Oh but why, when they can use force of government to make other people do what they like.
This is one of those topics where you get to see who actual believes in personal freedom, and who only talks about it when it fits their views.
AsNon-smokers are perfectly free to start their own bars where they can choose not to allow smoking.
As was always the case before these bans started, non-smokers made the choice to either put up with smoke in the bars or go elsewhere. A large enough group of non-smokers who are tired of making that choice would present a tantalizing market for new non-smoking bars to open up.
Choice is what it's all about, but it is not the government's proper place or role in society to make choices for you or make the decisions you have to make "easier". Non-smokers are perfectly free to start their own bars where they can choose not to allow smoking.
Like I said before, why should the majority (non-smokers) make accommodations for smokers? It should be the other way around. Smokers choose to smoke, so they can choose to stand outside. I'm not gonna change my habits so a smoker can keep their habit.
Like I said before, why should the majority (non-smokers) make accommodations for smokers? It should be the other way around. Smokers choose to smoke, so they can choose to stand outside. I'm not gonna change my habits so a smoker can keep their habit.
Like I said before, this is about what owners of businesses are allowed to do. If an owner of a bar wants to allow his/her patrons to smoke in the bar, that is the owner's right... just as it is a homeowner's right to permit guests to smoke in the home.
The majority (us non-smokers) do not get to take away the private property rights of someone just because we're a majority.
1. It removes the non-smokers right to not second hand smoke
2. Businesses are still making money
I would disagree with a smoking ban if smokers were in a bubble where they didn't affect anyone, but the fact stands that in a smoking bar, everyone is smoking whether you're a smoker/non-smoker.
Now you can say "Start up a non smoking bar". This is indeed a choice, but a feasible one? Far from it. I could easily say back to you "Don't like this country? Its your choice to leave". In that kind of situation, you really don't have a choice.
Like I said before, why should the majority (non-smokers) make accommodations for smokers? It should be the other way around.
Smokers choose to smoke, so they can choose to stand outside. I'm not gonna change my habits so a smoker can keep their habit.
Now you can say "Start up a non smoking bar". This is indeed a choice, but a feasible one? Far from it. I could easily say back to you "Don't like this country? Its your choice to leave". In that kind of situation, you really don't have a choice.
That "right" exists only in certain areas, not private businesses or homes.
That is not a constitutionally permitted criteria by which private property rights are to be judged.
Everyone who chooses to go to a bar that allows smoking. Neither the bar's owner nor its other patrons are responsible for your choice to go to that bar.
It is a very feasible choice to find non-smoking alternatives to going into a bar that allows smoking. As a non-smoker, I do it all the time. Socializing and enjoying alcohol doesn't have to be done in a bar.
If all bars are smoking then I lost my right to go to a bar.
Realistically, all bars have smoking. This means my only choice is to not go to a bar, which means I've lost my right to go to one.
If all bars are smoking then I lost my right to go to a bar.
Realistically, all bars have smoking.
The MI smoking ban still allows smokers to smoke, just not inside. If non-smokers had to compromise all these years, smokers should too.
Xj I think you missed the point of what I meant about opening a bar.
Anyway I'm not going to change my mind because in my life experiences, smokers have more rights than I do. To me that is not ok.
Anyone who thinks that it should be up to the businesses is completely ignorant of history and why we have things like OSHA in the first place. "No one is forcing you to work there" - bullshit. When it comes down to the difference between being employed and unemployed, people will take whatever job they can get. And, if you happen to live in an area of the country where more than half the people smoke, restaurants simply aren't going to stick to their principles and ban smoking on their own. I'm sure many owners would love to, but they realize they'd lose business - not gain business. And, every place that a smoking ban goes into effect, the owners whine about how they'll end up losing business. In the long run though, they don't.
Granted, I'm not going to be taking the baby to any kind of bar or seedy establishment. All other places though, absolutely.
Also, step up littering tickets for people throwing cigarette butts everywhere.
Especially with a baby on the way, I shouldn't have to worry about going places and exposing my baby to the countless toxins in cigarette smoke.
Granted, I'm not going to be taking the baby to any kind of bar or seedy establishment. All other places though, absolutely.
Also, step up littering tickets for people throwing cigarette butts everywhere.
How about a death penalty for throwing cigarette butts out of motor vehicles?
So you support segregation? After all it's private business deciding not to serve black people.
That "right" exists only in certain areas, not private businesses or homes.
^^^^^
Yeah, because the only reason we don't have 1800s work environments is because of laws like this
Telling private businesses what legal practices people can perform in their businesses is completely overstepping the bounds that government should be crossing.
I don't know what else there is to say.
I know thinking must be difficult for you. However, my post was about the fact that private businesses with employees must adhere to more rules than people on their private property.