Why not? Since over 90% of consumers don't smoke they already have the power to stop smoking in most establishments if they so chose. Banning the ability of someone to chose to allow smoking in thier establish is an unnecessary intrusion on both property rights and individual liberties.
They did. The best proposal I saw was to make new bars have the smoke-free ordinance, and grandfather in other places opened from a certain date. That way, we'd all have plenty of choices. To make EVERY bar non-smoking is ludicrous.
Not really - most smokers I know don't mind stepping out and smoking outside. It's just a more pleasent experience for everyone once the smoke is gone. Besides, Houston's a warm city - it's not so hard to step out or go to the deck to have a smoke. You'll meet more people that way anyway. Trust me, everyone here cried when they put the ban into affect, but now everyone is fine with it. And the weather here is much colder and rainier then in Houston.
Only if I'm a cigarette retailer, if I understand it correctly. I want to have a bar called SMOKERS under my previously outlined criteria. I want to serve hot wings and burgers, beer and spirits, and allow smoking. I forgot to include the bar part earlier .
That's hardly a determinant of whether or not it infringes on property or personal liberty. Most smokers I know do mind stepping outside. Your opinion. Welcome to it. I think dining out is a more pleasant experience if there are no crying babies in the restaurant, I don't think we should pass a ban on babies. Well smokers shouldn't get to hog the outside. I think we'll be fine letting the nonsmokers congregate outside in the warm weather and get all that networking in!
You'l adjust man - every smoker does. I smoke and I like the ban. It just makes such a huge difference. And yeah, second hand smoke is bad for you. Ask an asthmatic.
From a business stand point, I am willing to bet that a lot of non-smokers stay away from certain joints because they don't want to be around smokers. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of sports bars/etc that are protesting this ban end up benefiting in the long run. Speaking for myself, there are few places that I used to frequent -- great food, nice atmosphere, good service -- but I stopped going because I did not want to be around smokers or smoke 'leaking' into the non-smoking section while I am trying to enjoy my meal. I imagine I am not the only one here who's had a similar experience. At the same time, the city should make an effort to accommodate smokers and those businesses who rely on them.
How would an asthmatic know if it was good for me? I could be allergic to onions, that doesn't mean we should ban chopping onions in restaurants. I was living in NY when their ban went into effect. You shouldn't assume someone doesn't understand the implications of their position.
I honestly believe if nonsmokers just used their power as consumers they could get all the nonsmoking places they wanted without banning smoking. I can understand why you don't want to be around it.
Banning smoking from bars takes away the freedom of smokers to stay inside and smoke. It gives non-smokers the freedom to go to a bar that doesn't smell like sh*t, that won't make them smell like sh*t, and doesn't have unacceptable levels of carcinogens in the air. If smoking was an activity that could affect only one person, (like drinking alcohol,) without wafting sh*t-smelling carcinogens around, I could understand the 'taking away freedoms' argument. But smokers affect everyone around them. For years smokers have been taking away the ability of everyone around them to breathe clean air. That's changing. The freedom of non-smokers to enjoy clean air in a public space trumps smoker's freedom to breathe carcinogens and make themselves and everything and everyone around them smell like sh*t.
Sigh. If you don't like the smell that is one thing, but banning it because you don't like the smell is another. The health effects are simply unproven pseudoscience. Thousands of people are killed on the roads in alcohol related accidents - a far more verifiable risk than second hand smoke carries. I think we should ban alcohol. I don't like guys who wear too much Polo. I think we should ban perfume and cologne. I don't like smoke from my neighbors grill wafting across my lawn. I think we should ban outdoor grills. I don't like pollution from automobiles. We should ban cars. These kind of claims are not convincing. Nonsmokers comprise the vast majority of the market, and if they used the power that conveys they would have all the nonsmoking outlets they desired. At the same time smokers would also be able to enjoy a smoking establishment. That is the optimal outcome. You not liking the smell of something is not justification enough to strip me of my individual rights.
The_Conquistador is EXUBERANT at this wonderful, progressive move by the Houston City Council. He is JUBILANT. Libertarianism, at its theoretical core, breaks down when the assumption of no negative externalities is violated. Smoking provides us with an illustration of perhaps the most clear example of negative externalities -- the insidious, selfish pleasures which smokers derive from cigarettes come at great costs to society. The health care system is burdened, pollution occurs (air and littering), and non-smokers are subjected to both smelly clothes and damaged respiratory systems. Is there a better sight at a bar than watching a group of smokers huddled outside (but no closer than 20 feet from the door!) in cold, rainy weather, miserably trying to get their nicotine fix? NO THERE IS NOT! To those of you upset with today's development, I have but two words to offer you: TOUGH TITTY
Libertarianism assumes the possibility of negative externalities but argues that market forces would check this problem. Also, this really isn't a classic example of the negative externality as it is a byproduct of the consumer rather than the corporate establishment itself. But anyway, libertarians would argue that the people who decide not to go to bars because of smoke would either constitute a large enough group to where it would force some bars to go smoke-free to attract that market or that group is so small to where its irrelevant what they think. But beyond that, I'm really not sure what to think of a smoking ban. I'm not a smoker and I've got mixed feelings on the issue.
I am not a proponent of an outright ban on smoking at all city establishments. I do feel like it's infringing on their rights, so I do sympathize. But more importantly, we have a T_J sighting
Your opinion. Welcome to it. I think dining out is a more pleasant experience if there are no crying babies in the restaurant, I don't think we should pass a ban on babies. r u kidding me, crting babies is completly different than someone blowing smoke over you table
The nicotine will make addicts do extreme things like fighting this tooth and nail or making wild claims, but the nicotine will also force them to grin and bear going outside. If it'll help them get their fix, especially when drunk, then so be it.
