• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?

Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?

  • Total voters
    107

You have no right to another man's property or labor. Since smoking is currently legal it would be up to the business owner to allow or disallow legal activities upon the property. You a an individual can make the choice to utilize the business or not. You have choice, property owner has choice, others have choice. Through intelligent consumerism you can influence your local businesses. No government necessary.
 


Those of you saying businesses should choose whether or not to allow smokers are missing a lot here.

For example - what about bowling alleys? Generally, there aren't a lot of them around, so I'm forced to go to the one near me. If it allowed smoking, I'd be stuck smelling it.

Even restaurants - Maybe where you all live you have lots of choices, I don't. But before smoking was banned, all restaurants allowed it; they felt at a business disadvantage if they didn't allow it (my guess heavy drinkers - spenders - tend to also smoke, just a guess). So it's not like I could say "Mexican restaurant A allows smoking, Mexican restaurant B doesn't"- they all allowed it before. And in my small town, with even more limited choices, I'd be up the creek without a paddle, no choice of non-smoking restaurant.

Those of you who say "if you don't want to work there find another job" - easier said than done.

Having smoking banned in public places puts them all on an even footing. Businesses who wanted to ban it but didn't dare now don't have to worry about possibly being at a competitive disadvantage. Plus, the owners aren't stuck inhaling that crap.

Those of you who smoke - great. Do it someplace where your smoke doesn't get in my face.

I still remember as a kid going to grocery stores with my mom - and she'd be smoking IN THE GROCERY STORE. Ugh how gross, I think now... then it was normal.

Things are getting better; fewer places with cigarette smoke is a good thing.
 
A businessman has a duty to provide a safe workplace for his employees. That includes not being unnecessarily exposed to addictive cancer agents.
 
Crosscheck said:
From a businessman's view do they really want to allow smoking and lose the non-smoking customers?
Click to expand...

Right here is the key and the ironic part is that you are providing support for the position opposite from what you hold.

If the businessman doesn't want to allow smoking then he doesn't have to!!!!!! How hard a concept is that? Likewise, if the businessman is willing to risk the loss of the non-smokers, why shouldn't he be allowed to do so? Do you think that we are arguing to force businesses to allow smoking?

Dragonfly said:
What???????

The one's who are acting like their entitled to something are the smokers.
Click to expand...

What is it that you think that the smokers are acting like they are entitled to?

Bodhisattva said:
Not sure. Perhaps confidence? Feeling alive? Challenging yourself to over come fear? I have never doe it but I have done various extreme sports. I will bet that nobody dies due to second hand bungee jumping though.
Click to expand...

Except for maybe the guy who got his foot caught in the coil because he wasn't looking where he was going when the jumper leaped. Yeah I know extreme potential. Point is that there doesn't need to be a positive health effect for something to be allowed and for that matter, as long as they know what they are getting into there can be a negative health effect. It's not up to you to tell me I can't ruin my body.
 

Dude, ruin your body. I really don't care. Don't ruin mine with second hand smoke. Don't make my clothes smell like ****, then when I leave I have to get in my car that soaks in all that ****ty smell too. I don't want that disgusting unhealthy smoke around me for a second. In your office or at home smoke the hell away. Good on any smoker that does.
 

In my business or anything thing else I own. I have the responsibility to inform you that smoking is allowed in my place of business, be you a potential patron or a potential employee. The moment that you chose to enter into that business either knowing that or ignoring the posting informing you of the smoking, you are as responsible as a person who smokes directly. If you choose to enter into an area of second hand smoke your complaints become invalid. No one forces you into those areas.
 

Open up your own store or bowling alley then. Jeez, this sense of entitlement is getting out of control. You have no right to another's property or labor. That's it. End of story.
 
Manc Skipper said:
A businessman has a duty to provide a safe workplace for his employees. That includes not being unnecessarily exposed to addictive cancer agents.
Click to expand...

This is about the best the argument can come to, and they already make air circulatory systems that can handle it.
 

I agree... depending on the business. If you are a bank, restaurant or Best Buy or something, then I say no you don't have that right. If you are some company that deals with other businesses or businessmen then you are free to since they may take their business elsewhere.
 
Ikari said:
This is about the best the argument can come to, and they already make air circulatory systems that can handle it.
Click to expand...

And this is why I could support altering the bans. If a company has a way to keep the smoke contained then I think it might be ok. Still have to think more about the employees more though. I think some reasonable answer is out there though.
 

I disagree. It doesn't matter if it is a bank or restaurant or retail operation. Private property, owner's choice. Now if said bank or retail store is leasing the property and the property owner doesn't allow smoking, they can't over ride that. After all it's not their property.
 

That's fine. We disagree. I would rather default to business owners rights over government mandates when all is said and done though... except at sporting events. People lighting up when I was competing was just about the most disrespectful thing ever. Those people should be dropped into the ocean with a bucket of chum and left for three hours.
 

The one thing we'll probably agree on is the disgustingness of smoking. With sporting events, about the only restriction I'd go with is the immediate vicinity of the playing area.
 
Ikari said:
Open up your own store or bowling alley then. Jeez, this sense of entitlement is getting out of control. You have no right to another's property or labor. That's it. End of story.
Click to expand...

Seriously? So I need to start my own bank, my own grocery store, my own restaurants, my own clothing store, my own shoe store, my own medical clinic, my own hospital, my own basketball arena...

seriously? that makes no sense.

Banning smoking in public places doesn't take away anyone's property.

Thank goodness we live in a time where more people agree with me than with you.
 

You are free to do any of those things with your property. And just because more people "agree" with you, doesn't mean you're right. Many freedom crushing movements were run by a "majority".
 

Is my place of business your public place?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Is my place of business your public place?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, and that is what I vote using, if you open it to the public then the government can regulate it.
 
Amandi said:
In my opinion, and that is what I vote using, if you open it to the public then the government can regulate it.
Click to expand...

So, you would prefer I make it private and exclude you even if you would want to do business?
 
Amandi said:
In my opinion, and that is what I vote using, if you open it to the public then the government can regulate it.
Click to expand...

Who pays the property taxes? Is it funded by taxpayers? Or is it an individual. If the latter, it's private.
 
I'm old enough to remember smoking EVERYWHERE> also.

It's disgusting, I get sick just walking near exits where peple light up outside.
But outside I'm exposed to other enviornmental toxins (air polution), so no one should ban outdoor smoking.

I smoked for almost 20 years, I understand the addiction - but I would always ASK if I could lite up indoors.
Now if anyone asks the answer is emphatically "no", as we know even 2nd hand smoke is deadly.

So take it outside, sorry you're dieing for a smoke, but don't take me with you, on that trip.
 

I don't really have a strong opinion about this but I don't think banning smoking indoors is overly restrictive. I'm cool with banning indoor smoking of all kinds.
 
Ikari said:
Who pays the property taxes? Is it funded by taxpayers? Or is it an individual. If the latter, it's private.
Click to expand...

It is private property that they chose to have a public business on. When something is open to the public then it can be regulated by the government.
 
Amandi said:
It is private property that they chose to have a public business on. When something is open to the public then it can be regulated by the government.
Click to expand...

So you presume ownership of others property and labor. They're there to serve you and you get to mandate what they can and cannot allow on their property even if it's legal activity.

It's not necessarily "public" business. Just because people can walk through the door doesn't mean they must be served.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…