If a business is private property (and you mentioned this earlier Amused) why are businesses not allowed to refuse access based on race, sex, etc yet in your own home, it is fine (don't take this as an attack, I just find the topic of business being private property interesting. I, myself and my family, own motels so I understand how frustrating it is to have to follow a plethora of regulations)?
On a side note, I miss the days of there being smoking and non-smoking sections, it was always nice to be able to hop into the smoking sections if you were really hungry and didn't want to wait for the non-smoking section.
The real kicker will be if they ever manage to ban smoking in Vegas.
On a side note, I miss the days of there being smoking and non-smoking sections, it was always nice to be able to hop into the smoking sections if you were really hungry and didn't want to wait for the non-smoking section.
The real kicker will be if they ever manage to ban smoking in Vegas.
im pretty sure here in Ohio smoking is still allowed in cigar/tobacco shops. it makes sense. non-smokers arent going to go in there.
*edit* found more info:
Exceptions include tobacco shops, designated hotel rooms and enclosed areas of nursing homes.
The legal distinction is not irrelevant to the issue. The legislature has decided that the public has the right to impose restrictions on "private places with public acess" that they can't impose on private property. If the people of a city/state/county/whatever decide they feel the benefit to society is greater than the damage done to the business owner, then they can impose restrictions. Don't like it? Organize policitally, that's the only way to change it.
Note that I'm personally not a big fan of the goverment imposing these kinds of restrictions when the open market can handle it fine. The only time I feel the government needs to step in is when you place people in a position of not having a choice (for example, if I want to travel on a plane and smoking is allowed on all airlines, then I don't have a choice to travel without being exposed to smoke).
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
I never said that I did. I simply said that a bar and a private residence aren't the same. A bar is a place that anyone can walk into. The bar owner isn't going to throw out a perfect stranger for no reason...not if he wants to stay in business anyway.
Do you think it's okay if a bar owner says he doesn't want blacks or gays or asians in his bar? Is that okay in our society? Since it's private property I guess society has no business telling him otherwise...:roll:
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,397
- 14,795
- 146
Here in Kahleeforneeya, there was the same kind of "woe is me...I'm gonna go out of business" when the smoking ban was instituted in the early 90's...business owners predicted the closure of bars and restaurants all over the state...funny enough, it didn't happen.
Smokers adapted, and go outside when they want a smoke. Is it always convenient for them? no, but WTF? Life is full of inconveniences.
Personally, I have no problem with bars closing...HOPEFULLY, that will mean fewer drunks on the roads...you who call this "nanny-stating" probably also believe that drunk driving laws are interfering with the right of a business owner to sell booze to anyone, without being held responsible. Having establishments where you can go drink alcoholic beverages merely encourages driving under the influence.
Do ALL drivers drink to the point where they're legally drunK? Nope, but MANY do...as evidenced by the number of drunk driving arrests and accidents nationwide...
Next on my rant...is the employees in these bars/restaurants. If they're non-smokers, does the business owner have the right to make them work while being exposed to what has been long called health hazard? After all, if 2nd hand smoke is the health hazard it's claimed to be, don't these people deserve the right to earn their income free from such health hazards? Isn't that the basis of OSHA laws in this counrty? Oh wait...if they don't like it...they should quit...right? That could be said for anyone who works in a job that may have workplace safety problems, or health hazards...fvck the worker...it's the business owner's right...
BTW, I'm a smoker myself...
Smokers adapted, and go outside when they want a smoke. Is it always convenient for them? no, but WTF? Life is full of inconveniences.
Personally, I have no problem with bars closing...HOPEFULLY, that will mean fewer drunks on the roads...you who call this "nanny-stating" probably also believe that drunk driving laws are interfering with the right of a business owner to sell booze to anyone, without being held responsible. Having establishments where you can go drink alcoholic beverages merely encourages driving under the influence.
Do ALL drivers drink to the point where they're legally drunK? Nope, but MANY do...as evidenced by the number of drunk driving arrests and accidents nationwide...
Next on my rant...is the employees in these bars/restaurants. If they're non-smokers, does the business owner have the right to make them work while being exposed to what has been long called health hazard? After all, if 2nd hand smoke is the health hazard it's claimed to be, don't these people deserve the right to earn their income free from such health hazards? Isn't that the basis of OSHA laws in this counrty? Oh wait...if they don't like it...they should quit...right? That could be said for anyone who works in a job that may have workplace safety problems, or health hazards...fvck the worker...it's the business owner's right...
BTW, I'm a smoker myself...
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
so you are ok with the goverment legeslating them out of business for something that is legal in any other PRIVATE place?
as for the workers they have the right to find work any place else. nobody is forcing them to stay.
Until they make smokeing against the law in every place it should be legal in all private places.
