Smoking Bylaw

[Eddie Brock]

Key word, FORCIBLY. No one is being forced. It is a free market, go somewhere else.

why should the people who are on the receiving end be the ones to leave?
they aren't doing anything

 

[Addendum]

And it's not like the bars that allow patrons to smoke are the only bars in town

 

[Matt]

That's a nice idea, but it will NEVER happen. It's like those email chain letters telling people to not buy gas for a day to stick it to the oil companies. Sure, it's a great idea but you know as well as anyone that there will never be enough people participating to make an impact. N.E.V.E.R. Instead, guess what?? People voted. The public who have to go into these places and eat, drink, whatever decided "We want the smoking ban." Business owners must conform or get fined....for starters. I voted for it....and damn glad I did.

Would you like people voting on how you spend your money? Would you like people voting on how you go about your daily business? The fact is it is nothing people should be voting on. People should not vote on how I run my PRIVATE business. That my friend, is socialism. We live in a free market economy. If I go to Red Lobster and dislike the food am I going to vote to get a new chef in place? No, I am going to stop going there. That is how a free market system works.

 

[Addendum]

Double post due to Hype Lag

 

[Addendum]

why should the people who are on the receiving end be the ones to leave?
they aren't doing anything

Like they couldn't see when they entered the bar that people are smoking?

If they don't like people smoking in that bar, then instead of saying "I want to drink at this bar, everyone has to stop smoking", walk on down the street to another bar that doesn't have smoking customers.

Pretty damn simple

 

[Halcohol]

People also have the right not to eat fatty foods. To put down the french fries and potato chips and pick up a salad. However, people refuse to do it, so the government starts banning trans fats.

I fail to see the difference between preventing people from killing themselves with obesity and preventing people from killing others with second-hand smoke.

 

[Addendum]

I fail to see why it's the government's business what one eats, drinks, or smokes.

 

[Halcohol]

I fail to see why it's the government's business what one eats, drinks, or smokes.

If restaurant owners aren't going to do the healthful thing voluntarily, then it's up to the government to make them. It's not like passing a bylaw to keep toxins out of a public place is a step towards communism.

 

[Addendum]

It's not the government's responsibility to make people eat healthy

 

[Spider-Who?]

I agree with you. I'm not a smoker either, however, here in Philadelphia, the smoking ban has been in for a few months. Its our right to smoke just like its our right to not smoke if we dont want. If you want to smoke, go to a smoking bar. If you dont want to smoke, go to a different bar. My only question is, what are they going to wrongfully ban next?!

 

[Halcohol]

It is when obesity becomes an epidemic.

I think one of the upsides to the non-smoking being instituted by the government is that it takes a lot of heat off of the establishment owners. Matt, think of it this way: if the government asks you to to go smoke-free and you do, many of your customers will be mad at you. But instead, the government forces you to do it and takes the blame instead of you.

As for taking away your choice... the idea is to gradually eliminate tobacco smoking from society, or at the very least to make it have a much smaller effect on society.

 

[Dan33977]

I pretty much hate anti-smoking laws.

I do, too.

These laws are stupid. The government should either ban all sells of tobacco or allow people to smoke it. They have absolutely no problem sticking their hand out for the big ass chunk of sales they get in tax money, but then they pass laws to block its usage. It is a double standard.

Agreed.

shouldn't people have the choice to go into an establishment

Are you joking? They already did! The ridiculousness of this statement clearly illustrates the absurdity of banning smoking in restaurants and bars.

Looking on the bright side of this, it's really helped me quit smoking. I'm good without having a smoke when I wake up or when I'm stressed, but it's really hard for me not to light up when I'm drinking a beer. This bylaw makes that a loooot easier.

This is why I, and many conservatives, dislike and disagree with the viewpoints of most liberals. You want the government to be so large that you start being so dependent on it for help and stop being able to make decisions for yourselves. I mean, are you joking? You actually think it's OK for the big, bad government to start dictating what other people, not you, are allowed to do in their restaurants and their bars just because you're so incompetent and dependent on the government that you cannot make this decision for yourself?

This is why I disagree with religious Republicans just as much as I do Democrats; the latter wants people to be so dependent on the government for assistance. I mean, aren't you an adult?

