Do We Need Smoking Bans in Restaurants and Bars?

FDBryant3,

Good for me, bad for liberty but what can you do.

Liberty?

Smoking bans are not an assault on American liberties. Smoking bans provide protection from smokers. If raw liberty is is what you are looking for I think you better look for an island to purchase.

Until I move into farming zone... I'm glad the people living next door are ban from raising pigs. According to your logic that would be a liberty issue too. Both smell... What's the difference?

Ideally - I wouldn't ban them from raising pigs. You don't like the smell then you move.

The difference is though that our government isn't preventing people from raising pigs only deciding where they can raise those pigs.

On the other hand if I want to provide a location where people can come enjoy a meal, a drink, and a smoke...........I can't, the government won't let me.

While smoking bans are not an issue I'd pick up a gun over...........they are a restriction on our freedoms none the less.

Smoking is a legal behavior. I should have the freedom to cater to that behavior. If people don't like it they don't have to come to my place of business.

The question is what gives you the right to use the force of government to restrict my freedom.

My biggest sympathy is for people who work in smoked-filled halls. Ok they have the choice to work there but it sure would be great to not have to choose between a job you want and second-hand smoke.

While smoking bans are not an issue I'd pick up a gun over...........they are a restriction on our freedoms none the less.

The issue at hand is whether smoking endangers the people around you. There is a widespread belief (substantiated by some fairl robust evidence) that being around smoke has negative consequences - at what point does it become the government's job to place limitations on how people behave in public spaces to limit the danger to others?

Driving laws, leaf-burning laws, chemical disposal laws, laws against assault and murder: these are all "limits on our freedoms" that exist because society believes that there should be consequences for harming others, whether directly or indirectly. So the question is: how harmful is it? In my view, if it's even slightly harmful, the argument that "I should be able to enjoy a smoke" sounds a little bit like "I should be able to enjoy kicking you in the shins."

Lots of activities have the possibilty of being harmful in some form or another. Often much more directly and immediately than smoking. The real question is how much choice can we have in the control over that activity. If someone is smoking in a restuarant you can choose not to do business there.

If someone is smoking in a restuarant you can choose not to do business there.

If smoking is allowed in restaurants, then every restaurant will have smokers. So, do those not wanting to get cancer from second hand smoke have to give up eating at restaurants?

If someone is smoking in a restuarant you can choose not to do business there.

If smoking is allowed in restaurants, then every restaurant will have smokers. So, do those not wanting to get cancer from second hand smoke have to give up eating at restaurants?

Actually yes. If all private business owners want to allow smoking and that bothers you - eat at home or get take out or drive through. That is your choice. Let the business owner know why your making the choic

That said the market is already changing. Here in Florida we had a number of restaurants ban smoking long before it became law.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can believe on the one hand that a free market society is the only way to live and yet will willingly vote in favor of market restriction. If a business owner decides to have a smoking establishment, what exactly is the problem? A non smoker is not being forced to frequent said establishment and probably will never do so. Do any of you who do not eat Lebanese cuisine often feel the need to enter a Lebanese restaurant or should all Lebanese restaurants be forced through legislation to offer non-Lebanese cuisine in case you do show up? Should Bowling alleys be forced to offer billiards in case non-bowlers come in off the street? How about if we force Coors to offer only non alcoholic beer to the world because otherwise we would be tempting and possibly endangering recovering alcoholics? Maybe we could ban driving cars so that no one ever died in a car accident anymore. Anyone with common sense can see that people are supposed to make choices based on what they believe is in their best interest but if we need to start legislating common sense we are in for a heck of a ride, because the government and common sense do not mix.

what I don't get about libertarian arguments for not banning public smoking is where the personal responsibility bit has been left. Why would you as a smoker foist your vice on others?

I do not consider myself now nor have I ever been Libertarian. I simply believe in the right to make a choice concerning a perfectly legal habit. You don't smoke, that's great, your neighbor smokes, that's great but bad for his health. As long as he smokes away from you that's even better. If you go over to his house and start telling him he can't smoke while you're there, that's idiotic. You can go over to another friend's place next time and he'll have one less friend but his smoking won't affect you. If my bar is smoking and you don't want to be around smokers, that's great, i would love to have your business but I'll understand. There are quite a number of other places where you can go instead. How exactly is that foisting anything on you or anyone else?

