Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Dante]

Absolutely.

Contrary to the disingenuous semantics, bars and restaurants are not "public places".

They are private businesses on private property, which are open to the public.

if you are correct, why is there no smoking in bars or restaurants?

to much government a cradle to grave mentality!!!!

you're being silly and myopic

 

[Fayebelle]

I am a smoker. I screamed to high heaven when the bans were put in place.

Then I attended a private function that allowed smoking.

Now I would NEVER go back to a smoking establishment. BLEH!

I do think it should be up to the owners though.

I also think having no smoking sections in open air venues is STUPID!!!

I also understand no smoking in airports. Lighters are not allowed past security in carry on luggage. I really don't think that matches should be. Therefore there should be no smoking past security check points IMHO

I'd rather pass though security a few times then allow flame on planes.

 

[Dante]

I am a smoker. I screamed to high heaven when the bans were put in place.

Then I attended a private function that allowed smoking.

Now I would NEVER go back to a smoking establishment. BLEH!

I do think it should be up to the owners though.

I also think having no smoking sections in open air venues is STUPID!!!

I also understand no smoking in airports. Lighters are not allowed past security in carry on luggage. I really don't think that matches should be. Therefore there should be no smoking past security check points IMHO

I'd rather pass though security a few times then allow flame on planes.

I smoked and never complained about bans.

The only problem I have is with owners of bars, pubs, and restaurants. Start smoke places. Bars and restaurants are public places where people meet to eat and drink...not unwittingly get exposed to cancer causing chemicals.

In Long Beach there was an idiot in local guv trying to close the cigar stores down. Failed.

 

[Zona]

I am a smoker. I screamed to high heaven when the bans were put in place.

Then I attended a private function that allowed smoking.

Now I would NEVER go back to a smoking establishment. BLEH!

I do think it should be up to the owners though.

I also think having no smoking sections in open air venues is STUPID!!!

I also understand no smoking in airports. Lighters are not allowed past security in carry on luggage. I really don't think that matches should be. Therefore there should be no smoking past security check points IMHO

I'd rather pass though security a few times then allow flame on planes.

I dont think its right, Obama taking away the right to smoke on planes. Damn Commie.

 

[JenT]

There's legislation to ban smoking even outdoors around here. It's already banned at our beaches. Freaking nazis. I don't smoke but I VALUE my right to do so. And this second hand smoke stuff, I don't believe it. My mom smoked in my face my whole childhood, I can't believe it did all that much.

Nazis. They're the real danger. And I"m 1/4 german, I can say that.

 

[Dante]

There's legislation to ban smoking even outdoors around here. It's already banned at our beaches. Freaking nazis. I don't smoke but I VALUE my right to do so. And this second hand smoke stuff, I don't believe it. My mom smoked in my face my whole childhood, I can't believe it did all that much.

Nazis. They're the real danger. And I"m 1/4 german, I can say that.

Some dope in CA>, a female cancer survivor is on a mission. She needs to get a hobby and focus on here own life.

This sort of 'I was saved for a purpose' mentality is what I intensely dislike.

As far as second hand smoke. I think the claims are a bit exaggerated. You stating your own case is anecdotal and it is silly. USing correlations in place of cause and effect studies make for bad science and terrible policy.

 

[Father Time]

I am a smoker. I screamed to high heaven when the bans were put in place.

Then I attended a private function that allowed smoking.

Now I would NEVER go back to a smoking establishment. BLEH!

I do think it should be up to the owners though.

I also think having no smoking sections in open air venues is STUPID!!!

I also understand no smoking in airports. Lighters are not allowed past security in carry on luggage. I really don't think that matches should be. Therefore there should be no smoking past security check points IMHO

I'd rather pass though security a few times then allow flame on planes.

I heard it used to be that you could smoke in the terminal immediately after landing from a plane. That changed and it wasn't when lighters and matches got banned.

 

[Anguille]

Effects of bans

[edit] Safety issues and effects on mental health

Enforcement of a ban can cause resentment among smokers, with potentially serious consequences. In July 2009 a Turkish restaurant owner was murdered by a customer after attempting to enforce the recently implemented smoking ban.[35] Resentment on the part of smokers over enforcement of a ban, or on the part of non-smokers over violation non-enforcement of a ban, is sometimes referred to as "smoke rage".