That is a load of bull****. Every hear of a self-regulating market. If people do not want to get smoke blown in their face, GO TO A NON-SMOKING RESTRUANT! No one is holding a gun to their head and telling them to go somewhere. I am not a smoker, I am a business owner, however. I am happy that the state of Pennsylvania has not tried to tell me how to run my bar and hopefully it'll stay that way. If I lose enough business because non-smokers stop coming, then I will have to change my policy. As it is, I have not.

Exactly!

 

[Halcohol]

You actually think it's OK for the big, bad government to start dictating what other people, not you, are allowed to do in their restaurants and their bars just because you're so incompetent and dependent on the government that you cannot make this decision for yourself?

First of all, there's no need to be a jackass. I've quit smoking and it's something I'm proud of. I don't need you to tell me I'm incompetent and that I can't make decisions for myself. This isn't about me.

Second of all, for important change to made in society, someone's gotta step forward and make it happen. What if the Emancipation Proclamation had simply made slavery optional? How long would it have taken for it to disappear?

 

[Matt]

If restaurant owners aren't going to do the healthful thing voluntarily, then it's up to the government to make them. It's not like passing a bylaw to keep toxins out of a public place is a step towards communism.

When the government is interfering with the private sector it IS a step towards communism.

As for the government having to "protect people from making the wrong choice"...shouldn't we have the freedom to make that choice as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Isn't that what America is about?

 

[Matt]

It is when obesity becomes an epidemic.

I think one of the upsides to the non-smoking being instituted by the government is that it takes a lot of heat off of the establishment owners. Matt, think of it this way: if the government asks you to to go smoke-free and you do, many of your customers will be mad at you. But instead, the government forces you to do it and takes the blame instead of you.

And what if I just want to accomedate my smoking customers? As the owner of my business, isn't that my right?

As for taking away your choice... the idea is to gradually eliminate tobacco smoking from society, or at the very least to make it have a much smaller effect on society.

Oh give me a break. If the idea is to eliminate tobacco, stop selling it. But then the government would lose money. The government can't play both sides of the fence. Either eliminate tobacco all together and quit taking money from the taxes it makes or allow people to use what they buy.

 

[Matt]

First of all, there's no need to be a jackass. I've quit smoking and it's something I'm proud of. I don't need you to tell me I'm incompetent and that I can't make decisions for myself. This isn't about me.

Second of all, for important change to made in society, someone's gotta step forward and make it happen. What if the Emancipation Proclamation had simply made slavery optional? How long would it have taken for it to disappear?

Actually, by the beginning of the Civil War,slavery was becoming less and less popular and un-economical. If the Civil War never took place, slavery would've faded away in the next 20 years regardless.

 

[Halcohol]

When the government is interfering with the private sector it IS a step towards communism.

As for the government having to "protect people from making the wrong choice"...shouldn't we have the freedom to make that choice as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Isn't that what America is about?

I suppose I can understand your position on the lack of choice in the matter.

I just think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with stepping outside for 5 minutes to have a smoke, you know? Honestly, as a cook in a pub whose kitchen is completely open to the bar, it's been really noticeable.

 

[Matt]

I suppose I can understand your position on the lack of choice in the matter.

I just think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with stepping outside for 5 minutes to have a smoke, you know? Honestly, as a cook in a pub whose kitchen is completely open to the bar, it's been really noticeable.

And if you do not like the pub's policy you have every right to seek employment elsewhere. That is what freedom is. It works both ways.

 

[Dan33977]

*sighs*

People voted. The public who have to go into these places and eat, drink, whatever decided "We want the smoking ban." Business owners must conform or get fined....for starters. I voted for it....and damn glad I did.

So, let me get this straight? If the people voted to grant Bush unlimited powers to reign over America, to do whatever he wants, it'd be OK, because, hey, using your inane logic, the people voted.

NO! WRONG! In order for a Democracy (or Democratic Republic or Federal Republic, whichever term your prefer) to thrive and function, yes, the people have to have a say in what goes on, but what they say has to promote or somehow co-exist with the idea of freedom, not the exact opposite. In other words, yes, OK, if we all voted for Bush to become our Supreme Chancellor, yes, we all voted, yippee, BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT DEMOCRATIC!!

Key word, FORCIBLY. No one is being forced. It is a free market, go somewhere else.

You, my friend, are an intelligent human being.