Ditto,

Do any of you who do not eat Lebanese cuisine often feel the need to enter a Lebanese restaurant or should all Lebanese restaurants be forced through legislation to offer non-Lebanese cuisine in case you do show up?

If you're looking for Lebanese cuisine I'd bet you have a pack of Camel rolled up in your tee-shirt... (Just a little Lebanese slur.)

If smoking is still allowed in public where you live you can count on that changing soon. Until then there should be a law that requires a bold sign outside of those remaining businesses that SMOKING IS ALLOWED so clean people do not waste any time stopping, parking, entering and exposing themselves to such filth.

Lebanese Cuisine -- SMOKING ALLOWED... Bring Your Pig!

The only time I enter a smoking establishment is when there are hot slutty girls inside. Sometimes ya just got da do what ya got da do.

I am beginning to think that the debate is about where all the hot slutty girls are going to go if we seperate the smokers from the non-smokers. We all know the hot slutty girls are all smokers or, prefer the company of the wild and whacky smokers who could care less for their health and like living on the edge. This exposes a deeper conspiracy than I thought. Smokers are trying to monopolize hot slutty girls. Something must be done.

If all private business owners want to allow smoking and that bothers you - eat at home or get take out or drive through.

And I suppose your opinion about speed limits is that they should be repealed, and people can choose not to leave their homes?

Belarius,

Since a truly free market is self correcting I don't think there is even a remote possibility that ALL business owners would come out in favor of smoking. Since most people are non-smokers it only makes sense that a majority of businesses would cater to them.

As for the speed limit, well that's for another debate since you are immediately putting other people's lives in danger when you are speeding and does not pertain to a long-term health issue.

As for the speed limit, well that's for another debate since you are immediately putting other people's lives in danger when you are speeding and does not pertain to a long-term health issue.

As someone who, as a pedestrian, had both his legs broken when I was hit by a car, I can assure you than the health issues are quite long-term. Granted, bringing this up tilts me hand as to why I think a lot about traffic safety. But driving safely isn't just about saving lives - it's also about not injuring people, as the life-long consequences of such injury (or, in the case of smoking, disease) are not trivial matters.

Since the roadways are owned by the government then it is fine for the government to set the speed limit. The same way as far as I am concerned that if the government decides that government building should be smoke free then there is no problem with that.

Again my issue is this - by what right does the government have to dictate to a private business as whether they are smoke free or not.

Again my issue is this - by what right does the government have to dictate to a private business as whether they are smoke free or not.

The same right they have to dictate fire codes, food safety codes, etc. Public safety.

The issue at hand is whether smoking endangers the people around you. There is a widespread belief (substantiated by some fairly robust evidence) that being around smoke has negative consequences - at what point does it become the government's job to place limitations on how people behave in public spaces to limit the danger to others?

If you want to discus evidence you can look it up yourself for the sake of my typing disability. but to this point , this is ridiculous! It is and should be a personal choice. weather or not smoking should be mandatory banned is of coarse NO. Its legal and self defiling. More people die form drinking and driving and domestic violence. Makes you wonder how many of the people who get up on their soap boxes to be popular with the "issues" have three martinis nearly or do get in their cars , go home beet he wife and kids and kick or eat the dog!! Lets pick some real and very harmful issues to get on the soapbox for and leave the people generally happy to harm themselves alone.

And in fact I am an Ex- smoker.

Again my issue is this - by what right does the government have to dictate to a private business as whether they are smoke free or not.
The same right they have to dictate fire codes, food safety codes, etc. Public safety.

We aren't even sure there is a a public safety issue. While it may not be fun to experience the issue on the effects of second hand smoke is far from settled.

It gets back to choice though - if you don't like that restaurant allows smoking, you can leave. On the other hand you can't see or check that the building has been designed to provide you maximum safety in the event of a fire or that food is stored and prepared properly. A smoker you can see and make the choice for your own safety.

We aren't even sure there is a a public safety issue. While it may not be fun to experience the issue on the effects of second hand smoke is far from settled.

Actually, we are sure. Quite sure. Only those with their heads in the sand (or working for big tobacco) think otherwise.

