Smoking in Public

from JoeUser Forums
I just got done reading over another blogger's article about smoking, as well as the comments, and I was driven to make a response to some of the comments I read.

Link

What exactly is everyone referring to by the phrase "public places?" Do they mean government-run areas, or does it simply mean any place outside the privacy of the home? I assume they mean the latter.

I hear a lot of this sentiment, as lifted from the comments:

Reply By: RPGuere Posted: Thursday, January 27, 2005
OK, I have skimmed through here and read many but not all of these posts, so sorry if I repeat what someone else has already said. First of all, I'm sick of smokers saying they're no longer allowed to eat at certain food establishments. Nobody ever said you couldn't eat there, you just can't smoke there. That is not taking away your rights. I am not allowed to bring my pet rats to eat out with me... but that doesn't mean because I'm a rat owner, I have had my rights taken away from me. It is simply not a good idea to bring a filthy animal to an eating establishment for health reasons. Just like smoking. You are more than welcome to eat there, but smoking is a danger to others in the establishment, and if you ask me I can't believe it has taken this long to make public places smoke free. I'll leave my rats at home, you smoke at home.

By the way, I don't really own any filthy rats... I was just making a point.

The truth is the rights of the smokers aren't being taken away so much as the rights of business owners are. I understand how people don't want to inhale smoke at a public restaurant. I usually don't either. And I don't want my kids inhaling it either. But I am afforded the luxury of choosing to frequent an establishment that does not allow smoking. Why can't an individual owner choose for himself what's in his best business interest? Those offended by cigarette smoke are certainly free to eat at a smoke-free restaurant. What's wrong with letting smokers eat at their own places and lighting up as they choose? Why are non-smokers always under the assumption that their presence is always desired and preferred?
1,908 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have to give you a 100% on this.  It is the Business that suffer.  It is their establishmnet and should be their choice.  if they live in a place that has Smoke Nazis as the average citizen, they probably would not stay in business very long.  But if they live in a free country, then the diners can decide.

In fact, did you know that in  most places a Business can already decide?  And yet most still allow smoking.  Why?  maybe because it is good for their business?  There is no law saying a restaurant cannot prohibit smoking in the whole establishment.  Just economics saying they should not.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sometimes I actually prefer going to a smoke-filled establish simply because of the clientele it scares away.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
[
There is no law saying a restaurant cannot prohibit smoking in the whole establishment. Just economics saying they should not.


That and not having to deal with the dirty ashtrays, stink, and mess...
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
maybe because it is good for their business?


It's great for the business--especially in bars. Smokers tend to stay longer and spend more money. They've done some interesting studies around here since one county/township (?) in Maryland banned smoking and a lot of business fled the area.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

That and not having to deal with the dirty ashtrays, stink, and mess...

But is it not the right of the business owner to decide?  How would you feel if they decided you could not do certain (legal) things in your own home, just because you may have some guests over?

My Wife is alergic to smoke, and if we are seated too near smokers, we have 2 options.  We can ask to be moved, or just not go back.  that is OUR right.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's great for the business--especially in bars. Smokers tend to stay longer and spend more money.


That makes sense, as smokers tend to linger around and smoke. When I used to smoke, I'd generally stay at a bar until my pack was empty. It wasn't really as many cigarettes as one would expect, since I bummed out almost half of every pack to cheapskates that wouldn't buy their own.

There was also something about cigarettes that made beer taste better to me. I don't smoke anymore, but even while I did I never felt a physiological urge to smoke. I could smoke a pack over the weekend when I went out in college, and not touch a cigarette the rest of the week (and not miss it either). When the school year was over, I wouldn't smoke cigarettes for the entire summer, and it wasn't a problem.