Would you like people voting on how you spend your money? Would you like people voting on how you go about your daily business? The fact is it is nothing people should be voting on. People should not vote on how I run my PRIVATE business. That my friend, is socialism. We live in a free market economy. If I go to Red Lobster and dislike the food am I going to vote to get a new chef in place? No, I am going to stop going there. That is how a free market system works.

Just quoting you so those who are too frightened without the big, bad government there by their side making decisions their decisions will read this again and wake the hell up.

I fail to see why it's the government's business what one eats, drinks, or smokes.

Exactly. I’ll eat fatty foods if I want to. It affects NO ONE BUT ME. I HAVE A RIGHT TO HURT MYSELF. I mean, Christ, are we going to start banning suicide, too?

"That kid just killed himself. Oh, God, that'll be a $50 fine. OK, fellows be careful with him, just lock his dead corpse up in that cell over there. That'll teach him not to kill himself again."

If restaurant owners aren't going to do the healthful thing voluntarily, then it's up to the government to make them.

Wow! Please get out of this country. You couldn't be more against freedom and Democracy than Adolph ****ing Hitler. So is the government going to start banning McDonald's, Coke A Cola, Alcohol? Are they gonna start forcing everyone to eat their daily dose of vegetables? Are they going to dictate everyone's exercise habits, too? I mean, after all, according to you, it's promoting healthy habits!

Seriously, YOU ARE AN ADULT. MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR YOURSELF. JESUS, H. CHRIST!!!!

It's not the government's responsibility to make people eat healthy

I know. You’d think this were rocket science with the way we have to keep repeating ourselves.

It is when obesity becomes an epidemic.

No. No no no no no!

Obesity. Is. Not. Contagious.

If I want to be the fattest mother ****er on the earth, I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT. It harms NO ONE but myself. WHY DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. In a democracy, the government should ONLY INTERFERE with private affairs when it starts affecting and damaging OTHER people WITHOUT their consent.

If you don’t like that someone is smoking, get up and leave. There are PLENTY of restaurants that have been deemed non-smoking by the RESTAURANT OWNERS themselves. Eat there!

And this is where I get to being an adult and making decisions yourself and not being so dependent on the government. The restaurant owner I referred to in the example above made the decision HIMSELF to ban smoking in HIS restaurant.

See? He’s an adult. He’s a human being, he made this decision HIMSELF. Likewise, another restaurant owner who could be a smoker might decide to permit smoking in his restaurant so he can do it. After all, it’s HIS restaurant!!

First of all, there's no need to be a jackass. I've quit smoking and it's something I'm proud of. I don't need you to tell me I'm incompetent and that I can't make decisions for myself. This isn't about me.

I by NO MEANS was trying to offend you. If I did, I'm terrible sorry. Seriously.

I was just pointing out what is so undemocratic about a lot of big-government viewpoints. When you tried to justify the anti-smoking laws even further by saying it helped you quit, I merely mentioned how that was just another example of a person being dependent on the government for help. I mean, it got so far that the government had to pass a law affecting EVERYONE in order for you to quit.

You used to smoke. But all the sudden the handy dandy government comes into the equation, and poof, you stop smoking...but at the expense of other people's decisions that they might want to continue smoking.

What if the Emancipation Proclamation had simply made slavery optional? How long would it have taken for it to disappear?[/QUOTE]

Wow.

You couldn’t be more wrong and more far off from my point. Listen, I’m gonna repeat again…

In a democracy, the government should ONLY INTERFERE with private affairs when it starts affecting and damaging OTHER people WITHOUT their consent. I have a right to do ANYTHING as long as it doesn’t negatively affect another person, and as long as I have THEIR permission to do it.

So now get this…

Slavery. Affects. Other. Human. Beings.

Smoking also does. But the people who don’t like it. Aren’t being forced. To sit around them. And some people. Like me. Just don’t mind it.

I just don’t get how anyone could disagree with freedom. It’s like one of the most basic fundamental ideas.

Small government = Limited power = free people.

Big government = HUGE power = less free people.

Period.

Oh, yeah.

Vote Libertarian.

The end.

Banning smoking = banning gay marriage = banning female suffrage = banning African American suffrage = banning my right to pee = banning my right to scratch my chin = banning my right to *********e in private = banning my right to smoke in my home.

