Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'CF Archive Bin' started by alaskaguy, Oct 30, 2007.
Does anybody care about this issue? Do you support smoking bans in restaurants and taverns?
Selfishly, I very much do so. I try to frequent said establishments.
Ideologically, I think it should be up to the proprietor of the establishment.
Both being said, this is one issue that my selfishness overrides my idealism.
My idealism is that employers (restaurant, casino, and tavern owners) should be not be subjecting employees to an unheathy workplace. Employees should not have to make a choice between their health and their job.
My stance: Personal choice made by the establishments owner, period. Consumers and employees have a choice, yes choice, in doing business there and/or working there.
Can anyone find a bar/resturant that changed from non-smoking to smoking? Probably not. The employees knew (or should have known) the companies policies on smoking if is an important issue to them before they accept the job. I chose the word accept, because working isn't a right, it is a privilege that both parties have to agree to.
If there is a viable market for non-smoking bars and/or restaurants, the market will sustain that business.... fed up on smoke in a bar or restaurant? Open one up, what a great chance to make the difference in your communities well being!
I'm in favor of smoking bans. When I'm exposed to smoke in any form, I get breathing troubles, and that just isn't something I want to deal with.
Smoking is a choice. Having a bad reaction to smoke isn't.
We have a local smoking ban in all restaurants and I am extremely happy for it. I personally can't stand the smell, I desire to keep my two kids away from all smoking and my wife's asthma is bothered by smoke. So to answer Alaskaguy's original question, Yes, I fully support any and all smoking bans.
I would love there to a smoking ban in Iowa like California. It is so nice to be able to go to a restaurant or bar and not have to deal with all those nasty smokers.
Not sure what it is called, but there is one out near jordan creek in that target complex that was non smoknig and went to smoking. We did not know that until we walked in, and then turned around and walked back out.
Keepngoal, I agree that employees have a choice. Nevertheless I believe that as a society we should realize that the government has a role in protecting employees from unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. If we aren't going to protect employees from the risks of second hand smoke, why should the government be involved in mine safety or many other potential worker safety/health issues?
I think you mean the "Cab," or Cabaret. They allow smoking in the enclosed patio, but the actual bar is non smoking. You have to walk thru the patio to get into the bar.
I've heard a lot recently about workers that are concerned about the effects of being exposed to second hand smoke.
Where are the unions? Unions were designed to protect the worker from unsafe working conditions. Would they allow employees to be exposed to toxins and cancer causing chemicals in a factory?
It seems to me if the unions are worrying about dwindling numbers why not pick up the service industry workers and support them....
My 2 cents...
People, we choose to work where we do and we choose to join their team. If the place is a smoking establishment (bar, resturant, store or whatever), job seeker beware.
We choose to sit in non-smoking rooms that are clearly void of any smoke or to establishments that are smoke free or on smoke free nights. It is OUR responsibility to protect our health, not the governments.
It is easy for ppl to be for a 'law' when it benefits them.... but those that can 'protect' themselves when the law doesn't benefit them are the real winners in a free society.
As a smoker, even one trying to quit again, I'm all for banning smoking in bars and restaraunts. I prefer going to bars where I have to go outside to smoke, reasons being two-fold. One, I don't have to sit in a haze, and two, I don't smoke nearly as much as when at a place where I can smoke where I'm sitting.
What I don't approve of, are banning smoking throughout a town, except for designated "smoking areas." Unless it's immediately outside an entrance/exit, someone having a cigarette on the sidewalk will affect someone else about as much as farting.
I agree........I am all for private businesses to decide for themselves whether or not they allow it. That way, if you give a rip one way or the other, you have a choice of where to go. I also agree with 62 that some of the public area bans are pretty stupid. You cannot tell me that banning smoking on a walking trail, outside, has any basis in reality other than just to satisfy someone's need to control what other people do.
Minnesota is in on the smoking ban now too as of October 1st. I am with a few others on here, not too big on the Gov't telling owners how to run their business but personally love not having to shower before bed after going out for a few drinks/dinner.
I have a question for those that believe a business should have the "right" to decide whether they permit smoking (and therefore threaten the health of their employees); do you also believe that a business has the "right" to only hire and employ nonsmokers (this includes nonworking hours as well)?
Well, I don't think businesses should have to put up with smokers taking up work time on a "smoke break". And I shouldn't have to subsidize smokers in my healthcare policy, so they should have different rates for health insurance. Businesses should have the "right" to determine that smoking isn't allowed on their property, either.
So, in a nutshell, yes to the "permit smoking" on company grounds, but a qualified no on a "ban."
But I'm the kind of crazy, nutty guy that doesn't think that companies should have to provide health insurance to grossly obese people, either, at least at the same cost as people who are not.
Preface...I have never smoked, I can't stand cigarette smoke, and I believe I have personally benefitted by living in areas that have outlawed smoking in restaurants.
Having said that, I do not believe it is the role of government to limit personal freedoms relative to legal activities. It is a slippery slope that we get on when we allow our government to do this sort of thing.
What is next? Outlawing french fries because people are getting too fat!? It seems ridiculous but I can envision it happening. Some of you probably think that is a crazy thought but I'll guarantee you that if you were able to go back in time 40 or 50 years and you told people that someday they would not be able to smoke in an office building, in a restaurant, or even in some cases in their own car (yes some states have laws against smoking in your own car when a child is present) that they would think you were crazy...but that is where we are now through a series of small incremental steps through time.
Be careful what you wish for relative to governmental control over our freedoms...the next thing they want to limit may be something that you enjoy.
By the way, a question for you...if smoking is so bad for us, why not just outlaw it? The answer...the government loves the tax revenues!
Since we're on this topic, I heard a radio ad this morning on KXNO advocating smoking bans. I seriously don't mind this, but I love how they state things, for example: "everyone knows that second hand smoke kills 53,000 people every year". Oh really, who is "everyone"? How do they "know"? Are they saying that autopsies are done on all those people and it is scientifically determined that second hand smoke was without a doubt the cause? Or do they work backwards and find the proverbial smoking gun? Smoking is bad....so outlaw it if you must. Just don't be dishonest about it.
You are implying that smokers have rights. I submit when smokers endanger the lives of others they should lose those rights.
There are numerous examples of legal products that are restricted by the government. Firearms constitute the most blatent example.
In other words the freedom to smoke ends where my nose begins, because a smoker shouldn't have the right to destroy my ultimate property (my body).
I don't see the connection between french fries and smoking. Second hand smoke endangers my health; someone getting fat from eating too many french fries has no bearing on my health.
I don't advocate banning smoking because I do not want to restrict someone's freedom as long as that freedom does not endanger the lives of others. In other words I don't care if someone puffs away as long as I don't have to inhale the second hand smoke unwillingly.