Smoking ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Smoke rage is clearly in evidence in this thread.

according to the wikipedia article you quoted private businesses are not public spaces

Public space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW I am not a smoker and as I said I would not eat in a resataurant that allowed smoking....but I am for not stepping all over the private business owners rights.

Actually it does.
A broader meaning of public space or place includes also places where everybody can come if they pay, like a café, train, movie theater or brothel. A shop is an example of what is intermediate between the two meanings: everybody can enter and look around without obligation to buy, but activities unrelated to the purpose of the shop are not unlimitedly permitted.

But that was not my purpose in posting that link. I posted it because I think the concept of smoker's rage is very funny and apt!

Maybe this link explains it better:

Smoking bans are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in workplaces and/or other public spaces. Legislation may also define smoking as more generally being the carrying or possessing of any lit tobacco product.[1]


..........


In 1975, the US state of Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to ban smoking in most public spaces. At first, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act.[27] As of October 1, 2007, Minnesota enacted a ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars statewide, called the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.[28]

Smoking ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically the concept is that while property may be owned privately, this ownership does not mean the laws of the US end at the property line. If you wish to enjoy the privilege of opening your property to the public and running a business on it you must conform to all health code and workplace safety laws related to your type of business.

 

[Father Time]

Yes but health and safety laws never or should never prohibit something that's an expected workplace hazard.

Take a football team. Getting tackled is an expected hazard so it isn't legislated against.

Showering in raw sewage isn't so they could regulate the water used in the showers.

Smoking should be an acceptable risk in a bar or restaurant.

 

[Ravi]

Yes...Progressives suck.

 

[Dr Grump]

Smoking should be an acceptable risk in a bar or restaurant.

Why?

An oldie but a goodie: I seriously don't mind inhaling your second-hand smoke, as long as you don't mind me pissing on your leg after drinking half a dozen beers...

 

[Anguille]

Yes but health and safety laws never or should never prohibit something that's an expected workplace hazard.

Take a football team. Getting tackled is an expected hazard so it isn't legislated against.

Showering in raw sewage isn't so they could regulate the water used in the showers.

Smoking should be an acceptable risk in a bar or restaurant.

I fail to see why exposure to second hand smoke is an expected workplace hazard or why it should be tolerated. Bars and restaurants are eating and drinking establishments. They existed before tobacco and are surviving fine now without it.

 

[Immanuel]

Yes but health and safety laws never or should never prohibit something that's an expected workplace hazard.

Take a football team. Getting tackled is an expected hazard so it isn't legislated against.

Showering in raw sewage isn't so they could regulate the water used in the showers.

Smoking should be an acceptable risk in a bar or restaurant.

I fail to see why exposure to second hand smoke is an expected workplace hazard or why it should be tolerated. Bars and restaurants are eating and drinking establishments. They existed before tobacco and are surviving fine now without it.

And I don't think you have the right to dictate to bar owners or restaurant owners what they can or cannot do on their private property.

If you are terrified of second hand smoke and the owner of a restaurant decides he wants to cater to smokers, then by all means don't patronize his establishment.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Now, on a similar manner to your original poll, I would like to know some additional information.

I'd like to know how many of those who responded are smokers, were smokers at one time or have never been smokers and how they voted.

Personally, I voted that I feel the laws should be repealed and I am a Non-smoker. I could say I am a former smoker as at the age of 13, I tried to be cool and started smoking. That lasted about one week before I got caught and told by my dad that I could start smoking if I would smoke a Tiparillo Cigar first. He then handed me the lit cigar and pushed me into a closet... one puff and I was done.

Nine years later, I took one puff from a girlfriends cigarette and decided I was done smoking. Man! Quitting was hard for me!!

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Yes but health and safety laws never or should never prohibit something that's an expected workplace hazard.

Take a football team. Getting tackled is an expected hazard so it isn't legislated against.

Showering in raw sewage isn't so they could regulate the water used in the showers.

Smoking should be an acceptable risk in a bar or restaurant.

I fail to see why exposure to second hand smoke is an expected workplace hazard or why it should be tolerated. Bars and restaurants are eating and drinking establishments. They existed before tobacco and are surviving fine now without it.

And I don't think you have the right to dictate to bar owners or restaurant owners what they can or cannot do on their private property.

If you are terrified of second hand smoke and the owner of a restaurant decides he wants to cater to smokers, then by all means don't patronize his establishment.

Immie

It's not me dictating it's the US government. And I'm glad they do. If we did not have health codes we'd all be (more) at risk for all kinds off food poisoning.
Does your opposition of smoking bans extend to all types of businesses?
Are you also opposed to zoning laws because they dictate what can be done on private property?
Don't you think saying people should just not patronize businesses that allow smoking to be rather simplistic? I do. If you want to operate a business in a community you have an obligation to operate it in a manner which does not harm that community.

 

[dilloduck]

I fail to see why exposure to second hand smoke is an expected workplace hazard or why it should be tolerated. Bars and restaurants are eating and drinking establishments. They existed before tobacco and are surviving fine now without it.

And I don't think you have the right to dictate to bar owners or restaurant owners what they can or cannot do on their private property.

If you are terrified of second hand smoke and the owner of a restaurant decides he wants to cater to smokers, then by all means don't patronize his establishment.

Immie

It's not me dictating it's the US government. And I'm glad they do. If we did not have health codes we'd all be (more) at risk for all kinds off food poisoning.
Does your opposition of smoking bans extend to all types of businesses?
Are you also opposed to zoning laws because they dictate what can be done on private property?

Don't you think saying people should just not patronize businesses that allow smoking to be rather simplistic? I do. If you want to operate a business in a community you have an obligation to operate it in a manner which does not harm that community.

Don't you think saying people should just not patronize businesses that allow smoking to be rather simplistic?

no--it's right up there with " if you don't like porn on TV turn it off"

 

[Dr Grump]

And I don't think you have the right to dictate to bar owners or restaurant owners what they can or cannot do on their private property.

If you are terrified of second hand smoke and the owner of a restaurant decides he wants to cater to smokers, then by all means don't patronize his establishment.

Immie

This borders on a strawman argument.

A huge number of people who work in bars and restaurants - whether they be band members, maitre'd's, cooks or whatever, are non-smokers. Why should they have to tolerate putting up with other people's disgusting habit in their workplace environs.

Get another job you say? Why should they. It wouldn't be tolerated in any other workplace environment, and if you had that attitude, you'd suddenly have a lot of establishments with no staff.

Just because you own a business doesn't mean you dismiss your obligations to make sure your staff are working in a hazard-free environment. Smoking in a restaurant or bar where people work is a hazard to those people.

Generally I find smokers a selfish lot when it comes to their habit. I smoked for 17 years and I ALWAYS asked if people minded if I lit up and I never smoked in the house - whether living with room mates or at home.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'd like to know how many of those who responded are smokers, were smokers at one time or have never been smokers and how they voted.
Immie

Ex-smoker. Voted they should stay in place...

 

[Anguille]

Now, on a similar manner to your original poll, I would like to know some additional information.

I'd like to know how many of those who responded are smokers, were smokers at one time or have never been smokers and how they voted.


Immie

It would have been interesting to know. I didn't think of it at the time but I could have included in the poll the option of identifying yourself as a smoker or non smoker.

I smoked for about 4 years. I got addicted after working in a smoking environment. It was hard to quit, so I do have empathy for those trying. But I also know quitting or not smoking a cigarette never killed anybody so my empathy does not extend to putting up with cigarette smoke in my presence.

The interesting thing about this poll that I have learned is that it seems to be divided not so much between smokers versus non smokers but between people who believe that bars and restaurants are no different from any other public space and that health and workplace safety laws apply in them just as much as in any other place and those who believe that ownership of property means you have the right to make up your own rules concerning smoking.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's very simple. If I don't want to eat in that environment... I DON'T!

Crazy, but my wallet goes where I do.

But then again, with bars, since I hate loud noise, being drunk, loud music and shelling out money for an activity I don't really enjoy... I'm good.

Now if I could find a good quiet poolhall... I miss playing billiards.