You guys keep trying to use the words PRIVATE PROPERTY as if this business is the same as someone's house. It isn't. This is a place of business and has to operate under BUSINESS PROPERTY law. Having a smoking ban is the same as having a regulation for any other business...one such example is that a business cannot operate with lead-based paint or asbestos-based insulation in the building materials. No one is saying that these business owners cannot continue to operate their business. What is being said is that these business owners cannot operate their businesses with an UNHEALTHY (yes, totally proven through scientific research that smoking causes cancer & kills thousands yearly) atmosphere. Having a smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other places where people congregate is perfectly logical...the same logic applies with the ban on asbestos and other cancer-causing agents used in building materials. No one bitched and moaned (like many smokers/smoker's advocates are now) that a ban was placed on asbestos-based materials used in a businesses construction. Why is smoking any different? It isn't. Some people were okay that asbestos was present (albeit they were generally less-educated about it) and couldn't have cared less whether it was present or not. People that smoke just need to wise up and get a clue that if they want to continue their minority "right" to smoke, they can do it in a place the majority rules is appropriate.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
It's supposedly still a free Country. You're free to breathe healthy air when you go out.
If you'd like to breathe unhealty air you are free to leave and go to a country where smoking is still legal inside to harm others.
Please use that option and leave, thank you.
who's being legislated out of business? no one. it's just the alarmists who run around claiming that a smoking ban will destroy the bar business.
so the gov't should not look out for the health of its citizens?
so you're saying that laws banning smoking in non-bar work places should be lifted as well? then why aren't you fighting for that cause?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,443
- 19,889
- 146
So no one may take an assumed risk?
By your logic ANYTHING that involves risk should be banned from business. No more amusement parks, no more skydiving, no more flying in planes, etc...
You are the epitome of the nanny-state. All the risks you listed are hidden and not readily apparent. Smoking is NOT hidden, and is readily apparent. Which makes the choice to enter or not an assumed risk and one business owners should be free to inform their customers of, and maintain their freedom. Then the customer has the choice to assume that risk, or not... just as the employees do.
Thanks for trying, but you lose.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
i don't give a fvck about smokers. they can all die I really don't care. personally i think it should be outlawed everywhere shrug.
BUT i do care that the goverment is messing with PRIVATE business. yes they have to fallow the law. they can't have wires hanging out and they have to keep up with osha laws etc.
BUT this is not anything like that. THIS is something that is LEGAL. Etither the goverment has to ban smokeing everywhere or allow it. IN a private business they owner should have the right to be a smokeing or non-smokeing estblishment. NOBODY is forced to go to the place.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,443
- 19,889
- 146
Most businesses voluntarily banned smoking years before the bans. The vast majority of restaurants had separated smoking areas with negative pressure LONG before the smoking bans. And most, if not virtually all retail businesses had banned it.
In fact, the only business without wide spread smoking bans in the past decade were bars... for a reason: The majority of the customers smoke.
And yes, smoking bans hurt the bar business. Especially in areas with harsh weather. Since the local smoking ban here, 12 bars in this small city have closed. 12 bars in less than 6 months. When previously one or two bars a year might close.
That choice should be made by the business owner, if there is such a high demand for smoke free bars, go start one your self.
I hate to say this but people like you make me sick, why don't you ask the government to hold your balls too while your at it.
We don't need laws for every single little thing.
TOLERANCE!!
Whats next, banning a religion because you don't like it?
Where does it end?
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
the article even says a few have gone out of business. They pased the same crap here last year. 2 bars have already closed down and a 3rd is tring to find a buyer. Yet 5 miles away in a diffrent town (that does not have the law) the bars are doing great and even expanding.
sure. so outlaw it everywhere. Also they need to make alaw that you excercise 20 minutes a day, outlaw fats etc etc.
yeap. i also have complained about it. IN a private business the goverment should nto be able to tell them what they can and cannot do (with something that is legal everywhere else).
in reference to the bolded portion: how do you know? i could just as easily say that <40% of bar patrons in my area smoke (and that's what i estimate to be true). plus i know plenty smokers who would prefer to have smoke-free bars.
and who has determined that if smoking is banned that more non-smokers won't come out to the bar to make up for those who leave? it's all guess work until the law passes. in some areas, smoking bans might hurt business. in other areas, it might help.
the gov't already controls other vices (drinking, drugging, gambling, etc), so it's about time they focus on a vice that has possibly the most direct and widespread effects on innocent bystanders.
bigdog1218
Golden Member
- Mar 7, 2001
- 1,674
- 2
- 0
He doesn't know if it's true, he just doesn't have any real arguments. Let's go back to 1984 and lets see how many bars closed when the drinking age was raised. In 1983 the majority of drinkers where under 21 in my town, 12 bars closed inn my small town alone, 12, it's true because I posted it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter