i think it may be the best thing that has happend

imagine to not smell like shite when you come home from clubs and so

i'm ALL for it

smoking is just shite anyway, don't let them destroy for the rest of us

Well- I live in Cali and we were the first I believe.
It's not that bad actually- I do smoke and it's nice to go take a break and go outside and just chill.

Good time to pickup girlies too while outside.

(oh wait- thats anytime)

thank God, when it comes to the issue of smoking no thank you. I like my fresh air, how does anyone who is liberal and free thinking equate smoking, supporting the big slimeball tobacco industries and endangering your health along with others as some necessary freedom to have. Ultimately it is the individuals choice just not around me. I couldn't tell you how many college kids use to smoke at my school, in the freezing winter cigarette butts were all over the front of the dorm entrance and made a lovely sight.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono The rash of smoking bans in private establishments sweeping the US has finally arrived at my doorstep. Columbus, Ohio is now considering a smoking ban that would encompass all private establishments, any outdoor space they may have and a halo of 20 feet around their property. As many of you know, I am a libertarian and the thought of this becoming a reality saddens and distrubs me. There are just so many levels where this strikes me as absurd and as wrong. What are your thoughts on this issue? I'm guessing most of us would be against this type of ban, but maybe those for it could share their rationale. Even though I am a non-smoker I intend to do all that I can to stop this from happening.

Well now, welcome to the trendiest issue of the year! My hometown of Lawrence, KS just issued a ban back in early May that will kick in come July:

http://www.ljworld.com/section/citynews/story/169342

But there's a good growing consensus of anti-ban folks, esp. restaurant owners (some of whom I am good friends with) that have started a petition to get the ban on a voting ballot:

http://www.ljworld.com/section/citynews/story/172544

I've gotta be honest and say that I'm really kinda torn between this issue. I even attended one of the Town Hall meetings on this to listen to the debate and public comment, primarily because of the aforementioned friendship I have with a coupla restaurant owners. So here's why I see both sides:

Pro-ban: Although we are in a public environment, the effects of second-hand smoke are well known and established, and no one has a right to cause potential harm to another individual, esp. in a public environment. It personally bothers me a little bit because my wife and I both grew up around smokers, and while it affected me to a certain degree (exercise-induced asthma), it has a present affect on my wife (asthmatic). This is not to say that everytime we go to a restaurant we both have to grab our inhalers, but the effects are well known and smokers no doubt put us and everyone else in harm's way as a result of their habit. What's more, my wife has worked part time at a restaurant for years, often in the smoking section (better tips there), and again she effected by the smoke.

Bottom line - everyone has a right to breathe clean air in a public environment. If we can put clamps down on cooperate industries who pollute our air (well, spair this Administration's loose policies at least), why should we not do the same for smokers with their habits of choice?

Anti-ban: These are public places ya know, and people have a right to pick and choose where they wish to go and support. A restaurant should have a right to establish it's own rules of business, especially when we are referring to a legalized substance. A business should have the right to choose whether or not to ban smoking, and the public should have to right to support or not support that business and its choice. By this reasoning, it should be entirely up to my wife and I whether or not to support a business who bans or supports smoking. Furthermore, it is my wife's choice to work in a restaurant - she could likely get a job elsewhere (well she is, but that's another story). However, the money is good, we are both friends with the owner and a good number of workers and managers at the brewery, so she chooses to stay there (besides, I get awesome beer for $1 a piece ). Besides, this is purely anectodal evidence, but she claims that smokers leave better tips as a whole. And judging by her tip purse when she gets off work, I certainly believe her.

Finally, there are a number of research papers that demonstrated that smoking bans did not inhibit restaurant and bar profits. However, a local bar owner at one of our town hall meetings demonstrated that a couple of those most noted pro-ban studies were clearly incorrect, and cited a very sound research paper that gave strong evidence to the countrary. I sincerely wish I had those papers and weblinks to show everyone, but unfortunately I don't ATM. I'll do a Google search later to see what I can find.

Bottom Line: Smoking is a legalized substance, and it should be left up to the business whether or not to ban or allow this legalized substance into their establishments, not up to a local or even state government. Furthermore, it does hinder business profits.
------------------------------

So like I said, I certainly see both sides. I certainly don't want our own finances to decrease, and I really don't want the restaurant and bar owners' profits to decrease either. But it is everyone's air, and no one should be harmed by another's habit of choice.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I think I understand where Neo-Phono is coming from. A private establishment should retain their private property rights to do as they please. If a restaurant wants to ban smoking, then that's fine--but it's not fine for a government to come in and tell them what to do. I believe in somewhat efficient markets--if a restaurant bans smoking and their sales suddenly fall, then that's their own responsibility. Conversely, if they maintain a smoking environment and sales suffer, then they should adjust their policies accordingly.

I hate a smoke filled room as much as the next person, but I value private property rights and personal freedoms above my own marginal discomfort in a public place, and I recognize that I also have the right to go somewhere else if I don't enjoy the environment.

