Or people around you, i have been smoking cigarettes for over 40 yrs without any sign of harm.
I don't believe you.
I don't smoke and I don't care for people smoking around me. That being said, I don't fake-cough with smokers around, and frankly, I would be FINE if they reintroduced smoking in restaurants and bars in NH.
I doubt, seriously, that you've smoked for 40 years without side effects. You're a walking creosote-packed chimney.
I am all for personal freedoms, but when it comes to smoking, I love the no smoking laws in most major cities now. No longer do I smell awful when I go out for a drink.
One of the stages that never developed was the choice for establishment owners to make a building smoke-free. That would've been the ultimate market-driven solution. Instead it went from illegal to discriminate against smokers in bars to illegal to smoke in bars.
A simple: "you get to decide if there's smoking allowed in your bar" would've solved the issue. I bet, over time, the amount of smoke-friendly establishment would slowly be driven down by people who would prefer to spend their money at the smoke-free establishment. And no one would've complained about impingement on personal freedoms.
I have a dead granddad who smoked for decades then died of emphysema. I'm curious as to the purpose of this thread, is it to challenge the notion that smoking is harmful?
He's just asking a question... stop suspecting ulterior motives. My mom is a smoker, she's cut down quite a bit in the last ten years, but I suspect everyone in the family knows what will ultimately kill her. It's sad to think about.
I'm just asking the question. It's rare that I see a question along the lines of "have you actually been harmed by smoking" without seeing it followed up by a challenge to the idea that smoking causes harm. As for your mum I sincerely hope that isn't the case and that she is one of the people who live a full life.
I don't know what it's like where you are but in the UK this was the case before the smoking ban. Nowhere was obliged to allow smoking however almost all bars allowed it and other places like restaurants always had smoking areas. I support the ban because the freedom of one person smoking infringes on the freedom of many people who have to breathe and smell it. For that reason I see no problem with allowing smokeless cigarettes inside if people want to.
Drinking laws are next.
Where are you going to find employees that don't mind the smoke. Do you intend to discriminate against the ones that do. I don't mind if you smoke, I don't even mind if you burn, but do it in private. Your rights end where my nose begins.
The employees would probably be smokers, too. Or they would at least command a higher average wage than their pickier counter-parts.
Besides, are you going to outlaw people who don't bathe often enough? Or women who wear too much perfume? What about people with bad breath? There's no law that says you MUST be allowed to attend any restaurant without being offended by smells there.
In fact, it's the height of hubris to think that your preferences should be law.
Now, to be clear, I would never go to a restaurant that allowed smoking. I just think it shouldn't be a law either way. Bars are a different story. Pool halls, especially... I love to smoke a cigar... a few times a year.
The problem with letting the market decide is that it doesn't always work if the establishments you would like to frequent have some kind of specialty (OK, I imagine vegan restaurants I frequent would ban smoking). For example, when I first moved to Ohio, the smoking ban here hadn't gone into effect yet. I am an avid karaoke fiend, but I couldn't find any place that had karaoke but also didn't allow smoking. It was only after the ban took effect I could go. The same goes for bars that host local bands (which invariably have a multitude of people that would smoke, since it's part of the culture). Of course you could alwys opt to not go there at all, but that sort of defeats the purpose.
Personally, I don't mind being around smokers of any sort but that would be a different story if people were smoking indoors. I quite enjoy not having a constant haze of death in the air while I'm out at a bar.
Not yet. But I am not smoking now. Oh well, occasionally, perhaps not more than two packets per year. Maybe four.
Agreed. At the same time I know Wolly for long enough to not worry about such motives.
It's not a question of preference - it's a question of health effects.
It's a carcinogen, so it's only mid-level hubris.
I suppose... I'm still in favor of self-governance. If I want to open a restaurant for the specific purpose of catering to smokers, and I want to charge $50 for a steak, and $20 for a bottle of beer so I can pay my wait-staff $30/hr plus tips... I can't. It's illegal. I bet I'd get rich... but I can't do it.
No there is no challenge, it seems my family are immune to smoke, mum 86 dad 84 both have smoked all their lives with no visible signs of smoking related harm.
Where would you stand if the employees sued you for failing to provide a safe working environment. I see no practicality in your proposal.
Fair enough. It happens, though obviously in the minority of cases.
Separate names with a comma.