As I wrote this I started to realize I was being somewhat rude in my reply, but was to lazy to go back and edit, so you may find that I'm kinda snotty at the beginning, and nicer at the end, so please do not be offended my anything I've written here as it was not intended to do that. Thanks!!

 

[Halcohol]

And if you do not like the pub's policy you have every right to seek employment elsewhere. That is what freedom is. It works both ways.

Like I said before: make your employees relocate and find another job, or make your patrons get up and go outside for 5 minutes when they want a smoke?

There's also a fine line between giving people the freedom to do what they want and guiding the minority in the direction dictated by the majority. That's not to say that the rights of the minority are in question, but when the well-being of the majority requires it, the minority can be inconvenienced a little bit.

Honestly, if every bar in your city went smoke-free, it would probably have little effect on your business. Any decline would only be for the first few months after the bylaw went into effect, and that would be only from the loss of your regulars who sit at the bar and smoke from 11 until 9.

The majority of your customers who came in would likely be very happy with the change.

 

[Matt]

*sighs*



So, let me get this straight? If the people voted to grant Bush unlimited powers to reign over America, to do whatever he wants, it'd be OK, because, hey, using your inane logic, the people voted.

NO! WRONG! In order for a Democracy (or Democratic Republic or Federal Republic, whichever term your prefer) to thrive and function, yes, the people have to have a say in what goes on, but what they say has to promote or somehow co-exist with the idea of freedom, not the exact opposite. In other words, yes, OK, if we all voted for Bush to become our Supreme Chancellor, yes, we all voted, yippee, BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT DEMOCRATIC!!



You, my friend, are an intelligent human being.



Just quoting you so the children who are to frightened without the big, bad government there making decisions for themselves will read it again and realize their own stupidity and change the way they think.



Exactly. I’ll eat fatty foods if I want to. It affects NO ONE BUT ME. I HAVE A RIGHT TO HURT MYSELF. I mean, Christ, are we going to start banning suicide, too?

"That kid just killed himself. Oh, God, that'll be a $50 fine. OK, fellows be careful with him, just lock his dead corpse up in that cell over there. That'll teach him not to kill himself again."



Wow! Please get out of this country. You couldn't be more against freedom and Democracy than Adolph ****ing Hitler. So is the government going to start banning McDonald's, Coke A Cola, Alcohol? Are they gonna start forcing everyone to eat their daily dose of vegetables? Are they going to dictate everyone's exercise habits, too? I mean, after all, according to you, it's promoting healthy habits!

Seriously, YOU ARE AN ADULT. MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR YOURSELF. JESUS, H. CHRIST!!!!



I know. You’d think this were rocket science with the way we have to keep repeating ourselves.



No. No no no no no!

Obesity. Is. Not. Contagious.

If I want to be the fattest mother ****er on the earth, I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT. It harms NO ONE but myself. WHY DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. In a democracy, the government should ONLY INTERFERE with private affairs when it starts affecting and damaging OTHER people WITHOUT their consent.

If you don’t like that someone is smoking, get up and leave. There are PLENTY of restaurants that have been deemed non-smoking by the RESTAURANT OWNERS themselves. Eat there!

And this is where I get to being an adult and making decisions yourself and not being so dependent on the government. The restaurant owner I referred to in the example above made the decision HIMSELF to ban smoking in HIS restaurant.

See? He’s an adult. He’s a human being, he made this decision HIMSELF. Likewise, another restaurant owner who could be a smoker might decide to permit smoking in his restaurant so he can do it. After all, it’s HIS restaurant!!



I by NO MEANS was trying to offend you. If I did, I'm terrible sorry. Seriously.

I was just pointing out what is so undemocratic about a lot of big-government viewpoints. When you tried to justify the anti-smoking laws even further by saying it helped you quit, I merely mentioned how that was just another example of a person being dependent on the government for help. I mean, it got so far that the government had to pass a law affecting EVERYONE in order for you to quit.

You used to smoke. But all the sudden the handy dandy government comes into the equation, and poof, you stop smoking...but at the expense of other people's decisions that they might want to continue smoking.

What if the Emancipation Proclamation had simply made slavery optional? How long would it have taken for it to disappear?

Wow.

