second hand smoke

[Jon S.]

Wrong. If smokers get to decide if they smoke in a restaurant or bar, they DO get the first choice

I agree! And this argument that certain types of businesses (like bars for example) would be hurt by a total smoking ban in public places is soooooo bogus. The smoke anywhere you want crowd made that argument when New York City was talking about a total ban (which they did implement). What was the empirical evidence in that case...in one of the largest cities in the world? Business actually INCREASED!!! Why? Because, shock of shocks, the smokers still came out.....BUT, people who had stayed away because of the smoke....started coming out too! Bottom line....the total smoking ban in public places actually led to an increase in business across the board. It shouldn't come as any surprise that it's the cigarette companies who are REALLY against the bans. They figure the more cancer sticks are kept out of the mouths of their customers.....the better the chance that they will kick the habit all together.....and God knows they couldn't have that!

Finally, smoking is a choice that people do not NEED to do......breathing CLEAN air is not!!!

 

[Hot Mega]

I agree! And this argument that certain types of businesses (like bars for example) would be hurt by a total smoking ban in public places is soooooo bogus.

It's never been about the impact on the business owner (at least not to me). As well I've stated a few posts ago that if they had to compete with non-smoking establishments they would likely either go out of business or the market place would force them to change their policy.

The question is why doesn't the business owner have the right to decide for themselves what legal activity they will allow in their estab. when patrons have the right to go elsewhere??

 

[CunningStunts]

It's never been about the impact on the business owner (at least not to me). As well I've stated a few posts ago that if they had to compete with non-smoking establishments they would likely either go out of business or the market place would force them to change their policy.

The question is why doesn't the business owner have the right to decide for themselves what legal activity they will allow in their estab. when patrons have the right to go elsewhere??

Agree 100000%. It should be about choice, the choice to allow smoking on your own property, the choice to go to that establishment, and finally the choice to do with your body what you wish.

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

I agree! And this argument that certain types of businesses (like bars for example) would be hurt by a total smoking ban in public places is soooooo bogus. The smoke anywhere you want crowd made that argument when New York City was talking about a total ban (which they did implement). What was the empirical evidence in that case...in one of the largest cities in the world? Business actually INCREASED!!! Why? Because, shock of shocks, the smokers still came out.....BUT, people who had stayed away because of the smoke....started coming out too! Bottom line....the total smoking ban in public places actually led to an increase in business across the board. It shouldn't come as any surprise that it's the cigarette companies who are REALLY against the bans. They figure the more cancer sticks are kept out of the mouths of their customers.....the better the chance that they will kick the habit all together.....and God knows they couldn't have that!

Finally, smoking is a choice that people do not NEED to do......breathing CLEAN air is not!!!

This. I can say because I live in a country where the smoking ban was implemented yearsss ago, but business hasn't slowed down for any of those business owners. I can say that with full confidence because I know several restaurant and bar owners. Their clientele hasn't been touched because the smokers still come out for a good time, and now the non smokers can come out too. And like I pointed out earlier, alot of my smoking friends have quit because of the ban because it was the kick in the ass that they needed.

Sorry Mega, but if the government steps into business owners establishments and lays down a law that BETTERS the health of its people, then its a good government to have. I'm thankful to live in Canada because we have a system that is continually trying to improve the quality of life for EVERYONE and not just the losers who choose to abuse their bodies. Just another step our system takes to ensure that we're as healthy as possible. I get that you're all about the business owners rights...but by giving the business owner the kind of right to include a health risk in their establishment like smoking...you're essentially giving them the right to expose families and children to cancer causing chemicals. That is a right no one should have. And even smokers, I feel, don't have the right to be smoking inside near other people (unless its your own home of course).

Sorry, agian its a friggin no brainer. Anyone who stands by the smokers and fully believes that they should have the right to pollute other peoples bodies...is whack. You sir, are whack. The government should not give preference to those who choose to shorten their lives and cause health issues for themselves. Every measure should be taken to keep your people healthy, and if implementing a ban does that, then thats the course of action they should take. A government that does otherwise just shows that they don't care about the people, and that is freaking deplorable.

