is it fair to ban smoking in bars and etc?
929325
I will assume you mean a government-enforced ban on smoking in your question.\n\nTo whom are such government decrees fair?\n\nAre they fair to the smokers: definitely not.\nAre they fair to the non-smokers: definitely not.\nAre they fair to the bar owners: definitely not.\n\nSuch bans are not fair to the smokers because they should have the right to smoke in any place where the owner allows them to smoke.\n\nThey are not fair to the non-smokers because the ban removes the choice to go to a smoke-filled bar or a smokeless bar.  These environments may have very real differences in price and quality, both of which are lost in forced homogenization.\n\nFinally, such bans are most unfair to the bar owners, who have their private property (and thus their freedom) infringed upon by bureaucrats who have no financial stake in their business.  Just as your home is your property if you own it, so would your bar be private property. The government has no more right to control your business than it does your home so long as you are not violating anyone else's rights.
850829
I smoke as well but I do feel there are some places we shouldn't smoke as a courtesy to others.  Such as a restaurant where children are present, but a bar, YES, we should be able to smoke in a bar.
915447
Really, this is a capitalist country. Competition and the free market are supposed to take care of everything. The point is, if people don't want to deal with smoke at a restaurant or bar, they'll go to a nonsmoking establishment. If the smoking establishment loses business they might consider banning smoking. That's how America works! You're totally right that it should be up to the individual owner. It's his own paycheck he's screwing with so he will make the right decision based on what kind of people patronize his place. It really pisses me off too that towns and states ban smoking.
1050053
Hi, I would want it to. But in reality that would be unfair. People have choice, and if they chose to harm themselves then so be it. But it shouldn't be at the expense of others- in a public place, where other people recieve the second hand smoking.
127193
This is a question I love to answer....\nNo, but I do think they should have thier own area to smoke.\n\nYou have the right to not go into a restraunt that allows smoking too, sooooo.. DON'T...\n\nNow, why I love this question.  Those darn liberal's keep coming back up.  They can not draw a line on what is freedom of a person's body and what is not.\nAbortion to me should be illegal except in extreme cases. (They say that it is a right for a woman to chose what happens to her body)\nSmoking is already legal. (They don't think you should smoke, because it creates cancer and they have to pay for it) (They do not think you should have a choice about smoking)\nThey think that the country is taking away too many of it's freedoms with spying and Patriot act, yet, they do not want you to have the choice to smoke.  ILLOGICAL!\n\nBasically, I think everyone has the right to do what they want and enjoy as long as it does not encrouch the rights of others.  Smokers in a smoking area with a smoke eater system allows just that.\n\nOh, and for the Singapore comment..  If you love it so much, MOVE there!  It is communistic already!
108205
Definately. It is nearly completely banned in Australia. Soon the only place you will be able to smoke down here, will be in your own home with no children and non-smokers present and only if you have a purifier to clean the air before it escapes outside.
345818
I think that it is indeed, out of control.  Recently some cities in Minnesota have begun enforcing smoking bans.  There are many businesses, bars/restaurants specifically, that are losing business now.  If I owned a business that was affected by such a law I would be outraged.  And there are many that are just ignoring the law, and paying the small fee to allow patrons to smoke.  They are making more money from these smoking patrons than they are losing by paying a fine. Last I checked cigarettes are still legal to buy and own.  I would have a serious problem with BIG BROTHER (and all of these lobbyists) telling me how to run my business.\n\nAnd by the way I am not, and have never been a smoker.
460501
As I live in Scotland, we've already got it.  As a smoker, I think it's ridiculous.  I have worked in bars for a long time to fund my studies and in my experience, the majority of people who work in bars and drink in them are smokers.  As it is, now we have to go outside to have a cigarette.  This has meant less people going to bars and as a consequence, hours have been cut and some people laid off already.  In addition to this, in most places you are not allowed to take your drink outside with you and this leaves many women open to drink spiking.  We have been told for years not to leave drinks unattended, and now we have to.\n\nThe whole situation is ridiculous and is tantamount to living in a fascist society.  It would be fine if they had allowed some places to remain smoking.  All they have done is restrict choice, and that shouldn't happen in a supposedly free society.\n\nEverybody I know, smokers and non-smokers alike, think along these lines.
987631
I doubt if you can open a smoker's bar, however depending on the language of the law, you can open a private club, charge a small fee to be a member, not open to the public.  If it is a private club, they can't touch you if it is not written in the ban.
261298
I guess it is difficult for smokers to appreciate the impact on others as they are addicted and have to satisfy their addiction. It is for this reason that smoke-free workplaces have become mandatory and Governments are putting laws in place to ban smoking from pubs and clubs. On February 28, 2005, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control took effect. The FCTC is the world's first public health treaty. Countries that sign on as parties agree to a set of common goals, minimum standards for tobacco control policy, and to cooperate in dealing with cross-border challenges such as cigarette smuggling. Currently the WHO declares that 4 billion people will be covered by the treaty, which includes 92 signatories. Amongst other steps, signatories are to put together legislation that will eliminate second-hand smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.\n\nIt is not often appreciated that bars and restaurants are workplaces and people have to be exposed to tobacco smoke to earn a living. For that reason, I think that it would be better to patronise bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking rather than smoking so that you can breathe.
