Anything Forums

Our city put a bylaw to ban smoking in all restaurants. It caused allot of contrevorsy but in general most people agreed with it. I find it's a good idea since it's not fair for non smokers to go pay 50 bucks for a meal at a restaurant and they can't even enjoy their meal because of the smoke.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2148

If the people actually vote for it, then I think it's fine in a city, otherwise I think it should be up to the establishment.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2150

it should absolutely be up to the establishment...not the city, not the state, and not the federal government.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2153

That's how it started here, allot of establishments decided to put a ban. But when the city decided to the ones that did not put the ban were against it because they may loose customers. But I think the way it works is that if there's a bar, people are still allowed to smoke, since people just go there to drink and smoke.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2156

fragged one wrote: it should absolutely be up to the establishment...not the city, not the state, and not the federal government.

I'm sorry, smoking does involve others, you have the right to do it as much as you want in you home. But your freedoms end when they impose on others, and smoking is absolutely proven to cause serious health problems. The decision to harm yourself for the benifits of smoking are up to each person, they each have the right to decide their health, they have the right, you don't have the right to make that decision for them. The right to choose is as much a right as your right to smoke.

It is not an unalienable right, so the city or state governments do have the right to make laws regarding it's use in public, especially since it does involve others.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2164

MrSelf wrote: I'm sorry, smoking does involve others, you have the right to do it as much as you want in you home. But your freedoms end when they impose on others, and smoking is absolutely proven to cause serious health problems. The decision to harm yourself for the benifits of smoking are up to each person, they each have the right to decide their health, they have the right, you don't have the right to make that decision for them. The right to choose is as much a right as your right to smoke.

It is not an unalienable right, so the city or state governments do have the right to make laws regarding it's use in public, especially since it does involve others.

i completely disagree.

first of all, there is very little evidence to support that second-hand smoke is harmful.

second of all, the non-smokers are just as able to choose a non-smoking establishment over a smoking establishment...that is their choice.

what you are suggesting, is the government making the choice for them, and that is what i disagree with.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2178

i want to reassert this point

first of all, there is very little evidence to support that second-hand smoke is harmful.

it is harmful, but in order for it to affect you in any way, you have to pretty close to me. and in that case, back the off, eh?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2188

fragged one wrote: i completely disagree.

first of all, there is very little evidence to support that second-hand smoke is harmful.

second of all, the non-smokers are just as able to choose a non-smoking establishment over a smoking establishment...that is their choice.

what you are suggesting, is the government making the choice for them, and that is what i disagree with.

No, I am suggesting that the citizens of any given city have the right to ban almost any activity that is not an unalienable right. Only if the people actually vote for it and it doesn't violate any other laws. But that's how our country is suppost to be run.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2192

MrSelf wrote: No, I am suggesting that the citizens of any given city have the right to ban almost any activity that is not an unalienable right. Only if the people actually vote for it and it doesn't violate any other laws. But that's how our country is suppost to be run.

that's fine, and i agree with that.

however, that doesn't mean that i agree with the action thereof.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2193

fragged one wrote: that's fine, and i agree with that.

however, that doesn't mean that i agree with the action thereof.

Yeah, I think it is pretty stupid myself.

fragged one wrote: i want to reassert this point
it is harmful, but in order for it to affect you in any way, you have to pretty close to me.  and in that case, back the off, eh?

I agree, but the chance is much higher, now get several people smokeing and see how that works. You simply don't have that right, in public anyway. I think it should be up to the establishment, but the city has the right to intervein. I'm not so sure on the state level, and absolutely not on the federal level. Anyway you look at it, your right to smoke in your own home cannot be taken away.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2195

I'm for it, kinda. I smoke while I'm at bars and whatnot, but I would have absolutely no problem going outside to do so. To me it just doesn't seem worth it, to make people sit in a smokey room or make people work in a smoke filled environment so that a few people can get that nic fix when they need it. Yeah, sure, it's our right to smoke, but it's not our right to force others to smoke. To me, it would be like if someone got sprayed by a skunk on their way into a bar. Sure, it's your right to be there, but if you're making being there unpleasant for others who also have that right, it's not your right to force them to leave or tell them "What? You don't like the way I smell? Well, get the h*ll out of here."

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2197

but it is your right to go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking, as well.

i'd much rather myself making a simple choice, than the government making the choice for me.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2210

I don't really like the idea of a city banning something like that. A business is not a public place. Businesses have the right to make their own rules and to refuse service to or kick out those who do those who do not adhere to them. That being said I think it's a good idea for businesses to establish clear smoking policies.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2221

I said yes I have to agree with this. Even though I am a smoker and I read everyones view here. I have to agree with Mr. Self here. When I first voted, I was totally thinking as Mr. Self had stated in this thread.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2262

MrSelf wrote: If the people actually vote for it, then I think it's fine in a city, otherwise I think it should be up to the establishment.

it really puts a stress on the establishment itself. If they are opposed to people smoking in their bar, then they loose a lot of business. I can say though, that people were and probably are stil upset in new york, but most don't have a problem going outside to have a smoke. It is nice though to be in a bar and be able to breathe :magic:

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2355

A smoking ban was brought in in Ireland in March in all places of work.

Smokers were trying to fight it but when it came in every one just got on with it and went outside for a smoke. Its been so succesful that the government isnt even going to review it as planned.

It is now possible to go into a bar or restaurant and leave without smelling of smoke. Its great.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:259, old post ID:2390