Smoking Bans

[John Dibble]

There's been a number of attempts to ban smoking in privately owned restaraunts and bars in the past few years(in my state included).

Advocates of such bans say that smoking endangers the health of people who go to those establishments, and that we have the right to clean air.

Opponents of such bans say it violates the property rights of the owners, who have the right to choose what clients their facility caters to. They also say you can not be forced to go to a restaraunt that allows smoking.

What is everyone's thoughts on the matter?

[JohnFKennedy]

I support the bans, a new study out seems to show that passive smoking is in fact worse for you than smoking yourself. I don't think it is fair therefore that someone should be allowed to unnecessarily endanger your health so that they can get some pleasure.

[??????????]

Violation of a business owners rights. I support any business owner that "violates" this law. And I recommend every bar and restuarant to "violate" this travesty of a "law".

[robre]

I support the bans, a new study out seems to show that passive smoking is in fact worse for you than smoking yourself. I don't think it is fair therefore that someone should be allowed to unnecessarily endanger your health so that they can get some pleasure.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

[TheWildCard]

I am very much for these bans. The fact is if you want to kill yourself get some chewing tobbaco or and knock yourself out! No one should have to inhale the crap thats coming out of your cigarette or cigar just because they want to sit down and enjoy a nice dinner.

[??????????]

I am very much for these bans. The fact is if you want to kill yourself get some chewing tobbaco or and knock yourself out! No one should have to inhale the crap thats coming out of your cigarette or cigar just because they want to sit down and enjoy a nice dinner.

Why is it the governments business? I both smoke (not cigarettes) and chew although I still don't like doing either while I eat. But I don't feel it is the governments right to tell a private business what to do. If a person doesn't like smoke go somewhere that's smoke free.

[JohnFKennedy]

I support the bans, a new study out seems to show that passive smoking is in fact worse for you than smoking yourself. I don't think it is fair therefore that someone should be allowed to unnecessarily endanger your health so that they can get some pleasure.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

A new study, I looked at those and they seem to date from 1992. When I say a new study, I mean a more recent one than that. I heard it mentioned a lot more recently than that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A relative of mine died because of passive smoking.

[Wakie]

I believe businesses should have to clearly indicate out front if they allow smoking ... as a health warning.

"WARNING: Entering this restaurant may cause lung cancer."

[robre]

I do not use any tobacco products, but I strongly advocate your right to use them in establishments where the owner of the property allows you to. Unlike the general public, I realize that second hand smoke is not nearly as dangerous as the general public has assumed it to be at the prodding of mass media.

[John Dibble]

My view: If the government wishes to ban smoking in government buildings(such as government owned museums and workplaces) that is fine with me, those buildings belong to the government. A restaraunt belongs to the person who owns it, much as your house belongs to you. If government can ban a restaraunt from allowing smoking in it, what stops them from banning smoking in my house? Don't give me the idea that a restaraunt is public and my house is private - a restaraunt can reject potential customers if it wishes to do so, just as I can reject people who want in my house. If I hold a party at my house, should the government require that I ban smoking there?

And no, I don't smoke, I don't like the smell of smoke, and I think it's a dirty habit.

[robre]

I support the bans, a new study out seems to show that passive smoking is in fact worse for you than smoking yourself. I don't think it is fair therefore that someone should be allowed to unnecessarily endanger your health so that they can get some pleasure.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

A new study, I looked at those and they seem to date from 1992. When I say a new study, I mean a more recent one than that. I heard it mentioned a lot more recently than that.

Cool. How am I supposed to respond to something like this?

[KEmperor]

It's completely ridiculous.  If you are going into a bar, you know damn well that there will be smokers.  Hell, there are a lot of people who only smoke when they drink!  All this does is hurt small businesses and provide an inconvienience for people who are doing nothing illegal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I do not use any tobacco products, but I strongly advocate your right to use them in establishments where the owner of the property allows you to. Unlike the general public, I realize that second hand smoke is not nearly as dangerous as the general public has assumed it to be at the prodding of mass media.

So my relative is alive and well then?

[JohnFKennedy]

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html

[robre]

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html

Yeah, that is the 1993 study, isn't it.

[JohnFKennedy]

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html

Yeah, that is the 1993 study, isn't it.

That isn't the study I was referring to before. That is just one I found now.

