Smoking bans across the nation
By seaymartin
@seaymartin (18)
United States
January 13, 2008 4:06pm CST
Yet another example of a regulated society, a smoking ban. In Louisville, KY in January 08 they mandated a smoking ban for all businesses without any exemptions. That's the bars, restaurants, night clubs, and the bingo halls. Don't you expect smoke?
But Wait. Our wonderful government has decided that they are no longer going to tax us for tobacco. Yea right? That's not gonna happen but they will tax you to purchase a legal product and then fine you for its usage, up to possibe jail time.
I believe there shouldn't be any law that is able to regulate the use of a legal product. This should be decided by the business owners/operators. Who are also paying business taxes. After all, its their investment. Let them call the shot.
Smoking bans, whats next?
2 people like this
5 responses
@sid556 (30959)
• United States
14 Jan 08
i'm a smoker and i do agree that it is wise not to allow smoking in most public places. A non-smoker should be free to walk into any public place and not have to deal with the smoke. They should not have to avoid certain public places to avoid the smoke. Still that should be up to the owner of the establishment to decide and not our government.
1 person likes this
@joey_matthews (8354)
•
13 Jan 08
We have had the smoking ban here in all public places since july 2007.
I think its a good idea, because why should non smokers have to put up with smoke being blown in our faces all day long just because we choose to go out somewhere.
The smoking and non smoking areas didn't really change much, because no one payed attention to them.
I still get fed up of people smoking outside the hospital even though it has signs everywhere and is clearly a non smoking area.
I know most people pay taxes and should be able to do what they want, but its not fair we should have to have smoke everywhere we go.
There are smoking areas for people to smoke so thats good enough in my opinion.
Children and people with health conditions really shouldn't be in smokey areas either.
~Joeys wife
1 person likes this
@jeweledbluerose (3061)
• United States
14 Jan 08
The only real problems I have with smoking bans is, they are turning the public eye to view smokers as some sort of animal that needs to be caged and kept out of sight, and they are taking away the business owner's right to choose for his/herself what sort of clientle they are wanting inside.
Yes, non-smokers have their rights too, but it sort of ticks me off when they are basically stomping on a smoker's right to do something, that's legal still, out in public and still be able to enjoy a meal or whatever, before hand.
I've seen it many times, a non-smoker will go into a place fully aware that smoking was allowed inside, only to come out complaining of smelling bad, having a hard time breathing, then do everything in their power to make sure that place caters to only non-smoking individuals. Now tell me how is that right or even fair? People should have been aware that before the smoking bans were put in place that if it was a restaurant, bar, nightclub etc. the owner most likely allowed smoking inside, and if they weren't aware than that is an entirely different issue.
So to me, this is all just another reason for a group of people to act like 5 year olds, throwing a temper tantrum until they get their way, no matter who or what they have to stomp on to get it.
@rx4life (1930)
• United States
14 Jan 08
The only reason the smoking bans are holding up in court is because they have hard evidence that it affects the people around the smoker and their health shouldn;t be compromised because someone decides to smoke...If what a person is doing is only affected them it would be a different story..there are many people that couldn't go to restaurants/bars/nightclubs because they get so sick from the smoke...invasive acts have consequences..those that want to smoke in their own cars or homes have only themselves to worry about..but if they decided it was all right for someone to light a chemical that wafted through the air and could cause you to become sick and die..wouldn't you think that was wrong..smoking may have been around a long time and many have/do smoke but that doesn't make it any safer for those around the smoker...Would you knowingly stand next to a toxic chemical that was infiltrating your lungs? The entire point is that it is not just a decision made and affecting one person...it is a decision that affects everyone in the surrounding area...it is a litigious society and if they don't ban the smokers they could stand libel for the illness that might befall other customers...I agree that the government is messed up about the taxes...and in answer to your question about expecting smoke?...No I don't expect it..like I don't expect toxic chemicals of any kind to be allowed in public places. I'm not indicting smokers..only that their particular vice has a potent affect on others..therefore it is legislated to protect those that don't cjoose to do it!!! If smoker's were only exposing themselves it would be a whole different story...
@lucygoosey (16)
• Australia
14 Jan 08
In australia, we have smoking bans for restaurants, night clubs, bars etc. It is a really good idea, those of us who dont smoke should be able to enjpy a night out without coming home stinkning of smoke! Not to mention breathing it in as a passive smoker. Now they just need to make up a rule that people can't smoke right outside shopping centres, clubs, bars etc, so that when you leave them you have to walk right through it to get out . . Yuck!!