We are going through a situation in Michigan right now where they are trying to make all public places "smoke-free". I still fail to see how this is good for the state. We already have an ailing economy and I can't see this really helping. People like to go out on Friday or Saturday nights, have a couple of drinks and smoke at a club or a bar. I have to imagine if this bill passes there will be more partying at home.
The overall affect will be determined by a number of factors like timing. In Kentucky it passed at a time when weather wasn't the best. My favorite bar used to be packed just after work and sporting events meant an hour or more wait for a table. They allowed smoking only in the bar. After the ban passed I walked into a nearly empty restaurant after work because the weather wasn't great and people didn't want to stand outside in cold and/or rain. It took about six months and a couple of major sporting events for things to return to normal, but over time people finally accept it because they have nowhere else to go.
That said, the effect on individual cities that passed bans took longer to recover because we have a lot of sprawl, so a number of suburban establishments were not within city limits, so finding a place that still allowed smoking was easy. Patrons just had to choose between convenience in driving or smoking. If they just wanted a quick bite they wouldn't smoke, but if they were looking for a long night out then they would drive the extra 15 minutes.
I think the bases behind the bill is that service industry employees are complaining they have unsafe work condition because of all the smoke. Guess what? People have been smoking in restaurants and bars since restaurants and bars first started appearing. They knew the dangers before submitting their application. It's like the people who move near a race track and then complain about the noise.
Agreed. I am waiting for the crab fishermen to sue because they might die on the boat. I challenge any one of these whining employees to explain why they didn't think of this before they applied. Being a bartender requires a bit of training in Kentucky (unless it is 100% tap jockey) and so it isn't as if no previous thought went into the job choice.
I still think by banning smoking out right in service establishment will have an affect on the economy, not to mention if people start quitting the government will lose tax dollars.
There is no more prominent example of government hypocrisy than to hear a politician talk about how because X number of cigarettes are purchased that a new tax will raise X amount of dollars for whatever system they want it to go to, but then in the next breath say that it will also help X number of people quit smoking. Either they are lying or stupid. But there is a possible third option: They enjoy the power of turning law abiding citizens into criminals in order to attack them during their next campaign. When you run out of criminals to blame, make new criminals.
And did you ever think about the people who dont actually frequent these places that dont smoke because it makes them feel unwell as its poluted with smoke? So even though a few smokers may be p**ssed off, it actually shouldnt effect the 'failing economy'.
Did you ever think about the business owner that owns that property that wants to do what he pleases? The rights of the business owner trumps any non-smoker who cries about not being able to get that brand of chicken wing because of the smoke.
I began to appreciate that its not nice to smoke infront of non-smokers and its certainly not nice making them be in the smokey atmosphere just because 'everyone does it' that goes out drinking in a club.
It also isn't nice to eat a hamburger in front of people who think it is murdering animals to do so, but no one supports not offending them.
There is probably more non smokers than there is smokers!
Rights are not subject to mob rule.
its not fair they should share second hand smoke and have to wake up after a night out smelling of smoke, resulting in having to do a ton of washing to get rid of it from their clothes / bed clothes / hair.
It's not fair that a business owner can't allow any legal activity he wants on his property. Hell, he can't smoke his own cigarettes on his own property. How is that right? What about his rights? No non-smoker has their right violated when they choose to visit a business that has smoking, but a smoking ban does violate the rights of the business owner.
Look at your first paragraph there, why make the smoker the dominant force when there is more non-smokers than smokers and smokers cause health problems for other people who work in an enclosed enviroment that allows smoking.
Why make a non-smoker's wishes the dominant force over a property owner's rights? You are also assuming all non-smokers dislike visiting smoking establishments. You do not speak for all non-smokers, only the vocal whiners.
So next you will say only smokers should work there too?
No one is saying that, but if you apply for a job that has activities you do not approve of or feel is unsafe then you chose to work there. No one forced you to work that job. That decision and that risk is on your head and your head alone. Do not pretend that non-smokers, who oppose smoking, have to work in smoking establishments because they do not.
Even if it was down to the business owner i still see the point in the ban, i mean its not like its too much to ask a smoker to pop out to have a cigarette outside in a nice smoking area that is built for you (if the business decides to make one, which most did in the UK as they wanted to cater for all customers). And then return into a nice clean atmosphere where no one is forced to breathe second hand smoke. It keeps the premises clean, no need to spend more on rennovations every year cause the whole place is yellow with nicotine.
If a business owner chose to ask smokers to step outside, with or without a nice area built, that is perfectly fine. But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing governments, not asking, but forcing business owners to ask certain numbers of their customers to step outside. And if that business owner smokes himself then we are forcing him to step outside, from his own property, as well.
It is too much to force a property owner to ignore his own property rights. It is too much to remove the rights of a property owner because some people feel they can't visit his property by their own free will.
Can anyone that smokes, please tell me, why do you have to smoke in the restaurant, or a pub? Why cant you wait and smoke outside?
Can anyone who doesn't like visiting smoking establishments tell me why you have to violate the rights of property owners when none of your rights have been violated?
Plus, I fail to see how this would affect the economy. The comments Ive been reading, makes me believe that the majority of the population is smoker, what it isn't thruth. Also why - not smoking in some place - would kept you from going to that place, if, lets say, the care, the treatment, the overall ambient, the professionalism of the workers, the service and (in case of a restaurant) the food is exceptional?
From the handful of waiters I know, smokers tend to sit around and smoke and order more drinks, thus leading to larger tips. It is likely not a business ending decision unless the business was struggling to begin with, and in those cases the initial switch, before smokers give up the fight and non-smokers change their own habits, can be a death blow. But in the grand scheme of things there is little long-term affect because people give up their fight because they feel it is impossible to fight against the government and their guns once they decide to violate rights.
Well you aren't forced to go out to eat, most people do go to bars and restaurants. We should be able to go to these establishments without the risk of lung cancer.
Property owner should be able to do what they want with their property without you forcing their hand by law. If the business practice was bad the business would fail. Because it didn't people began crying so that the law could force business practices to change.
In what way is that right?
Also, around here business owners actually have increased sales after the ban was placed. This shows you that people like to breathe air that isn't filled with chemicals.
I personally could care less. Rights have been violated. That is more important than anything else.
Why does no one get that point? Your wants and desires do not trump the property rights of a property owner. By what right do you have to do that? You desire to avoid smoke on private property is just that, a desire. Not a right. If someone told you what legal activities you could do or not do within your own home you would be upset and spitting mad. So, why do you think you can do it to people just because they have a business?
