Should smoking be banned in restaurants and bars?
Why or why not?
We are currently debating this issue in Pittsburgh.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
If a business-owner decides to have a smoke-free work place, that is his right.
If his customers or employees petition for a smoke-free workplace and the business owner acquiesces, then that is ok, too.
But when do-gooders and politicians use the power of government to intrude into the operation of a private business and dictate whether smoking can occur there - that is tyranny. It is the antithesis of the liberty and freedom that are supposed to be our birthright.
- tigers2424Lv 51 decade ago
Yes. A non-smoking person should be able to sit down in a restaurant and not inhale unhealthful smoke while they eat. My wife grew up in a house of smokers and now she has Bronchitis. This same principal applies here. If I go to a resturaunt for along period of time with smokers in the vicinty, I will get Bronchial & Lung problems. This is FACT!!. Is this right? F**K NO !!! If they want to smoke they can go outside or if the resuraunt is smart enough they would create a whole new room seperate from NON smokers. I live in Las Vegas and this is a huge problem out here right now. They just passed A Smoking ban in all Resturaunts. Overwelming in the polls. We have Gamming Bars out here that serve food These Gamming bars now have to get rid of the FOOD to keep smokers or get rid of smokers to sell food. Nevada has one of the largest amount of smokers in the U.S.. Guess what? The majority of these Gamming Bars are keeping the Food and kicking out the smokers and none of these establisments are hurting. In fact more people are now coming to these places (more than before). Most of the smokers I have talked too actually don't like smoking when they are eating. This says a million words right there.
- 1 decade ago
The libertarian response is to leave it up to the restaurant owners. But we do not let restaurant owners refuse service to someone because he or she is Black, nor should we. Similarly, we should not allow restaurants to allow smoking in-doors. Just like racial discrimination, it is harmful and the government is permitted to regulate to prevent a harm from being done on its citizens. The "rights" argument gets you nowhere. Saying you have a right to smoke begs the question: why don't I have a right to clean air? We need policy analysis, and as I said, I think intervention in the market is warranted here because the government is acting to protect its citizens from a harm. Indeed, lung conditions-- asthma, cancer and many others-- are exacerbated by smoky bars and eateries. Not to mention the children, whose young lungs should not be exposed to such harmful substances. One might say, well, you don't have to go to a restaurant that allows smoking. If you don't like it don't go. But why should my actions or restaurant choices be limited by people who choose to smoke? In addition, no one seems to make this argument when it comes to health code violations, although one could. One could easily say that the government should not have health codes at restaurants because, if you want clean and safe food, just don't go to the restaurants that are not clean and whose food is not safe. But that doesn't seem right; we approve of health codes for restaurants because we think it is proper that the government prevent the harm that results from having dirty/unsafe restaurants. Why not allow the government to regulate so as to avoid the harm that results from in-door smoke? Finally, as it was pointed out, yes, every time the government regulates something, we do lose a little "liberty." But liberty to do what? In the health code scenario, it is the "liberty" to have a dirty restaurant. In the smoking context, it is the "freedom" to have a known carcinogen and asthma- exacerbator in the air. Are these really the kinds of "freedoms" we need to protect? I think not. Clearly, the benefits prevail.Source(s): Law School course on Regulation
- JeniLv 41 decade ago
Being a smoker for 13+ years, I DO believe smoking should be banned in all public places where there are children. It's one thing for bars to allow smoking, it's another to allow restaruants. I would not smoke in front of my children, nor would I take them into a place where others were smoking. Nothing ticks me off more then parents who show up at kids activites (ie baseball/football games and smoke).
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- thatgirlLv 61 decade ago
I don't believe it should be banned by the government. I believe each restaurant/bar owner should be free to make that decision. Business owners know their customers.
I've actually recently quit smoking -- but there are restaurants that I have stopped patronizing in my area because they went smoke free. That's my decision -- as it is non-smokers decisions to not patronize smoking establishments.
The smoke in restaurants truly isn't that detrimental to the health of non-smoking patrons. A study was done in my area that showed at the worst sitting in a smoky restaurant (in the smoking section) for 3 hours was the equivalent of smoking 1 cigarette. That doesn't seem bad to me -- if you chronically dine out, stop sitting in the smoking section.
A big argument here has been everyone is entitled to a smoke-free workplace. If smoke bothers you -- choose to work in a non-smoking environment -- that seems obvious.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Yes, Smoking should be banned from Restaurants, Given the potential lethal consequences of prolonged use of any dangerous substance, second hand smoke is just as bad, especially when children are involved.
No, smoking should not be banned from Bars, alcohol is bad for ones Liver, why not kill ones lung in the process?
- massagliaLv 44 years ago
on an identical time as i don't condone smoking, i can not ridicule or choose somebody else for doing so. i'm not a smoker and have under no circumstances been. i'm slightly allergic to smoke and it will supply me an allergies fit greater cases than not. I honestly have extremely enjoyed going to eating places a lot greater on condition that California has banned smoking in public institutions. Minnesota has long previous extra than California has with offering smoking factors outdoors with warmers, etc. there became into fairly fuss while the no smoking regulation became into first carried out, yet now i don't hear of any courtroom situations. human beings will purely purely step outdoors for a couple of minutes and have smoke or they only wait till they get to their autos or homes, etc. human beings who smoke have the splendid to smoke in the event that they decide to. it is their very own bodies after all. on the different hand I honestly have the splendid to a smoke unfastened atmosphere and to not have my wellbeing impacted via somebody else's smoke. the place do you draw the line? the two way you flow it is going to impact one team or the different. via ways, congratulations on quitting smoking. i comprehend it is tricky to do. My grandmother became right into a multi-p.c.. in line with day smoker who under no circumstances could stop.
- 1 decade ago
No, I do not smoke but I believe if a bar or restaurant can stay open with smoke in the air they deserve to be in buisness and obviously it is what their customers want or will tolerate. The wait staff should not be working in a bar or restaurant if they do not like smoke. There is constant need for waitstaff nationwide and many non smoking restaurants to work at. People at bars are obviously not overly concerned about their health.
- 1 decade ago
Smoking should be banned in bars. Regardless if there is a Non smoking section and a smoking section, this fake half a wall barrier does nothing. The smoke still diffuses through out the restaurant. Some people are super sensitive to cigarette smoke. My dad and I happen to be allergic to it. Here in missouri they banned smoking in public buildings which was a relief because now we can go out and eat dinner without being bothered or having to get up and leave, because of the smoke. Also smoking just doesn't cause damage to others peoples health but it is smelly....People who are non smokers do not want to smell like smoke. Sometimes I have to wash my clothes twice because of cigarette smoke from smokers.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No. If the individual owner of a bar or restaurant wants to ban smoking that's a decision that he or she makes on their own. I do not smoke and I like to go to bars. I just find ones that don't allow smoking and go there.