863856
I don't think that it should be a Gov't choice...It should be the owner of the property choice....I have yet to be somewhere where smoke bothered me because most places are non smoking...bars here in Ohio aren't most anyway...and that doesn't bother me at all...maybe the next day after smelling my clothes and hair but my breath probably stinks just as bad after a night of drinks.  This is just a way of people controlling and getting money...one of the issues on the ballot if you read closely says money for the "clean air fund"...if they band smoking why would you need a clean air fund...and what on earth are you going to do with that money?  I prefer my money to go to my child's college fund...but If this passes I won't have a choice will I?
665568
Pretty imaterial\n\nConsumers have had the choice of non-smoking restaurants and bars for sometime; whilst non-smoking in restaurants has steadily increased, there has been gradual change in pubs and bars with the use of set aside areas. Left to itself, the drift to non-smoking would have happened naturally over 5-8 years.\n\nThere are more important areas where the government should be taking action (pension reform, power supplies, transport infrastructure, reform of lords, withdrawl from Iraq, etc) that confer much more important long term benefits to the community\n\nSo instead the government has chosen smoking reform as this years 'fox hunting bill' to display some sort of progress whilst it dithers and delays on the really important stuff.\n\nTo be fair, it has been caught slightly on the hop by the Welsh and Scots regional assemblies, who in turn don't have that much power and have chosen smoking in public places as a way of demonstrating their relevance to their electrorates.\n\nWhilst smoking is an undeniable public health issue, it is an issue for smokers themselves; passive smoking in public places is a trivial risk compared to other environmental risk factors (eg traffic accidents). Studies are contradictory and point to passive smoke at home as the only significant issue\n\nThe ban just adds to yet more rules and regulations and will probably make smoking cool to a younger generation as a way to be distinctive from their elders
923722
This is the only current information I could find for you.\n\nWhile the bill could still be changed right up until the vote, here is what the latest understanding of the bill is, which was released Friday. \n\nThere would be a policy that would not allow any restaurants to allow patrons under age 18 to smoke.\nThere would be no smoking in any place of employment, retail store, mall, bowling alley, sports arena, or outdoor county park.\nSmoking would be allowed in bars.  Also, any restaurant with a bar inside will be exempt from the ban, as long as the bar is physically separated with walls or doors.\n"That would allow places like Hacienda or Friday’s or whatever restaurant that might have a clearly separated bar and restaurant to allow smoking," explains County Councilman Andy Kostielney.\n\nAside from bars, smoking would also be allowed in any business that only allows patrons 18 and over, which includes tobacco shops, bingo and social halls, as well as private clubs.\n\nPunishment for not following the law \nIf the law is passed, and businesses do not obey, the punishments are as follows. \n\nA first offense gets only a verbal warning. \nThen, there will be a written warning for a second violation.\nBusiness owners will be slapped with a $100 fine for a third violation.\nAfter that, each additional violation would cost businesses $500.  \nLastly, the fourth will cost $200. \nMoney collected would go towards the county's enforcement of the ban.
80007
A business banning smoking has nothing to do with a law. Some states have made laws outlawing smoking in businesses across the board, but otherwise, The business has a right to set its own standards on its property.  Now, laws banning smoking in government (federal and state) buildings are another matter.
240655
in america most states have had this ban for a while.  (i think new york for about 3 yrs, and ct about 2) numerous business owners have complained b/c it keeps customers away according to them.( bars/restaurants/nightclubs) as for the tax implications...i can only guess it must be pretty bad as cigs are highly taxed.
924092
Probably not enough. The anti-smoking campaigns claim health concerns as their sole motive, and I believe this for about half of the supporters. The other half need someone to whom they can feel superior, someone they can kick around. In the south for years it was blacks, in Europe it has always been the Jews.\n\n"But this is different. Smoking is bad for you and harms other people." True. Part of freedom is the freedom to make stupid choices. The marketplace usually sorts things out pretty well. Delta Airlines banned smoking on all of its flights without a law requiring it, Westin Hotels has done the same, about half the restaurants in my home town ban smoking. This is called making a choice. "It harms other people" is not on as sound a scientific ground as the "smoking nazis" would like you to believe. They quote statistics that make it sound as though there's a 40% chance that a non-smoker living with a smoker will get lung cancer, when in fact the probability of a non-smoker not living with a smoker getting lung cancer is infintessimal, and the probability when living with a smoker is infintessimal times 1.4.\n\nNew York City is contemplating an ordnance that would restrict what ingredients restaurants may use in meals not based on safety (sure they prohibit arsenic) but on whether the ingredients are healthy for you. Private companies have gotten court approval to fire employees who smoke off the job in their own homes. As written, Ohio's Issue Five will ban smoking in many private homes.\n\nTobacco is not the primary cause of preventable illness in the U.S.: obesity is. Watch out, once tobacco is gone the overweight will become the target for those who know better than you do what is good for you. Obese people consume health care resources that could go to others, they cause gas mileage to go down contributing to global warming, they require that furniture be designed to support loads that otherwise would not be required thus raising the cost of chairs, sofas and beds - the list goes on. The obese will be the next target.\n\nHow about unprotected sex? If a company can fire an employee because she or he engages in activity off the job, in the employee's own home, that may be dangerous to the employee's health, then they must have the right to prohibit unprotected sex. The rationale that the private activity might raise the employer's cost of providing health insurance applies here.\n\nSo, how many people will vote to keep smoking accessible? Probably not enough.\n\nA non-smoker Libertarian
264465
If you are talking about the UK then yes it does. When the government were debating it there were many people who objected so in an attempt to ensure the legislation actually went through parliament they offered soem concessions and options, such as the one you mentioned about provate members clubs.\n\nHowever the government actually found enough backing and was able to go ahead with a full ban on smoking:\n\nBBC FAQ Here:\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4711544.stm