Again my issue is this - by what right does the government have to dictate to a private business as whether they are smoke free or not.

We (The Government) have that right because those businesses are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

Shy of a 100% ban on smoking outside of the close doors of your personal homes... I think bold SMOKING ALLOWED signs are the best way to let the market make the changes on its own.

I recently stopped dating a girl because of her smoking. She would avoid kissing until she brushed her teeth, but, the problem hit the fan on trips with me renting non-smoking rooms. She hated having to step outside to get her nicotine fix and I was not willing to rent and spend time in a $190/night big stinking ashtray. The free market works on a "personal" level for me.

I'd be in favor of legislation that defined what could be marked a non-smoking section.

And I agree with you ThePef that smoking establishments will become the minority.

smoker's should be excluded from the plan.

I completely agree. A bit far out in whatever side field that might be, but I don't think people should have blanket access to OHIP if they're a smoker.

Here in the UK, I'm counting down the days to Canada Day. Not because I'm a die-hard patriotic Canadian (ok, maybe I am), but because that's the day smoking in public is stamped out in England and Wales. Having moved over from Dublin where they have a smoking ban, I miss it. I miss coming home not smelling like an ashtray, and I miss feeling like my lungs are exactly the same way they were when I left the house.

People will still go out to bars. People will still go out to restaurants. More people will take their kids to restaurants if it's non-smoking, so for the three people who are vehemently pro-smoking that are sticking to their guns and not going to their favorite bar for a fag/tab/ciggie/smoke, you'll have ten more people who will now go to the bar because it's non-smoking.

It worked really well in Toronto, it worked really well (despite the odds) in Ireland, and I can't see it bombing here in England.

I hate mandating good behavior, it should naturally occur.

Yes, it should. People should know the difference between common courtesy and yobbish behavior. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and it's becoming more and more difficult to rely on peoples' "values" and "decency" to guide their everyday living. I'm sick of people (especially here in the UK) in their twenties throwing beer bottles into the streets or blowing smoke at people as they walk by without fear of punishment or some sort of correction. Maybe twenty years ago an appeal would've worked. Now, people are so far off the reservation in terms of being a good neighbor or citizen that I really do think that it needs to be legislated and monitored.

A very tough call indeed.

If we agree that not only does smoking cause cancer but that second hand smoke causes lung cancer as well. Whose rights are being impinged upon?

If we agree that not only does smoking cause cancer but that second hand smoke causes lung cancer as well. Whose rights are being impinged upon?

No one is being forced to go to a business that allows smoking if they don't want to be exposed to it....so no ones rights would be being impinged upon.

I suppose in States where health care is run through the insurance industry, the perception no ones rights are being impinged upon may be a valid one.

If you agree for the most part, Restaurant / Bar employees are not the best paid people who have little to no health care insurance.

Then who in fact pays for their smoking exposure caused illness'

Medicaid?

Who funds that?

Again, they aren't being forced to work there either. Perhaps not the most "fair" thing in the world in some cases, but certainly not infringing anyone's rights.

Reformed smokers are the worst kind!

Again, how about my rights as a taxpayer.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10298&ttype=2

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3886
<"Ironically, none of the money the state harvested in the agreement is used to treat smoking-related illnesses.">

http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/03/309_cig.htm

<"Smoking-related Medicaid costs amount to $12.9 billion per year, or $322 billion in 25 years without inflation, the economists discovered.">

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/data_highlights/2006/00_pdfs/DataHighlights06table4.pdf

Notice the last reference has a cost / capita.

I will admit to having enjoyed the morning coffee smoke, after a meal smoke and post coital smoke. I would now like to enjoy more of my taxed dollars : )

In NYC, when there was a universal ban on eating and drinking estabilishments, revenues went up. It's better for business and it is better for the populace. No one is stopping smokers from smoking outdoors.

No one is stopping smokers from smoking outdoors.

Actually, yes they are.

Agreed.

At the end of the day, we have to be adults and understand that for some people, smoking in establishments is acceptible and even desired. If you are a person that does not like this, as an adult, you have the power to go somewhere else and give your business to some other place.

