like to see a ban on strong, obnoxious odors, such as too much stinking perfume or cologne, and body odor. I don't want to smell your essence while I'm eating, thank you.

As for the ban on smoking in bars, that's just ridiculous. Wondering what happened to the "cigar bars"....

Answer 7

Im a smoker, but I agree that smoking should be banned in public places where non-smokers mix with smokers.
If you want to smoke, go outside, its a short walk and not too much inconvenience.
You wont be hurting anyone else if you are outside right?
Would you be happy to sit next to a guy cutting up asbestos? Would you be happy if a russian company built a nuclear power plant next door to you? Would you be happy if the local battery company emptied lead into the soil on your property?
I think non-smokers have the right to a less harmful environment. If you were to say no to any of the above scenarios, then you are being a hipocrite.

Answer 8

i agree with your first point, they should say if they allow smoking in adverts but there really is no point now there is a smoking ban.
you make the point "nobody has the right to a smoke free bar or restaurant" yet you seem to think you have the right to cause health problems for other people around you who inhale your second hand smoke. do you not think thats unfair?
if you want to cause harm to your body then go ahead, thats your choice, but dont you think other people should have a choice too. what choice do they have if you are smoking, they can't not breathe around you.
i think its fair to everyone, less money on smokers on nhs = more money to be spent on other worthwhile things. the government should keep the interests of the people first, and if that means reducing smoking related diseases then thats what they have to do.
i understand you want to smoke, but you have to be considerate of other people who don't want to. If you really want to smoke, go outside.

Answer 9

I totally agree and even the non smokeres are going to mis the excitement of going into a smoked filled bar. Whats a bar with no smoke in the air?

Answer 10

It's not even the issue of the smoking ban itself. To me it is the issue that the government thinks it has the right to tell us how to live and to tell business owners how they may or may not run their own business. Our freedoms are slowly being stripped away from us in this country.

Aunt Sera...I agree with you. I am highly allergic to perfumes and that can cause me health issues also. Maybe we should petition to have wearing perfume in public illegal.