Are you a smoker? If so, I bet you find it fairly hard to find somewhere to smoke when you’re not at home. Legislators and advocates have pushed more and more for smoke free cities, buildings, and workplaces.
Smoke-free laws are stated as designed to protect people primarily from the effects of second hand smoke. Just in case you haven’t caught a truth.com commercial lately, cigarette smoke increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, an annoying cough, stained teeth, yellow fingers, lack of energy, and the annihilation of pancreases, kidneys, and livers.
If you get out enough, surely you’ve seen smokers standing in the rain, standing in the cold, or even driving with the sunroof open. In 1990, San Luis Obispo CA became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking in all public places. California was the first state to initiate state wide bans in 1998. As of April 2009, 37 states had some form of a smoking ban.
I’m not a smoker, but I know a few people that would like to know….
Loading ...
The decision should be up to property owners not legislators.
It would be good if everyone just stopped smoking, but then the tax basin would take a hit so that definitely won’t happen. Plus Barack isn’t going for that.
“Sin” legislation, especially on legal substances, is completely and utterly retarded and illogical.
Don’t want to smell like cigarettes after going to a bar? Choose to go to a non-smoking bar. I love how bars are one of the first placed to ban smoking. Like the people whining about the smell and second hand smoke are bastions of health as they down their pints and shots of whiskey. Fuck the liver as long as the lungs are untainted.
Smoking should be banned on planet earth…PERIOD.
Nobody wants to smell that crap when they go out minding their own business.
I would be more concerned about car exhaust than second hand smoke.
I’m not to worried about car exhaust when I’m sitting in the restaurant with my family eating dinner.
Ban it everywhere that it affects others, even in public outside areas.
I can choose to destroy my own liver and save my lungs. If I want smoke, I will light one up. You would appreciate it if I poured alcohol down your throat without asking now would you?
And yes I know I made the choice to enter the smoking establishment…
Then don’t eat at the restaurant.
And yes I know I made the choice to enter the smoking establishment…
Ah, now you are getting it. Can you just a likely choose to go else where?
I could go elsewhere, but due to the fact that I believe smoke is bad for the masses rather than just the indivdual I’d rather the smoker be banned.
I think a lot of restaurant businesses would fail if they did not adopt some form of non-smoking policy. Bars may be ok.
During my tenure at a restaurant, we adopted a non-smoking policy and revenues increased. The non-smoking customer base enjoyed coming into a place where they didn’t have to worry about second had cigarette smoke. Smokers toughed it out and continued to come because (Eating > Smoking).
If I had my nose inside the exhaust pipes of a car I would be.
That’s very interesting. I was talking with a server that worked at a restaurant when the smoking ban took effect in GA. She said she made less money after the ban b/c the smokers were the drinkers and they tipped more.
I would guess that it has to do with the type of restaurant and traffic. My restaurant was more family oriented. Prime hours from 5 PM – 10 PM. A more singles/couples establishment would have prime hours between 7 PM – 2 AM if open.
I’m not sure if I would consider it a typical restaurant if majority of your customers are smokers and drinkers. Seems more like a bar/lounge.
Link to peer reviewed scientific paper which shows that cigarette smoke is more “dangerous to the masses” than alcohol or unhealthy diet?
And likewise, I wouldn’t be worried if the exhaust stayed inside the exhaust pipes.
LOL LOL LOL. Burm, I plan to go on Who wants to be a Millionaire. Can I get your number for my life line.
Then let the free market work. If more people choose to spend there money at businesses that do not allow smoking, the restaurants that do allow smoking will either change their policy or will fail. Or, conversely, a secondary market will develop which caters to those who can use free choice to decide that they would like to go somewhere where people can smoke inside.
Legislating responsibility, either morally or physical, is improper.
I think you’re over thinking it. Restaurants by definition are where you go to eat. Nobody says let’s go to Olive Garden and blaze a few. People are fighting to do something in an establishment that was never designed for that. People are all within their rights to smoke themselves into a coma at home.
Burmonster does.
I think smokers should smoke outside. However, I don’t think that should be legislated. Once you legislate it, you stop businesses from catering to smokers and well, there are some places that would.
However, since I have a problem with others infringing on the rights of others ability to enjoy themselves, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to sue the smoker that is smoking in my face and refuses to stop or move elsewhere.
I don’t smoke.
I just don’t think I have the right to tell others, meaning individuals and business, what they should do.
:shrug:
Please visit http://www.thetruth.com right now. This executive interview they have is hilarious.
I don’t believe I have the right to tell individuals what to do unless they are causing harm to others.
Alcohol is harmful to the one drinking it and no one else, unless the drunkard decides to operate a vehicle. Smoking on the other hand is harmful to all around.
If smoking just smelled and wasn’t harmful I wouldn’t have a problem with it.