Smokin' in the boys room!

[Iowachild]

I am an ex-smoker and I don't like these laws. Public places are one thing, but bars and resturants and privately owned and everyone has a choice where they go and where they work. The way I see it the more you let government tell you how to run your life the more they are going to take. "Government doesn't grant freedom. It eliminates risk by depriving it's citizens of their freedom of choice. Statute by statute, decision by decision, rule by rule, government reduces the universe of possibilities one by one. For our own good, they say. So people will be safer." If you don't like that quote how about: "First they came for the jews, but I wasn't a jew so I didn't say anything....."

 

[Robert_in_NY]

So if you don't like dining in smoke filled restaurants and 90-95% of the restaurants allow smoking where is your freedom to choose. The people who choose to smoke while they eat take your freedom to eat without smoke. Is it that hard to sit down for one hour and not light up?

It comes down to this, one person smoking in an enclosed room will ruin the experience for a dozen non smoking people. I don't care if people smoke but my grandfather chews tobacco and has a shirt that reads "if you don't blow your smoke in my face then I won't spit on you". Why should non-smokers (who are the majority) have to breath in this smoke? Just so the minority smokers can light up without having to step outside???

It isn't about taking peoples rights away, it is about giving everyone their rights. The smokers have the right to smoke still, they just have to go outside and the non smokers have the right not to have to breath it in. Yep, the big bad government is out to get us again

 

[Bird]

It isn't about taking peoples rights away

Sorry, Robert, but I disagree. It absolutely is about taking people's rights away. As far as I'm concerned, neither the non-smoker nor the smoker has the right to decide; only the owner of the property should have that right. And these laws certainly have taken away the owners' right to decide. You have the right to decide whether someone smokes, cusses, or even enters your home. Do you think the government should be able to tell you who will be welcome and who will not, in your home?

You see, you're saying that your "rights" as a non-smoker exceed the rights, not only of the smokers, but of the owner of the property. I'm afraid I can't buy that.

 

[Iowachild]

Sorry, Robert, but I disagree. It absolutely is about taking people's rights away. As far as I'm concerned, neither the non-smoker nor the smoker has the right to decide; only the owner of the property should have that right. And these laws certainly have taken away the owners' right to decide. You have the right to decide whether someone smokes, cusses, or even enters your home. Do you think the government should be able to tell you who will be welcome and who will not, in your home?

You see, you're saying that your "rights" as a non-smoker exceed the rights, not only of the smokers, but of the owner of the property. I'm afraid I can't buy that.

I agree 100% with you Bird. Resturants should be non-smoking, and more and more are all the time, but the owner(s) have to make that choice. People have the power to convice the owner to change, it's called a boycott!

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Sorry, Robert, but I disagree. It absolutely is about taking people's rights away. As far as I'm concerned, neither the non-smoker nor the smoker has the right to decide; only the owner of the property should have that right. And these laws certainly have taken away the owners' right to decide. You have the right to decide whether someone smokes, cusses, or even enters your home. Do you think the government should be able to tell you who will be welcome and who will not, in your home?

You see, you're saying that your "rights" as a non-smoker exceed the rights, not only of the smokers, but of the owner of the property. I'm afraid I can't buy that.

So the smokers have the right to "polute" the air I breath but if I don't like it I have the right to move.

Now how come everyone didn't get mad at the government when they told these coal burning power plants to clean up their act or they will fine them. Shouldn't it be up to the owner of the plant to make that "choice" by your definition. And if the people around them don't want to breath that "polution" then can just "choose" to move or boycott them.

 

[BillyP]

We the people do make the laws that govern our fine state, don't we? It all boils down to which side has the most money for lobbyist. When and if they do away with lobbying is when thing will get better. But that's way to political and I'm out of here.

 

[Bird]

A poor analogy, Robert. The polllution from the coal burning plants leaves their property and enters yours, so, in my opinion, there's a reason for the government to regulate that. But not what you, or a restaurant owner or any other property owner, do in the confines of your property. That should be your business as long as you're not harming anyone off your premises.

And like Mike said, you can boycott restaurants you don't like. You can even try to get other people to join your boycott.

What do you do when a restaurant serves food you don't like? Do you think the government should tell them what to put on the menu if you decide you don't like what they're serving, or even that the majority of people don't like what they're serving? Of maybe you think you, or the government, should be able to tell them what their waitresses have to look like, how their chairs and tables have to be made. Personally, when I find a restaurant I don't like, I just don't go there anymore.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

That should be your business as long as you're not harming anyone off your premises.

Exactly, however, you keep thinking a bar or business is private? People are allowed to walk in to a restaurant or bar at any time while the business is open. They can't walk into your house unless you let them. Now, until someone can prove smoke from cigarettes is good for you then allowing people to smoke in a public place would indeed be harming non-smoking employees and customers who walk thru the door with the "OPEN" sign. They are public places owned by private individuals allowing themselves to be governed by our government.

The analogy is sound, the only difference is the coal plant has a bigger cigarette.

 

[Bird]

Well, Robert, it's obvious that we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the government should tell you, or anyone else, what you can do on your own property, but being a non-smoker, you're in favor of the government telling them what they can do, since it's what you personally want.

So let's reverse the roles, and say that smokers are in the majority in your town, so the government says that ALL restaurants (as well as all other businesses) must have a smoking section. I'm bettin' you wouldn't still be in favor of government regulation.

And of course since I've quit smoking, I have no personal interest beyond just caring about what's right and wrong. I couldn't care less whether restaurants have a smoking section or not. And even though my wife has continued to smoke until this week, when we go into restaurants that still have smoking sections, she doesn't even carry cigarettes inside and we just tell them we don't care whether we're in the smoking or non-smoking section.

Of course we live out in the suburbs and the number of eating places out here is unbelieveable. The no smoking rules in Dallas have been a tremendous benefit for the suburban restaurants; driving the business out here.

 

[dmartin88]

" If you don't like that quote how about: "First they came for the jews, but I wasn't a jew so I didn't say anything....."

Interesting, equating inaction to stop the holocaust with anti smoking laws, a bit of a stretch for me!