Petitioning for the Repeal of the Smoking Ban (Chicago: income, fence)

[Havasu]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

Agreed. Designate smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants, simple as that.

I agree, and i think it should be up to the owner-operater of the bar/restaurant to decide if they want it to be smoking or non/smoking.
And i am a non smoker.

[Frank the Tank]

I usually take the libertarian "live-and-let-live" viewpoint on these types of issues, but if you've ever been to a bar in California or New York and experienced coming home without smelling like you've been rolling around in a chimney for eight hours straight (which is what it feels like coming home from a Chicago bar), you start supporting the smoking ban argument pretty quickly. Plus, a central point to libertarianism is that while you ought to be able to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, you also shouldn't be harming or impeding on people around you. I'm not a smoker, so I can't claim to know what it feels like having to go to outside in the middle of winter to smoke a cigarette, but I think there's enough of a case that people that are around second-hand smoke can be affected (whether it's allergies or more long-term repurcussions due to constant exposure).

All of the catcalls that bar attendance will drop dramatically simply won't be true in the long-term - the nightlife in places such as NYC and LA certainly hasn't suffered due to smoking bans. As someone alluded to before, there are plenty of people who avoid bars because of the smoke. The main purpose of going to a bar (for me, anyway) is to drink. That shouldn't change whether you're a smoker or non-smoker - I know that there are "social smokers" out there, but by and large, are there really that many people that won't go out to a bar simply because they can't smoke (considering that you can't smoke at your job or at restaurants already)?

[Inthesprawlpath]

Originally Posted by desertsun41

Total ban, everywhere including your home. Abolish smoking period. As in do not make it and do not sell it. Do not grow it. Soon the helplessly addicted will be weened off and no one will ever complain ever again.

Why not,it worked with liquor and pot right? Ask Al Capone. Government just needs to butt out of everything.Supply and Demand and common sense can deal with it just fine.Let the businesses decide.If you don't want to eat,go or work there that's your decision not governments'. I'm a non-smoker.I decide where I want to go.Smokers never bothered me.It's an a$$ine law.

[jojojohnson76]

I am loving the no-smoking law. I can finally go to a restaurant and not be walked through a smoke stack on the way to my "non-smoking, but still smoky" table.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by jojojohnson76

I am loving the no-smoking law. I can finally go to a restaurant and not be walked through a smoke stack on the way to my "non-smoking, but still smoky" table.

Most smokers have no problem with total no-smoking in all or most restaurants.
It is the bars,private clubs, casinos,OTB's and race tracks where there is an issue.

[illini84]

I think it's wonderful, although I'm a non-smoker. I think it's peoples' personal choice as to whether they want to smoke, but non-smokers have NO choice except to breathe that smoke when out at a bar or club. I was kind of on the fence about this issue until I read about a bartender who got lung cancer--and never smoked a day in her life.

[Inthesprawlpath]

Originally Posted by illini84

I think it's wonderful, although I'm a non-smoker. I think it's peoples' personal choice as to whether they want to smoke, but non-smokers have NO choice except to breathe that smoke when out at a bar or club. I was kind of on the fence about this issue until I read about a bartender who got lung cancer--and never smoked a day in her life.

You choose to go to the bar or club,or not.The bartender chose to work in a bar.If over time,bars could not find bartenders to work for them because of thier smoking policy,they would change thier policy.If bars and clubs were losing business because of thier policy,they would change thier policy.Strickly Non-Smoking bars and clubs would open to fill that market.It would all work just fine without Government telling us all what's best for us.

[boris63]

I'm a non-smoker that strongly dislikes breathing 2nd hand smoke and/or smelling like smoke when I get home. That being said the previous poster has it right.

Calling it a ban on smoking in "PUBLIC" places is misleading if not downright decietful. Bars and Restaurants are not public places, but rather PRIVATE places that are open to the public. A "PUBLIC" place would be a government owned facility such as a park, school, courthouse, etc...

What this whole ban is about is violating property rights! The business owner owns his/her business every bit as much as you own your own home! Us non-smokers whether or not we are in the majority have no right to tell a "PRIVATE" business owner what to allow or what not to allow in his "PRIVATE" buisness. Any more than I as a non-smoker, if I am invited into a smokers home have the right to tell the homeowner to put out his smoke. I can simply decline the invitation if the smoke bothers me that much.

A private business owner invites the public into his/her establishment to do business with him(buy drinks, food, etc...), if any member of the public does not like the environment, he can decline the invitation and take his/her business elsewhere!

When are people going to wake up?! This ban is not about smokers rights vs. non-smokers rights! It's about the rights of individuals vs. government abuse of power!!!

[illini84]

Originally Posted by Inthesprawlpath

You choose to go to the bar or club,or not.The bartender chose to work in a bar.If over time,bars could not find bartenders to work for them because of thier smoking policy,they would change thier policy.If bars and clubs were losing business because of thier policy,they would change thier policy.Strickly Non-Smoking bars and clubs would open to fill that market.It would all work just fine without Government telling us all what's best for us.

Yes, but not everyone CHOOSES to breathe smoke. If I want to go out for the night, we non-smokers have NO choice but to either (a) stay home or (b) inhale toxic fumes all night

Why can't the smokers just take it outside? They can STILL smoke--we're not asking them not to--but just give us non-smokers our right not to breathe it.

I hate the smokers' argument of "well, if you don't want to breathe our smoking blowing in your face at a bar, stay home!". Ugh.

[boris63]

illini84, you say

"Yes, but not everyone CHOOSES to breathe smoke. If I want to go out for the night, we non-smokers have NO choice but to either (a) stay home or (b) inhale toxic fumes all night"

No one is saying breathe smoke or "go home"! You have the choice of going to a non-smoking bar or restauant, or a smoking bar or restaurant! No one is saying all bars/restaurants should allow smoking, just that it should be the business owners choice! After all, isn't he the one who invested his hard earned money into "his" business? Shouldn't he be allowed to run it the way "he" sees fit?

Smokers should have the choice between going into a smoking bar/restaurant, or going into a smoke free bar/restaurant and respecting that business owners rules. A non-smoking person should have the choice between going to a non-smoking establishment, or going into a smoking establishment and respecting that business owners rules. After all it is "his" business, he bought and payed for it. Not you, not me.

Without a smoking ban, smokers and non-smokers alike are free to choose for themselves which businesses they choose to patronize. With a smoking ban no one has that choice. Everyone is forced to patronize non-smoking establishments and the government is forcing the business owner to run his business(the one that he invested "his" money and hard work into) the way the government see's fit, rather than being able to choose for himselve!

Isn't it better to have a "choice" rather than being "forced" into doing something?