Clean Air or Banning Smoking

[coldweatherfan]

First, I do.

Second, smokers have been the selfish ones as they didn't want to give up any restaurants for the longest time. Now that their selfishness and lack of self-control have turned around to bite themselves in the butt (physical and cigarettal) they are upset about it.

 

For the most part it is not the right of the smokers that I care about so much. It's the business owners rights that I care about, and IMO they are the most violated.

[Run To State]

Smoking bans are one of the current PC government trends, much like cameras on traffic lights. They really serve no purpose. No one forces you to go into a smoking restaurant or bar. And no, you don't have an inherent right to enter my place of establishment and dictate how I will do business. Let the businesses make their own decisions.

A voice of reason! :thumb:

[AcesFull]

I believe it was the state of Ohio that led to the ban, wasn't it?

 

So, you think a business should be able to dump their sewage anywhere??? I think it is reasonable for me to expect that they cannot despite me having NO stake in their business.

Apples to oranges argument...again. How does anywhere equate to private property? Do you honestly believe that second hand smoke cannot be contained in a restaurant so that it has no adverse health effects on surrounding properties owned by other people?

[Jim Schue]

There is a difference in an activity that adds a positive to the economy compared to smoking which does not AS IT RELATES to smoking in a restaurant.

 

Tobacco was the No. 1 legal cash crop in this state forever, essentially. Since its decline, Kentucky's farming industry has bottomed out. Tell me again how tobacco isn't a positive for our economy? My dad made his living repairing the backs of tobacco farmers.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Apples to oranges argument...again. How does anywhere equate to private property? Do you honestly believe that second hand smoke cannot be contained in a restaurant so that it has no adverse health effects on surrounding properties owned by other people?

 

So, you agree than that it is within reason to put the rights of others over the actions of business owners and owners of private property. That is not the problem here.

 

The problem is that you don't think smoking is a big enough issue to warrant the same action that we do with sewage.:thumb:

[ladiesbballcoach]

Tobacco was the No. 1 legal cash crop in this state forever, essentially. Since its decline, Kentucky's farming industry has bottomed out. Tell me again how tobacco isn't a positive for our economy? My dad made his living repairing the backs of tobacco farmers.

 

I knew that someone would take this argument and why I said as it relates to restaurants, bolded it, put it in red and make it large. You must have missed that part.

 

No one in this thread has said that smoking should be outlawed and run farmers out of business.

 

Simply said that when smoking enfringes on the rights of others to be in what is basically considered public places, than it needs to be controlled.

[ladiesbballcoach]

For the most part it is not the right of the smokers that I care about so much. It's the business owners rights that I care about, and IMO they are the most violated.

 

As long as they are making money, I don't really think they care who they are selling to and whether their rights are violated or not.

[ladiesbballcoach]

We stopped at a hotel recently, only to find out that our reserved nonsmoking room was a former smoking room. We turned around and went to another hotel. That's how you change business behavior. Not by making laws.

 

Are there instances that you would agree that a country cannot wait for the slow movement to occur through the market place and rather have to take action to spur it along?

 

Equal wages based on gender, race?

ADA requirements for those that are handicapped to allow them to work, shop, etc?

 

Or should have government set back and waited for the slow movement of the free market system to work itself out over 50-100 years?

[ladiesbballcoach]

I don't see how they're being the selfish ones, all they want is either a smoking section or some restaurants that allow smoking. It's the nannies, as usual, that are being selfish. There is simply no reason that ALL restaurants HAVE to be smoke free. Like I said, that's just greedy and self centered.

 

Tell that to the many times, I have been around smokers, who simply have ignored the non-smoking sections and lit up at the expense of others health.

 

When is the last time that a non-smoker did not smoke and you either became sick from it or was not able to enjoy where you were because of a non-smoker NOT smoking?

[AcesFull]

So, you agree than that it is within reason to put the rights of others over the actions of business owners and owners of private property. That is not the problem here.

 

The problem is that you don't think smoking is a big enough issue to warrant the same action that we do with sewage.:thumb:

If allowing invited guests on private property to smoke or engage in any other legal activity does not infringe upon the rights of those on other people's private property from exercising their own rights to engage in legal activities, then the government should not infringe upon the owner's property rights.

 

Using your inapplicable analogy, if the owner of a business is pumping raw sewage into the street, he: 1) would not be engaging in a legal activity and 2) would be adversely impacting the rights of others to enjoy the use of their own property.

 

This seems like a pretty simple concept to me. If you know that a business allows smoking and you object to the smell of smoke, then do not patronize that business.

 

As I said earlier, you always have choices and you are neither required to frequent a business having rules in place with which you disagree nor are you entitled to dictate how a business is run simply because they choose not to cater to your particular preferences.

[Jim Schue]

I knew that someone would take this argument and why I said as it relates to restaurants, bolded it, put it in red and make it large. You must have missed that part.

 

No one in this thread has said that smoking should be outlawed and run farmers out of business.

 

Simply said that when smoking enfringes on the rights of others to be in what is basically considered public places, than it needs to be controlled.

 

OK, I'll bite. Chasing away a steady customer base is bad for businesses. Beer and cigarettes and coffee and cigarettes go hand-in-hand.

 

And let's not kid ourselves. Those behind the smoking bans would absolutely love to take their causes to the next level.

[coldweatherfan]

As long as they are making money, I don't really think they care who they are selling to and whether their rights are violated or not.

 

So as long as I give you money you don't care if your rights are violated?

[HHSDad]

Are there instances that you would agree that a country cannot wait for the slow movement to occur through the market place and rather have to take action to spur it along?

Certainly. There is a health department for a reason. One reason is to prevent restaurants from serving food that would endanger the public. Now I know you're going to ask what the difference is and its this. Food being prepared by a cook with hepatitis is an unknown risk. Eating where smoking is allowed is a known risk. Known risks can be avoided by the public should they choose to do so. Unknown risks can only be avoided by stopping all behavior that leads to that risk; i.e. don't eat in restaurants.

[ladiesbballcoach]

If allowing invited guests on private property to smoke or engage in any other legal activity does not infringe upon the rights of those on other people's private property from exercising their own rights to engage in legal activities, then the government should not infringe upon the owner's property rights.

 

Using your inapplicable analogy, if the owner of a business is pumping raw sewage into the street, he: 1) would not be engaging in a legal activity and 2) would be adversely impacting the rights of others to enjoy the use of their own property.

 

This seems like a pretty simple concept to me. If you know that a business allows smoking and you object to the smell of smoke, then do not patronize that business.

 

As I said earlier, you always have choices and you are neither required to frequent a business having rules in place with which you disagree nor are you entitled to dictate how a business is run simply because they choose not to cater to your particular preferences.

 

Who says anything about pumping in the street. They could just pump if over the hill ON THEIR PROPERTY. That is not legal in this country.

 

Seems like a pretty simple concept to me and what non-smokers have been told for awhile now.

 

If you are upset about not smokers not being allowed to smoke, than don't go to restaurants and eat out. Let the restaurants suffer and they will make enough noise to have the law changed back.

 

That let the market speak works both ways.

[GaViking]

Well, hopefully everyone does not live in the Greater Cincinnati area. Last Thursday and Friday the smog was so bad it looked like fog at 7:00am.