I don't smoke, but I enjoy the smell under the right circumstances - it creates a certain atmosphere. The problem is, I think, is that the people who push for these bans would rather have peole just not smoke at all, and are unconcerned about smokers' interests. It seems very selfish.

Right.

That usually is the case when people want to enact changes like this. It stems from their personal desires, rather than what makes sense for the community.

MTH--

unconcerned about smokers' interests

What other vices (that affect others) do we as a society debate allowing? IMHO, if you want to smoke, keep it in your own home.

Hey, if they want to smoke in public, can I masturbate in public? I mean really, is one vice any better or worse than the other? </sarcasm>

My point exactly...it is the only vice that is coddled, in some ways, in public, or that ever has been coddled in public. Drinking is restricted to bars--can't do that on a public sidewalk in most cities. Sex, in homes.

Why should smoking be any different?

I was in Vegas for the first time over New Year's. It was a shock, being in a city where smoking sections still exist...after a day or so, my senses of taste and smell began to lessen and I found myself needing to go outside for air periodically.

What other vices (that affect others) do we as a society debate allowing?

Do you drive a car? You're poisoning the air everyone breathes every time you drive, not to mention goods that we buy at stores that are brought there by gas-guzzling big rigs. We allow for plenty of vices that affect others in this society.

Hey, if they want to smoke in public, can I masturbate in public? I mean really, is one vice any better or worse than the other?

Knock yourself out, pal. There is a certain social aesthetic to smoking that masturbation doesn't have.

Vices are something that is not necessary. No, I do not own a car and never have.

What's wrong with keeping your vice in your own space?

Vices are something that is not necessary.

Well we could all live long, healthy lives by eating nothing but vegetables and drinking nothing but water, but that just wouldn't satisfy. We all need a vice.

No, I do not own a car and never have. What's wrong with keeping your vice in your own space?

If you bought it, a teamster driving a truck with a big diesel engine brought it to the store. You can't compartmentalize yourself in this day and age, we're always going to affect one another.

we're always going to affect one another.

Your vice is doing nothing for anyone but you--in fact, it is harming others. Trucks bringing products to stores are doing it for many. Besides, living in a society, we do as much as possible to minimize the effects we have on each other. Your addiction can remain where it belongs--on your turf, in your home.

Your vice is doing nothing for anyone but you--in fact, it is harming others.

Like I said, I don't smoke, but I enjoy the smell at certain times, and know I'm not going to live forever. If a few hundred like-minded people gathered at a bar, they should be able to smoke. If someone else has a problem, they can leave.

Trucks bringing products to stores are doing it for many.

... and poisoning us thru the air we breathe and causing global warming that will wreak havoc on all life on this planet. We are not each our own little kingdom on this tiny speck of dust called Earth, we have to live with each others' farts.

Your addiction can remain where it belongs--on your turf, in your home.

But it won't, because I think people are turning against these puritan smoking-bans in this country.

As I stated below, the no-smoking-in-bars law arose to protect employees who work in bars.

What if a few hundred nudists went to a bar? Should those who have an issue with nudity have to leave? Why is the habit of the smokers one to be coddled, with everyone having to live around their vice? What if a few dozen mothers with newborns went to a movie? Should those who have an issue with screaming kids have to leave?

I've seen no evidence of a mass swelling against the smoking bans here--in fact, there was an article awhile back that bars were doing more business here in San Francisco after the ban, because those who hate smoking are able to go out without reeking and smelling others' fumes. And because the law is a workplace protection for employees, I don't see the law changing any time soon.

Here's something on the effects of the smoking bans:

Using sales tax and other objective financial data, studies now conclusively demonstrate that bars, restaurants, and hotels do not lose revenue after becoming smoke-free. In fact, some of these studies actually show a growth in income. In sum, smoke-free legislation is effective, accepted by the public, and has no negative economic impact."

"Mandating smoke-free workplaces will decrease secondhand smoke exposure and will improve respiratory health, prevent chronic disease, and extend life span. Important salutary health effects occur in as little as 1 month after cessation of secondhand smoke exposure. The comprehensive body of research documenting the serious adverse health effects of passive smoking provides a powerful rationale for prohibiting smoking in all public places. The time has come to clear the air," Dr. Eisner writes.