You couldn’t be more wrong and more far off from my point. Listen, I’m gonna repeat again…

In a democracy, the government should ONLY INTERFERE with private affairs when it starts affecting and damaging OTHER people WITHOUT their consent. I have a right to do ANYTHING as long as it doesn’t negatively affect another person, and as long as I have THEIR permission to do it.

So now get this…

Slavery. Affects. Other. Human. Beings.

Smoking also does. But the people who don’t like it. Aren’t being forced. To sit around them. And some people. Like me. Just don’t mind it.

I just don’t get how anyone could disagree with freedom. It’s like one of the most basic fundamental ideas.

Small government = Limited power = free people.

Big government = HUGE power = less free people.

Period.

Oh, yeah.

Vote Libertarian.

The end.

Banning smoking = banning gay marriage = banning female suffrage = banning African American suffrage = banning my right to pee = banning my right to scratch my chin = banning my right to *********e in private = banning my right to smoke in my home.

As I wrote this I started to realize I was being somewhat rude in my reply, but was to lazy to go back and edit, so you may find that I'm kinda snotty at the beginning, and nicer at the end, so please do not be offended my anything I've written here as it was not intended to do that. Thanks!!

Bravo Dan, we may not agree on much, but I applaud this post.

 

[Matt]

Like I said before: make your employees relocate and find another job, or make your patrons get up and go outside for 5 minutes when they want a smoke?

Doesn't matter. It is my choice as an employer. Just as it is my employee's choice not to work for me. I'll give them a letter of recommendation, a pat on the back for their convictions and send them on their way. I'm not lording over them with a whip making them work for me. It is their choice. If the smoke bothers them go somewhere without it. I've worked at places with company policies that I hate, should I petition the government to remove them? Hell no, I quit and went somewhere else (and eventually opened my own business).

There's also a fine line between giving people the freedom to do what they want and guiding the minority in the direction dictated by the majority. That's not to say that the rights of the minority are in question, but when the well-being of the majority requires it, the minority can be inconvenienced a little bit.

Ok, I'm going to be rude because I've said it a million times and you ignore it.

IT IS NOT ENDANGERING THE WELL-BEING OF THE MAJORITY. THE MAJORITY CAN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT. THEY ARE NOT BEING TIED DOWN AND HAVING SMOKE BLOWN IN THEIR FACE

Honestly, if every bar in your city went smoke-free, it would probably have little effect on your business. Any decline would only be for the first few months after the bylaw went into effect, and that would be only from the loss of your regulars who sit at the bar and smoke from 11 until 9.

The majority of your customers who came in would likely be very happy with the change.

IT DOESN'T MATTER! I should be the one who makes the choice. Not the government, not the voters. It is MY, I repeat MY private property and therefore MY choice. If the customers would be happier they can hightail it to another bar that forbids smoking and be happy there, but my bar is staying the same.

 

[Armand Z Trip]

Where I live there is no smoking in restaurants and bars, you can smoke on the patios. The most ludicrous thing to me is exemptions for casinos and strip clubs. If you accept that second hand smoke is a health issue defined by law then there should be no exemptions. What have you got here? Burgers and wings? NO SMOKING!!! What is going on over here? Gambling and boobies? Smoke if you got 'em!

 

[Halcohol]

So, let me get this straight? If the people voted to grant Bush unlimited powers to reign over America, to do whatever he wants, it'd be OK, because, hey, using your inane logic, the people voted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the states don't you guys vote directly for propositions during elections? I think all husker was saying was that he voted for the bylaw. Individual cities do hold plebiscites for important bylaws sometimes. Nobody's saying "Give Bush unlimited power!" that's for DAMN sure. Congress gave it to him on a silver platter with the PATRIOT Act

Exactly. I’ll eat fatty foods if I want to. It affects NO ONE BUT ME. I HAVE A RIGHT TO HURT MYSELF.

No, it doesn't ONLY affect you. Fat people have fat kids. Think about the future, man. You want to have a 6-year old who weights 150 lbs? What kind of life are they going to lead?

Wow! Please get out of this country. You couldn't be more against freedom and Democracy than Adolph ****ing Hitler. So is the government going to start banning McDonald's, Coke A Cola, Alcohol? Are they gonna start forcing everyone to eat their daily dose of vegetables? Are they going to dictate everyone's exercise habits, too? I mean, after all, according to you, it's promoting healthy habits!

