Arguments for/against smoking in public areas.

U

uncballzer

aka Silky
Stemming from this question just a little bit ago (http://www.clubstogie.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1123463&posted=1#post1123463)

What are your reasons for or against smoking in public areas. I'm wondering specifically for bars/night-life/etc. I've got this bar that just went non-smoking except for a "smoker's lounge" away from everything else. I'm in med school, and I've heard nothing but happiness about this here (in WV also). What are some counter-arguments you would use for smoking in public areas. (doesn't have to be specifically for a bar, but that's the thing that's on my mind at the moment.)
 
Well for a privately owned establishment, I would make the argument:

Why can't the owner decide if he wants smoking in there or not? As long as people know before they go in/start working there, how is this so ridiculous? I thought this was considered to be one of those things we have called.... "rights"
 
coryj said:
Well for a privately owned establishment, I would make the argument:

Why can't the owner decide if he wants smoking in there or not? As long as people know before they go in/start working there, how is this so ridiculous? I thought this was considered to be one of those things we have called.... "rights"
Click to expand...
I agree,What happend to the right's of people to chose what happens in privately owned property's.as for the rest of what I think :bn:bn:bn
 
coryj said:
Well for a privately owned establishment, I would make the argument:

Why can't the owner decide if he wants smoking in there or not? As long as people know before they go in/start working there, how is this so ridiculous? I thought this was considered to be one of those things we have called.... "rights"
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Heaven forbid someone is actually allowed to make a choice for themself, what is our world coming to :sb
 
coryj said:
Well for a privately owned establishment, I would make the argument:

Why can't the owner decide if he wants smoking in there or not? As long as people know before they go in/start working there, how is this so ridiculous? I thought this was considered to be one of those things we have called.... "rights"
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's privately owned, but what would you counter with to someone who says "it should be non-smoking anyways, no one should be allowed to smoke around anyone else, etc." Kinda getting to the extreme there, but that's the kind of argument I'm wondering about.
 
uncballzer said:
Yeah, it's privately owned, but what would you counter with to someone who says "it should be non-smoking anyways, no one should be allowed to smoke around anyone else, etc." Kinda getting to the extreme there, but that's the kind of argument I'm wondering about.
Click to expand...
I think it's a similar kind of argument. I'd take the position that it's one's right and ability, as an adult, to choose where s/he goes. If s/he chooses to frequent an establishment that allows smoking, then that's her/his choice. If s/he chooses not to, then that's a choice as well. In most instances, the market sorts this kind of thing out: e.g., if many patrons started leaving an establishment saying "call me when you're non-smoking," then a business owner might decide to make themselves non-smoking ... or tell said patrons to not let the door hit them on the arse on the way out. The funny thing is -- and I say this having hung out with some med students a bit in grad school -- I wonder how many of them are reflexive about what their drinking habits are doing to their livers. :rolleyes:
 
One brief addition: the one argument I have a hard time refuting is the employee's health argument (that second-hand smoke harms employees). Opponents of bans respond saying it's an employee's choice to work one place or not. In an ideal world and market economy, yes. In the piss-poor economy with few opportunities for people in reasonable lower-wage jobs (i.e., jobs that can actually support a family), I think it's a bit of a cynical and cruel response. The pragmatic fact of the matter is that some people really don't have any other choice ... and it's their health that still worries me.
 
The Professor said:
I think it's a similar kind of argument. I'd take the position that it's one's right and ability, as an adult, to choose where s/he goes. If s/he chooses to frequent an establishment that allows smoking, then that's her/his choice. If s/he chooses not to, then that's a choice as well. In most instances, the market sorts this kind of thing out: e.g., if many patrons started leaving an establishment saying "call me when you're non-smoking," then a business owner might decide to make themselves non-smoking ... or tell said patrons to not let the door hit them on the arse on the way out. The funny thing is -- and I say this having hung out with some med students a bit in grad school -- I wonder how many of them are reflexive about what their drinking habits are doing to their livers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I haven't had the chance to state that argument yet, b/c most of the ppl in my class do drink. It can be easily turned on them--yes I may be increasing my risk of Cardiovascular disease or oral cancer, but how much are you increasing your risk of liver disease by binge drinking every weekend. . . .
 
I'm less inclined to go to restaurants now that you can't smoke in 'em. I used to go to my local diner damn near every day...now I only go once every fortnight or so. When I finish eating, I want a cigarette, but I DON'T want to stand outside in the heat/rain/snow/wind. It's great to sit there with a cup of coffee and a smoke, but the NJ lawmakers took that simple pleasure away from me.

First they came for the smokers...
 
I agree with many responses already posted here. In a privately owned establishment it should be to the owner's discretion whether that business will allow smoking or not. In a sense, this is just another way the government is creeping into our capitalistic economy. I'm fairly certain (in my area, at least) that many businesses along the lines of bars, sports bar restaraunts, and cafes have suffered -- not to mention B&Ms.
 
First, I think the secondhand smoke studies are full of crap. Second, I think our government has forgotten the benefits of a free market society. Give the people what they want! If a business owner is losing business because of smoking, he or she has the right to go smoke free. Isn't that simple? I think so. I get a little tired of seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, etc. Let my people go!!