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

Sorry healthcare is just the biggest thing you can give your country. Health should trump everything IMO. So if at the end of the day, a business owner is forced to clean up his establishment in order to keep people healthy...isn't that better than the alternative? You're so focused on the rights of a business owner....how do you know that business owners aren't hoping that the smoking ban takes place? Do you think they actually want to be at work all day breathing in nasty air? Its been proven that profits don't disappear once the ban takes effect so WHY would anyone care? Its not a change for the worse, its a change for the better - for EVERYONE.

 

[mr. jizz]

Health > enjoyment, I was kind of on the smoker's side at first but now that I think about it, why is it so hard for them to just go outside in the first place? You may say that your rights are being violated by not being able to smoke where you want, but 30 other people in that restaurant/bar are having their rights violated by having to breathe in contaminated air if they don't want to. Someone made the argument about blasting the loud music in a restaurant. The thing is that we have etiquette, respect for other people, decency, and common sense not to do that because we know other people may not like it, why can't smokers have that common courtesy when it comes to smoking indoors?

 

[CunningStunts]

Sorry healthcare is just the biggest thing you can give your country. Health should trump everything IMO. So if at the end of the day, a business owner is forced to clean up his establishment in order to keep people healthy...isn't that better than the alternative? You're so focused on the rights of a business owner....how do you know that business owners aren't hoping that the smoking ban takes place? Do you think they actually want to be at work all day breathing in nasty air? Its been proven that profits don't disappear once the ban takes effect so WHY would anyone care? Its not a change for the worse, its a change for the better - for EVERYONE.

And that's your opinion and you're certainly welcome to it. But there's a HUGE danger whenever the government begins to tell it's citizens what they can and cannot to to themselves or with their own property... "Banning" smoking in public places due to health concerns is borderline, but ok in my estimation. But when they start telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies on private property is a step towards totalitarianism... We see it now in the US, the government can now regulate just about anything if they say it's a health concern, and we are becoming less free by the day because of it. I respect non-smokers right to not breathe second hand smoke, but again, a little politeness and personal responsibility could do more for the situation than banning things outright.

And I also disagree that health care is a "right" that all people should have... again, that's a leap of logic that will only give more power to a government that free people want to stay OUT of their lives. And I don't know about Canada's government, but the US feds are corrupt and incompetent. If they were put in charge of the Sahara desert, there would be a sand shortage in 2 years... and I certainly do not want my health care being run by these C students of life. :2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

Health > enjoyment, I was kind of on the smoker's side at first but now that I think about it, why is it so hard for them to just go outside in the first place?

It was never a debate between smoker and non-smoker. It's a debate between the right of a business versus needless g'ment intrusion.:2 cents:

 

[Atar554]

I think one of the problems in this debate is perceived territory. If me and 40 other people go to a currently smoker free restaurant and 1 smoker shows up it ruins the experience for quite a few people...the smoker however doesn't notice a difference.

I can see not wanting the government to ban smoking as it's more gov control etc...

But why is it okay for an owner to ban legal practices? It could perhaps create competition between the two markets but likely the smokers would win out. Once owners see there's more money in being pro-smoker the illusion of choice vanishes and the non-smoker is the one left holding the bag.

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

And that's your opinion and you're certainly welcome to it. But there's a HUGE danger whenever the government begins to tell it's citizens what they can and cannot to to themselves or with their own property... "Banning" smoking in public places due to health concerns is borderline, but ok in my estimation. But when they start telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies on private property is a step towards totalitarianism... We see it now in the US, the government can now regulate just about anything if they say it's a health concern, and we are becoming less free by the day because of it. I respect non-smokers right to not breathe second hand smoke, but again, a little politeness and personal responsibility could do more for the situation than banning things outright.

And I also disagree that health care is a "right" that all people should have... again, that's a leap of logic that will only give more power to a government that free people want to stay OUT of their lives. And I don't know about Canada's government, but the US feds are corrupt and incompetent. If they were put in charge of the Sahara desert, there would be a sand shortage in 2 years... and I certainly do not want my health care being run by these C students of life. :2 cents:

Thats just it though...when you're smoking indoors, you're not just making a choice for your own body, you're making a choice for everyone in the room. Thats the problem with it. I'd be fine if they could create a separate room for smokers and a separate room for non smokers but creating a 100% smoke free barrier is costly and difficult to do in most buildings.