Seriously, YOU ARE AN ADULT. MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR YOURSELF. JESUS, H. CHRIST!!!!

I'm not in your country Actually, there's a proposed bill banning trans fats in food, which would primarily effect places like McDonald's. A&W Canada just became the first fast-food chain up here to ban trans fats and, God bless 'em, they did it willingly. I wouldn't want to see them ban Coke, 'cause I drink it all the time. What I DO want to see them ban is the ultra-large gallon sized Cokes you can buy at (strangely enough) McDonald's. Also, your country DID ban alcohol at one point.

The government wouldn't dare try to force people to eat their daily requirement of vegetables or to get their exercise, as that's an invasion of your privacy in how you run your life. What the government does is restricts or allows your access and exposure to the sort of harmful things like second-hand cigarette smoke and trans fats.

If I want to be the fattest mother ****er on the earth, I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT. It harms NO ONE but myself. WHY DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. In a democracy, the government should ONLY INTERFERE with private affairs when it starts affecting and damaging OTHER people WITHOUT their consent.

You mean like having to breathe smoke in a public place without wanting to?

If you don’t like that someone is smoking, get up and leave. There are PLENTY of restaurants that have been deemed non-smoking by the RESTAURANT OWNERS themselves. Eat there!

And this is where I get to being an adult and making decisions yourself and not being so dependent on the government. The restaurant owner I referred to in the example above made the decision HIMSELF to ban smoking in HIS restaurant.

See? He’s an adult. He’s a human being, he made this decision HIMSELF. Likewise, another restaurant owner who could be a smoker might decide to permit smoking in his restaurant so he can do it. After all, it’s HIS restaurant!!

Now THIS point of view, I understand. I totally get that people are pissed off because it seems that their right to choose has been taken away. What if there were some delicious new food produced from mercury and asbestos? Do you think the government would allow it to be sold? No. They'd take away your choice for the GOOD OF THE PUBLIC. So what if a small group of people decides it's delicious, maybe even a delicacy? They'd be told no, because it will harm your children. IMO, that's the next step in the anti-smoking movement.

I by NO MEANS was trying to offend you. If I did, I'm terrible sorry. Seriously.

Don't sweat it. I realized as I was typing my reply that I wasn't sure if that was a direct "you" or a general "you".

I was just pointing out what is so undemocratic about a lot of big-government viewpoints. When you tried to justify the anti-smoking laws even further by saying it helped you quit, I merely mentioned how that was just another example of a person being dependent on the government for help. I mean, it got so far that the government had to pass a law affecting EVERYONE in order for you to quit.

You used to smoke. But all the sudden the handy dandy government comes into the equation, and poof, you stop smoking...but at the expense of other people's decisions that they might want to continue smoking.

No, I didn't quit smoking because of it. It just so happened that I was in the middle of quitting when they passed the bylaw. I knew that I wasn't going to be able to smoke while drinking anymore, so I broke myself of the habit. It was an aid, it was like a new Nicorette patch had come onto the market or something. I'm not dependent on Nicorette, just like I'm not dependent on the government.

But the people who don’t like it. Aren’t being forced. To sit around them. And some people. Like me. Just don’t mind it. I just don’t get how anyone could disagree with freedom. It’s like one of the most basic fundamental ideas.

So what takes priority, the right of the individual not to be exposed to harmful toxins, or the right of a business owner to allow his customers to be exposed to harmful toxins?

Look, I'm in no way against freedom, or democracy. These sort of things are a direct result of the wishes of the majority (ie democracy). Not only does an anti-smoking bylaw promote healthier living by giving customers a smoke-free place to be, but it makes smokers go through more effort to continue smoking, thus giving them added motivation to quit.

I realize that this isn't going to happen overnight, and that many many people simply aren't going to buy into anti-smoking. But it has to start by drilling it into the minds of smokers that it IS affecting others and that it's NOT a good thing. It's NOT your right to smoke wherever you want to, because the majority of those toxins soak into everything around you and become ingrained in the chemical make-up of the fabric or carpet or wood or whatever. It'll be there even if your establishment closes and something else opens up in the same space.

But I fail to see how helping promote healthy living in your city is any more unconstitutional than licensing handguns.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Where i come from,we have similar laws preventing those who smoke,from spreading their second hand smoke.