MCS
 
Major Captain Silly said:
First, I think the secondhand smoke studies are full of crap. Second, I think our government has forgotten the benefits of a free market society. Give the people what they want! If a business owner is losing business because of smoking, he or she has the right to go smoke free. Isn't that simple? I think so. I get a little tired of seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, etc. Let my people go!!

MCS
Click to expand...


Why does the government makes laws to "protect me?" (seat belt laws). Why should they care if I don't take care of myself. b/c I pay taxes? I can understand child-seat belt laws, etc. It would be stupid not to have those, but who really cares if I (in sound mind) buckle up or not.

I'm getting some good rants out tonight that I've needed to let lose for a while now. . . :bx
 
Great thread question. I believe it is a personal decision for both an owner and a patron. I usually only go out to eat with my family. In that case I want to be as far away from smoke as I can. Which means I frequent a lot of non-smoking establishments. When I go out with my fiance or just myself I am looking to smoke so my preference changes. I think there is an avenue for both consumers and owners to follow. I also think the private sector can cater to both preferences. Pursuit to happiness should ensure that. That's my opinion.
 
The Professor said:
I think it's a similar kind of argument. I'd take the position that it's one's right and ability, as an adult, to choose where s/he goes. If s/he chooses to frequent an establishment that allows smoking, then that's her/his choice. If s/he chooses not to, then that's a choice as well. In most instances, the market sorts this kind of thing out: e.g., if many patrons started leaving an establishment saying "call me when you're non-smoking," then a business owner might decide to make themselves non-smoking ... or tell said patrons to not let the door hit them on the arse on the way out. The funny thing is -- and I say this having hung out with some med students a bit in grad school -- I wonder how many of them are reflexive about what their drinking habits are doing to their livers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm a medical student and I smoke. I think you'd be suprised at the actual number of medical students and physicians who smoke.
 
The only argument I can see someone making with this (and therefore those of us who smoke) is that what happens if you don't die when you get in a car accident (or get oral cancer)? We wind up as a burden to the healthcare system (I live in Canada where healthcare is pretty much strictly public). It's still a stretch and I don't really buy it but I could see a smoking nazi coming back with this.

uncballzer said:
Why does the government makes laws to "protect me?" (seat belt laws). Why should they care if I don't take care of myself. b/c I pay taxes? I can understand child-seat belt laws, etc. It would be stupid not to have those, but who really cares if I (in sound mind) buckle up or not.

I'm getting some good rants out tonight that I've needed to let lose for a while now. . . :bx
Click to expand...
 
I've always believed that in a privately owned business that is open to the public, the owners of said business should be able to decide what goes on there. Whether or not customers should be allowed to smoke should be up to the owners of the business.

As far as the employees go, they don't have to work there if they don't like it. I don't really buy the argument that there are limited opportunities for low wage jobs, because those jobs probably (I'm guessing here) make up the largest segment of the job market, and they have a high turnover rate. In other words, if you don't like working in a place that allows smoking, you can probably find a job at a place that doesn't.
 
uncballzer said:
Why does the government makes laws to "protect me?" (seat belt laws). Why should they care if I don't take care of myself. b/c I pay taxes? I can understand child-seat belt laws, etc. It would be stupid not to have those, but who really cares if I (in sound mind) buckle up or not.

I'm getting some good rants out tonight that I've needed to let lose for a while now. . . :bx
Click to expand...

I agree with seatbelt and helmet laws. Who cares if you buckle up? I do! First of all, I want you to be safe. Wearing a seatbelt is safer than not wearing one. Second, it's all about the money...

We all pay for those who do not wear seat belts. The higher health care and insurance costs that result from unbelted drivers and passengers involved in crashes get passed along to everyone. For example, the costs of hospital care for an unbelted driver are 50 percent higher than those for a driver who was wearing a safety belt. Society bears 85 percent of those costs, not the individuals involved.
Click to expand...

Now about smoking in public places - that is not as cut and dry. I'm inclined to say that the owner of the establishment should make that decision.
 
I have a smoking Bar.
In my city the law is if you have minors in your establishment then it has to be non smoking. SInce my bar you must be 21 to enter it can be smoking.

THis is a fair law but has hurt the PUB's a lot. I would describe a PUB as good food and then a seperate bar. So the pubs here did not want to lose there family dining so they went no smoking. Most of their bar business dropped off over 70%.

The high end stake house have lost nearly 80% of their bar sales.
Because they did not want to lose the family dining they had to go non smoking in their bar area.

Now the bars that stayed smoking pickup a lot of business. One of the bars value trippled in less than 6 months because all the drinkers like to smoke.

I think its a fair law and its sure in the hell better than an all out ban.
 
coryj said:
Well for a privately owned establishment, I would make the argument:

Why can't the owner decide if he wants smoking in there or not? As long as people know before they go in/start working there, how is this so ridiculous? I thought this was considered to be one of those things we have called.... "rights"
Click to expand...

:tpd:

Exactly!!!

Just because someone invites the "public" in doesn't mean it is really public. Ultimately it is a privately owned place where the owner can put restrictions on who enters. If he/she wants to say "You're only welcome if you are OK with smoking" then that should be the owner's right.

As for the second hand smoke thing. I agree that most of it is overblown and/or BS. But then I'm no scientist.

However, the guy who runs this site is: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

He spends a lot of time debunking the myths pushed my anti-tobacco activists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top