The ban isn't to impede on business owners rights so much as it is to stop smokers from impeding on the rights of those who wish to breathe clean air. So who do you go with? Keeping the general public happy and healthy seems like the best choice to make the most people happy.

 

[SpexyAshleigh]

Anyways I think I'm done with this topic. Its an argument that'll go on forever. I'm gonna go out and enjoy my clean air and enjoy my nice long life...the rest of ya'll can go high five the business owners and enjoy an early grave. :1orglaugh

 

[mr. jizz]

It was never a debate between smoker and non-smoker. It's a debate between the right of a business versus needless g'ment intrusion.:2 cents:

the thread was about smoking and second hand smoke in general.

 

[CunningStunts]

the rest of ya'll can go high five the business owners and enjoy an early grave. :1orglaugh

Amen... I don't want to live very long anyway... and the more people die early, the longer Social Security will last

 

[squallumz]

yeah, this one will forever go round and around. i was asleep by the 2nd page.

 

[Shifty]

Anyways I think I'm done with this topic. Its an argument that'll go on forever. I'm gonna go out and enjoy my clean air and enjoy my nice long life...the rest of ya'll can go high five the business owners and enjoy an early grave. :1orglaugh

Agreed. Second hand smoke is a health risk and anyone who refutes this is a fucking moron who lives in a trailer.

Let's move on. :hatsoff:

 

[Atar554]

yeah, this one will forever go round and around. i was asleep by the 2nd page.

Who woke you up? :ban:






...I've been secretly contemplating the day I could do that.

Edit: thanks I thought so lol

 

[squallumz]

Who woke you up? :ban:

it was more of a smell, actually.


EDIT: nice edit! hehe

 

[Jon S.]

Now the ones who use the "right's of business owners" argument......I would point out the FACT that they do not claim to give a rats ass about the so-called rights of people to smoke.....they always use the empirically proven BOGUS claim that it will hurt their business because the smokers will stop coming out. Soooooo, since the whole "business owners argument" is based on the irrational belief on their part that they will lose money as opposed to their desire for people to have a place to smoke.....that pretty much puts that weak argument to bed (even if it was based on people having a place to smoke....the argument would still be invalid). Also, I would point out that there are tons of regulations that businesses are subjected to already.....so they already know the score coming in. A new regulation isn't a FIRST regulation.

As for the government intruding upon what people do on private property etc, I would point out that it happens all the time already. Can't do ILLEGAL drugs regardless of where. Can't drink outside in public (legally anyway). Can't sell your body as a prostitute. Bottom line, if so many so-called adults didn't act like ignorant & petulant little kids....then the government would not have to intercede. Sadly, too many of us do indeed act like kids....sooooo YEAH! I mean, it seems like a rational mind could figure how to deal with this problem on their own....just sayin'!

Finally, the UNNECESSARY burden on the healthcare system by those who so love to exercise their so-called "rights" to abuse themselves (while subjecting those around them to the same poisons) DOES give society a vested interest, to through our elected officials, take whatever action is NECESSARY to put an end to it. I mean anyone with an IQ over 10 has to know that ingesting smoke "can't" be a good thing! I mean come on! Who in their right mind would be against clean air for EVERYONE!?!?!? Again...just sayin'! I never was much of a drinker to begin with....but I rarely go out to a bar.....BECAUSE my clothes end up smelling...my hair ends up smelling.....and I get sleepy thanks to all of the damn stench caused by the smokers! I'll go where the air is clean & live as long as I can.

With that in mind, I believe I'm going to follow Ashleigh out the door as well. I mean, I learned a long time ago that you can not reason with an irrational mind. Futile!

 

[Shifty]

Agreed. Second hand smoke is a health risk and anyone who refutes this is a fucking moron who lives in a trailer.

Let's move on. :hatsoff:

For the record, I was joking. We're all entitled to an opinion.

 

[STDiva]

Uhm, smokings bad mmkay.