Your vice is doing nothing for anyone but you--in fact, it is harming others.

Actually, about 1/3 of us still smoke. That's 100 million Americans that smoking is doing something for. Considering that, you have to think about how many of those non-smoking Americans are being harmed by smoking and by how much. Putting restrictions on smoking is reasonable, but an overall ban on public smoking is nothing short of bigotry.

but an overall ban on public smoking is nothing short of bigotry.

How is it bigotry? Bigotry is, as I understand it, hatred towards people for something they have no control over (race, religion, sexual preference).

And I ask again, what other vice gets the pass that smoking does? You can't drink wherever you want. Or have sex wearever you want. Or even talk loudly whereever you want. And of those, only smoking has a possible, probable deliiterious effect on innocent bystanders (yes, there is drinking and driving, but I am taking this as an example of the act itself). I'm sure big tobacco interests love all the excuses being made for their product.

How is it bigotry? Bigotry is, as I understand it, hatred towards people for something they have no control over (race, religion, sexual preference).

So it's OK to hate people if they have a choice? If a homosexual had a choice or if an African American had a choice, would you be justified in asking him to change?

And I ask again, what other vice gets the pass that smoking does?

Other than sex, (that's just common decency) I don't see any reason why the others should be banned, other than in special places like movies, libraries, schools and what not. But let me present a few. Chewing gum, Drinking coffee (the smell makes me ill), eating. Come to think of it pretty much any vice that isn't already illegal gets a pass in public.

So it really comes down to the public health risk. Like I said, the banning of smoking in certain places is reasonable because it can present a significant health risk. But for you to say any exposure to second hand smoke is harmful, so smoking in any public place should be banned is about as rational as banning gay people from drinking fountains because you might git ther AIDS. Walking outside you run a greater health risk from exposer to the sun, industrial chemicals, car exhaust, and biological toxins than from cigarette smoke.

Your desire to ban public smoking is nothing more than bigotry and would end up doing more harm than good. I can't smoke in public, so I have to smoke at home. Where my children live! I can't smoke on my front step, or my patio, because it'll mix with your air, so I'll have to poison my children. Of course that's child abuse, so I suppose you could take my children away. If I choose to smoke that is.

What if a few hundred nudists went to a bar? Should those who have an issue with nudity have to leave?

They don't have to, but they can. No one forced them into the bar in the first place.

Why is the habit of the smokers one to be coddled, with everyone having to live around their vice?

People like to smoke, it's a proud human tradition that has gone on for thousands of years, and no one has to live around their vice if they don't want to.

What if a few dozen mothers with newborns went to a movie? Should those who have an issue with screaming kids have to leave?

Uhh... unless this was a specialty theater, I'd say the mothers with the screaming newborns would be the ones compelled to leave. But if we're in a theater that markets to that niche, and it is clearly known as such, yes, the person with the issue would have to leave.

I've seen no evidence of a mass swelling against the smoking bans here--in fact, there was an article awhile back that bars were doing more business here in San Francisco after the ban...

Well I see my own evidence here in the Boston area that people are getting tired of such unwanted and unnecessary meddling.

And because the law is a workplace protection for employees,

They can leave, too. No one is forcing them to work at a smoking-allowed bar, either.

I've been on the bus sitting next to smokers who reek so terribly of smoke that it makes me gag.

One of my coworkers is a truly wonderful person but she just absolutely reeks of smoke. If I'm in a closed conference room with her and have the misfortune of sitting beside her, my eyes water endlessly.

amazing how smoke can be replaced with perfume/cologne in all these complaints and still make perfect sense.

amazing how smoke can be replaced with perfume/cologne in all these complaints and still make perfect sense.

For real. There's one advantage to smoking. You don't have to smell other people's stink. Another advantage, all the fresh air.

People who hate smoking in bars and then get in their cars and drive home are the most hypocritical of all.

You lost me here. What are you supposed to do if you are at a bar where people are smoking? Take a shower before getting in the car? Walk home?

Oh, wait, you're saying you can't complain about second hand smoke AND drink and drive even if it was just one beer?

Pardon me while I put my cigarette out while I drive down the free way in my gas guzzling air polluting SUV which is not banned.