[TheWildCard]

I am very much for these bans. The fact is if you want to kill yourself get some chewing tobbaco or and knock yourself out! No one should have to inhale the crap thats coming out of your cigarette or cigar just because they want to sit down and enjoy a nice dinner.

Why is it the governments business? I both smoke (not cigarettes) and chew although I still don't like doing either while I eat. But I don't feel it is the governments right to tell a private business what to do. If a person doesn't like smoke go somewhere that's smoke free.

My point is when you smoke the toxins coming out of your cigarette are much more dangerous to those around you then to you. I know people who get pretty damn sick when they are exposed to ciggarette smoke and its sad when they can't go into a place because they get horribly ill due to the smoke or when a room has been heavily smoked in.

I do, however, agree with you that business owners do have rights but the health of their costumers should be a priority.

[robre]

I do not use any tobacco products, but I strongly advocate your right to use them in establishments where the owner of the property allows you to. Unlike the general public, I realize that second hand smoke is not nearly as dangerous as the general public has assumed it to be at the prodding of mass media.

So my relative is alive and well then?

What did this relative die from? Lung cancer or heart attack?

[JohnFKennedy]

I am very much for these bans. The fact is if you want to kill yourself get some chewing tobbaco or and knock yourself out! No one should have to inhale the crap thats coming out of your cigarette or cigar just because they want to sit down and enjoy a nice dinner.

Why is it the governments business? I both smoke (not cigarettes) and chew although I still don't like doing either while I eat. But I don't feel it is the governments right to tell a private business what to do. If a person doesn't like smoke go somewhere that's smoke free.

My point is when you smoke the toxins coming out of your cigarette are much more dangerous to those around you then to you. I know people who get pretty damn sick when they are exposed to ciggarette smoke and its sad when they can't go into a place because they get horribly ill due to the smoke or when a room has been heavily smoked in.

Happens to me.

[robre]

Cancer risk from passive smoking 'less than feared'

Also, an alergic reaction is no indicative of a true health risk, unless you let it go unchecked and it turns into bronchitis or pneumonia.

If there is one cronic disease that western civilization suffers from it is a misunderstanding of risk. Somethings may be "dangerous" but that does not mean they actually are dangerous, which is why we have people selling high-rise parachutes and colloidal silver.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I do not use any tobacco products, but I strongly advocate your right to use them in establishments where the owner of the property allows you to. Unlike the general public, I realize that second hand smoke is not nearly as dangerous as the general public has assumed it to be at the prodding of mass media.

So my relative is alive and well then?

What did this relative die from? Lung cancer or heart attack?

Cancer. In 1993.

[TheWildCard]

Cancer risk from passive smoking 'less than feared'

Also, an alergic reaction is no indicative of a true health risk, unless you let it go unchecked and it turns into bronchitis or pneumonia.

If there is one cronic disease that western civilization suffers from it is a misunderstanding of risk. Somethings may be "dangerous" but that does not mean they actually are dangerous, which is why we have people selling high-rise parachutes and colloidal silver.

I'd assume you have not heard of asthma or cronic lung disease which is a result of exposure to smoke not to mention several studies have shown that smoking is addictive so the idea of "passive" smoking is a bit odd I've never met a passive smoker unless they are trying to quit.

[robre]

I do not use any tobacco products, but I strongly advocate your right to use them in establishments where the owner of the property allows you to. Unlike the general public, I realize that second hand smoke is not nearly as dangerous as the general public has assumed it to be at the prodding of mass media.

So my relative is alive and well then?

What did this relative die from? Lung cancer or heart attack?

Cancer. In 1993.

Lung cancer?

[robre]

Cancer risk from passive smoking 'less than feared'

Also, an alergic reaction is no indicative of a true health risk, unless you let it go unchecked and it turns into bronchitis or pneumonia.

If there is one cronic disease that western civilization suffers from it is a misunderstanding of risk. Somethings may be "dangerous" but that does not mean they actually are dangerous, which is why we have people selling high-rise parachutes and colloidal silver.

I'd assume you have not heard of asthma or cronic lung disease which is a result of exposure to smoke not to mention several studies have shown that smoking is addictive so the idea of "passive" smoking is a bit odd I've never met a passive smoker unless they are truing to quit.

Passive smoking is what they call second hand smoke in the UK.