Try to stop me from smoking in my own home??? I'd have a serious problem with that. We can't go around handing over our personal freedoms to the government just because we don't like other peoples' perfectly legal habits.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I think I understand where Neo-Phono is coming from. A private establishment should retain their private property rights to do as they please. If a restaurant wants to ban smoking, then that's fine--but it's not fine for a government to come in and tell them what to do. I believe in somewhat efficient markets--if a restaurant bans smoking and their sales suddenly fall, then that's their own responsibility. Conversely, if they maintain a smoking environment and sales suffer, then they should adjust their policies accordingly. I hate a smoke filled room as much as the next person, but I value private property rights and personal freedoms above my own marginal discomfort in a public place, and I recognize that I also have the right to go somewhere else if I don't enjoy the environment.

Signed. This reeks of something that starts with 'F' and ends in "ascism."

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Bottom line - everyone has a right to breathe clean air in a public environment. If we can put clamps down on cooperate industries who pollute our air (well, spair this Administration's loose policies at least), why should we not do the same for smokers with their habits of choice?

You're right, everyone has a right to breathe clean air in a public environment. Just not in a private establishment which you are free to leave at any time if you don't like their smoking policy.

Here in Cali there is a bill they're trying to pass to ban smoking at the beach. Now I believe that everyone has the right to smoke (I'm a non-smoker for life!) however, since second hand smoke is real I'm all for it. Espcially when I go to the beach and want to lay down my towel, but first I have to dig through cigarette butts infested sand , as a non smoker it's almost like steping on other people's sh*t!
In private places such as bar and club, even though I wouldn't like it, I believe it should be up to the owner to decide.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You're right, everyone has a right to breathe clean air in a public environment. Just not in a private establishment which you are free to leave at any time if you don't like their smoking policy.

Which fits nicely in my description against the anti-ban group. Maybe I'm biased, but in truth I think I tend to sway more towards the anti-ban group. Logically it seems to boil down to choice, esp. when we are considering a legalized substance in a private establishment.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Well, I do not know the exact specifications of the law so I'll just say my general stance on the issue.

I think that it's irrelevant if a public place is privately owned or not. There are regulations regarding the safety of guests that the owners of restaurants and clubs must follow if they want to open a club, like having enough parking space, or providing fire escape exists, so it is only fair that they be forced to have at least a part of their compound dedicated to non-smokers.

___________________
1+1=10

I think anytime that smoking affects those who are not smoking it should be banned because they are voilating the non-smokers rights to have clean air and not be affected by second hand smoke. So this would include all establishments indoors that are not homes. I don't believe in people's rights when they can adversely affect someone else's health. And hell after a night of clubbing I wreak of smoke. I do believe that there should be a smoking area designated as they have commonly at businesses.

Gosh remember when airlines used to allow smoking...*shudders*

Well, to eleborate on my stance, I have several concerns with the ban.

One is the infrigement on civil liberties I believe it imposes. As said before, a patron has the right to decide whether to give their patronage to an establishment. Simply put, if they do not want to expose themselves to second hand smoke, no matter how convoluted the meta-science is behind the dangers of it, they have the ability to choose to go to a non-smoking establishment. I am a non-smoker and I have done that many times. Sometimes I have no problem going to a smoky bar, although I usually prefer to go someplace non-smoking. I would much rather let the public decide, through their dollars and patronage of whether or not an establishment should be non-smoking. Put the decision into the hands of the customers, not a wide-sweeping city council imposed ban.

Secondly, as I have stated before is the faulty science behind the effects of second hand smoke. I am not saying that second hand smoke can be health risk, however if you look at second hand smoke in bars and restaraunts the idea that it can be harmful is very contested. OHSAA has actually set standards on air quality and at what level particulate matter can be harmful. That level is about 8000 ppm over an eight hour period. Numerous goverment labs have tested bars and restaruants and have found that even "heavy smoking" facilites only fall into the 25-50 ppm range! A "smoggy" day in LA has particulate matter levels 100 times this high. On a purely statistical/scientific level it would be impossible to do anything but associate second hand smoke with disease.

However, what I believe to be the heart of the issue is the removal of the right to choose. The right of a business to decide if they wish to allow people to smoke on their private property. The right of an individual to decide if they wish to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment. The right of an individual to perform a legal activity in a private place. I realize the government is trying to pass this legislation in order to "protect" us from second hand smoke. However, it is not the government's responsiblity to protect us from ourselves. As adults we have the right to decide how we will protect and endanger our own lives, and it is an overstep of power for the goverment to "force" me into making that decision. As I said I am a non-smoker, but if someone wishes to smoke, so be it, just as I have the decision not to and just as I have the right not to go someplace where I may come in contact with their smoke.

After all, if we are really trying to "protect" ourselves, ban automobiles, far bigger polluters and killers, alochol, unsaturated fatty acids, caffeine, carcinogens, etc. I for one am much more worried about being hit by a car then hurt by second hand smoke.