Now THAT - banning air polluting SUV's - is a campaign I'd get behind.

Well, maybe not stand behind because the SUVs do stink but, um, ssuport.

25% of adults smoke.

To me it goes against a very American ideal of majority rules to tell the pther 75% that they have to put up with a dirty, dangerous and ofensively smelly addiction that the few can't seem to kick.

I do feel for smokers. The addiction is hard to kick. I always provide support to those attempting to quit. But they don't have the right to foul-up our public spaces with their habit, just like they don't have the right to throw trash on the ground or punch someone in the face.

Their rights end at my nose.

I made the same kind of comments about "first they came for the smokers". People laughed, cuz they hate smoke.

And then the stories about New York banning trans fats in restaurants.

I can't even choose to eat fat? When will they ban KFC entirely? All fried foods?
They laugh now....

In Texas, they banned junk food in public schools. Fine. But if I were a parent I wouldnt want you telling my kids they can or cant have a soda or a candy bar.

Point being, once you start legislating matters of health, where does it end.

I don't like loud music. It hurts my ears.
If I go into a loud bar with music loud enough to damage my ears, isnt this a public health issue that affects everyone just like smoking does? Why doesnt anyone say oh please save the employees' ears! For loud music, people are perfectly willing to accept the "if you dont like loud music dont go there" paradigm, but wouldnt ever accept that for smoking.

I'm JUST saying.

once you start legislating matters of health, where does it end.

Duh... With better general health.

Trans fats are almost as bad as DDT. Should a cookie company be allowed to harm its customers for the sake of longer shelf life. Should a cookie be designed to sit in a box for 12 months before it changes color? Are you really willing to eat crap? As confirmed by your comment... You are what you eat.

But if I were a parent I wouldn't want you telling my kids they can or cant have a soda or a candy bar.

They are just stopping your kids from buying crap at school. For now... You are still free to kill them slowly at home.

What? There are laws against playing music so loud as to damage the ears of customers. You can take that to court.

Yes JRO!

I'm against legislation which interferes with people's personal freedom. I find it peculiar, for example, that people who are against regulations on food and smoking are for regulations about soft drugs. Just the same, trans fats are banned in most of the world because they are hard to detect (in unlabelled food like take aways) and yet they're poisonous. Side stream smoking is probably something which affects others, so smoking in public places is not *just* a personal matter.

As JRO says feeding kids high sugar food is a form of child abuse, beyond a certain point. It's probably better to fix it with education than regulation but there's no reason for schools to be complicit in harming kids this way.

I must call bull@!$%# on your claim that bars are closing in Canada because of their wise smoking bans. Pubs in Canada are doing just fine. The smokers are going outside to smoke and everyone is cool with that. Smoking rooms are built in many pubs so the smokers can hangout and stink together. No one is stopping you from stinking and killing yourself... You just can't do it anywhere you want to. You are not "free" to stink in the pub. Nobody is loosing jobs because you need to be kept on a leash.

I guess from being around smokers so much-parents & sibs growing up, and being in bars. It smells home-y to me.

I second that. My dad smoked for 30 years, and it became familiar. I suppose that's why I never started the habit myself - it held no mystery for me.

Oh Zaki , say it isn't so, here I find out your from France, and now you don't like smoke and oh I am so disappointed........lol

I can see your points as they relate to wait staff and people dining in the restaurants. I had not considered them as much in the past. I was always looking at it from the standpoint of you can choose not to eat at a restaurant and go to a different one.

But the health of the employees in this industry is another consideration that needs to be made.

Thanks...

Casino workers in my area have made the same argument, but I can assure you there's no way smoking would ever be banned in casinos. Fortunately several of the casinos have improved their air purification and one has even advertised the fact in their radio spots. I just wish government agencies would mandate indoor air quality guidelines that would force businesses that want to cater to smokers to use HEPA filtration and to exchange the air X number of times per hour.

Incisive comment; it's amazing how much societies cater to the smoking minority in their destructive behaviour.

I vote on that one. totally agree

:applauds:

Do let other people make their own choices
Do be pleasant to foreign tourists
Do let children play football on THAT grass!
Do let that car pass you ! (likely me in it :wink:)

what about

Do let us fume in exasperation if we want? :lol: