Smoking bans: Good or Bad?

[Addendum]

The public doesn't pay the bills for businesses. The owners do. The owners can remove unruly patrons that disrupt others. The owners set up the hours open, not the customers. The owners are the ones that hire workers, not the customers.

The only thing a customer does in regard to a business is they do business there. Nothing more. Nothing less. The owners are the ones that focus on the day-to-day operation of that business.

 

[Calvin]

Ok, if you want a clear cut and dry answer then I will say that I think public smoking causes harm to not only the people who smoke but others around them and something should be done about it. If it comes on the ballot I will vote for it and I never said it was unconstitiutional, I don't think it says anything about the freedom to smoke in the constitution, at least I don't remember.

That's a piss-poor rationalization. It doesn't say anything about having the freedom to bite your fingernails either, does it?

Plus, we're not arguing that we should be able to blow smoke in whomever's face we want, wherever. We're talking about letting bar owners and restaurant owners decide whether or not they want a smoking environment in their private business areas. We're not talking about forcing smoking on public or government owned places. Not only do you not have a very good argument, you don't even apparently seem to be in the same debate as everyone else.

 

[Darren Daring]

He was talking about American Idol not being the best, but whether a program is the best or not is all personal opinion.

He didn't say it wasn't the best, he said having the highest rating doesn't mean it's the best.

 

[Strange]

The public doesn't pay the bills for businesses. The owners do. The owners can remove unruly patrons that disrupt others. The owners set up the hours open, not the customers. The owners are the ones that hire workers, not the customers.

The only thing a customer does in regard to a business is they do business there. Nothing more. Nothing less. The owners are the ones that focus on the day-to-day operation of that business.

I agree

But if something happens to the customer while in a place of business the owner is responsible. And the government holds a responsibility to ensure public safety. Now if the government said that smoking was safe and they were not going to ban it then that would be fine. But again, it is not cut and dry like most people think, try running your own business and see how hard it is and how much red tape you have to go through. Is it the the governments fault? Probably but rules and laws can be changed all the time.

 

[Strange]

He didn't say it wasn't the best, he said having the highest rating doesn't mean it's the best.

Exactly but there really is no way to say which program is the best or not because its all opinion, ratings may show the general publics viewing options for that night but it doesn't determine if its the best.

 

[Calvin]

Exactly but there really is no way to say which program is the best or not because its all opinion, ratings may show the general publics viewing options for that night but it doesn't determine if its the best.

That's the reason we have principles built on egalitarian logic to guide our rules, rather than just having pure majority rule. So there ya go.

 

[JewishHobbit]

I just had to sit through a smoke filled non-smoking section divided from the smoking section by only a thin sheet of glass about a foot and a half above the table. Yeah, ban the crap.

 

[Qoèlet]

We're talking about letting bar owners and restaurant owners decide whether or not they want a smoking environment in their private business areas. We're not talking about forcing smoking on public or government owned places.

Should private enterprises be allowed to decide whether or not they want to have safety regulations, and take certain precautions for employees working around heavy machinery and the like too? Because if you're forcing restaurant employees to inhale poisons every day at work, their well-being is being ignored in favour of profits, just the same.

Anticipating the comment that these employees are not being forced to work... I'm really sure that someone who's working for ****ty money doing menial, unskilled labour has a TONNE of other options for employment, right? The only real choice would seem to be between working at a job that can make them sick and kill them, or not working at all and beginning to count their children's ribs... in other words, no choice at all.

 

[Calvin]

Should private enterprises be allowed to decide whether or not they want to have safety regulations, and take certain precautions for employees working around heavy machinery and the like too? Because if you're forcing restaurant employees to inhale poisons every day at work, their well-being is being ignored in favour of profits, just the same.

We've already covered why that's different earlier in the thread.

 

[ScottyBBadd]

If the government can ban smoking what else is next?

 

[britrogue]

I think it's ludicrous. Anyone who smokes knows that you smoke twice as much when you're drinking. If they ban smoking in all pubs, I can guarantee they'll lose business. Why not just make smoking illegal and have done with it?

 

[redmarvel]

haha, yeah you just have to patronize those smoke filled places like restaurants and bars. There are absolutely no others that have smoke free sections.

Go to a different place.

Toronto's a large place, and I did a LOT of club hopping. I never found one that was non-smoking until they banned smoking. Even the coffee shops that had "smoke barriers" didn't put them up properly. (You have to have positive pressure [more air] on the "non-smoking" side to force the smoke to go back into the smoking side when the access doors are opened). Even then as many folks have stated, the employees had no choice. They had to breath the smoke fumes when serving/busing tables or they would have to quit. Then they'ld have a difficult time finding another job. Thankfully the Tim Horton's chain of coffee shops always was non-smoking.