[MustangSally]

Should governments (local, regional,state, federal) ban smoking in Private businesses(bars, restaurants, bowling alleys etal)?

[MustangSally]

That should say smoking ban in poll question not smaking ban. Although I've been to Frisch's a few times with some noise kids in the booth next to me.................................never mind

[TheRealVille]

I misunderstood the question. I voted wrong. I thought the poll was asking if it should be allowed. I vote yes on the ban, as long as the restaurant, bar, allows the public inside their business, I don't think smoking should be allowed. Other private businesses that don't allow the general public in, smoke away. Before anybody says anything, if marijuana were legal, I wouldn't be for it to be allowed in the general public either.

[RunItUpTheGut]

There was a city wide ban here in Corbin effective on Jan 1st.
I love it. I cant stand to be around someone smoking away. Stinks like hell.

[SKINNYPIG]

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that government can tell a "private" business what LEGAL substance can or cannot be used in their establishment. Just another instance of government stripping liberty and freedoms from US citizens. Quite frankly, I find it to be sickening!

For the record...Not one member of my family is a smoker, and I hate breathing second hand smoke.

[judgementday]

Yes because I have the right to breath smoke free air, and this is coming from a former smoker...when I use to smoke, I wouldn't do it in public places as I felt it was not fair to those around me. If others had the same mindset, we wouldn't need a smoking ban.

However, I agree with RealVille in that if a private function is held, smoking should be allowed.

[nky]

I thing Mustang Sally got a cross threat going on. Maybe to much of another smoking thread topic and to much Wilson Pickett. The "Smoking Band" and " Smaking"

Wow

[nky]

Don't like these types of government regulations. Private businesses should be able to choose between smoking and smoke free. Let the market dictate how the business runs. If you prefer to eat in a smoke free place let your money speak for you, free choice, free enterprisemoke:

[TheRealVille]

Don't like these types of government regulations. Private businesses should be able to choose between smoking and smoke free. Let the market dictate how the business runs. If you prefer to eat in a smoke free place let your money speak for you, free choice, free enterprisemoke:

It ends up just like it was before, half the business smoke free while the other half is smoking, which really doesn't end up being smoke free in the smoke free end.

[SKINNYPIG]

We as American citizens should have the right to choose if we want smokers in our business. Just as Americans can choose if they want to go into a smoking business or not. If you don't want to breathe smoke, go where smoking is not allowed...Quite simple actually.

[Stardust]

I like Smoking Bands

[Image: http://static.flickr.com/2117/2498284286_bd879dcc25.jpg]

[Stardust]

[Image: http://www.statesman.com/multimedia/dyna...32242c.jpg]

[Stardust]

[Image: http://www.smokersworld.info/wp-content/...325950.jpg]

[SKINNYPIG]

Listen folks, use wisely your power of freedom. Don't depend on government to do it for you. Even when it comes to smoking in your own businesses.

[Mr. Onion Head]

As long as their music is good, I don't care if a band smokes or not.

[TheRealVille]

Listen folks, use wisely your power of freedom. Don't depend on government to do it for you. Even when it comes to smoking in your own businesses.

If I go into a restaurant, in a town that has a smoking ban, and see someone smoking, you can be assured I will call authorities.




But, to get back to the topic. Like others have said, if the band is good I don't care if they smoke or not.

[MustangSally]

I thing Mustang Sally got a cross threat going on. Maybe to much of another smoking thread topic and to much Wilson Pickett. The "Smoking Band" and " Smaking"

Wow

Whoa.......... Must have been spending to much time with the Doobie Brothers or the Grateful Dead.

Not Smoking bands but "Smoking bans"

Now if were going with Smoking bands then
Spice Girls anyone?

[Hoot Gibson]

I opposed all smoking bans and even requirements for "non-smoking" areas within buildings owned by private citizens. If restaurants wanted to require adults to smoke as a condition of entering, then I would find another restaurant. A privately owned place of business should not be considered a "public place" simply because they allow members of the public to enter the premises.

I have no problems with private businesses banning smoking and I am not opposed to smoking being restricted in real public buildings, although I oppose total smoking bans in public parks.

If you don't want to eat where people are smoking, then cook your own meals at home or open your own smoke-free restaurant but don't push your own brand of morality down the throats of private businesses that want to accommodate smoking customers.

[nky]

^Right on free choice, let your wallet do the talking

[LWC]

I never realized how libertarian this forum was.

Most other forms of anything, I have no problem with. I feel as if any true restaurant that wanted to serve alcohol by the drink, as long as they realistically limited a persons consumption should feel free to do so. If you want to serve alcohol to anyone that can legally have it, great. Dancing girls? If you so choose, fine. Gun shows that adults can have target practice while enjoying a T-Bone? Why not! Private business, means private business.

However, smoking is altogether different from many other substance or practice. Second hand smoke is dangerous and can be lethal. So, just being in the same place where someone else smokes is dangerous.

Many of you are saying private business. When I think of private business, I think of a business that can legal restrict someone from entering. A place where a membership is required or a person must be of a certain legal age to enter.

Just with my experience in restaurants, any restaurant that is a franchise must allow anyone to enter. The only exceptions? Someone with no shoes on, or no shirt on, OR someone that tries to start smoking or someone that will not put out their cigarette/cigar/pipe/ before entering. Basically, I can "own" a McDonalds, but I have to let in whoever wants to come in.

So as far as restaurants go, if franchised, they ARE public places. A person may not have to enter one, like a courthouse, etc... but they are public, nonetheless. I am sure there are loopholes, just as with anything.

To sum it up, to allow smoking or not, is the one decision that I do not want in the hands of businesses. Pretty much anything else, I am fine with. I agree with many of you. Let the market dictate how successful you will be.

PS-If by some wild chance, smoking pot (reefer, not kettles. I know there is a smarty-pants reading this right now, lol.) ever becomes widely legal, I throw that in as well, but for different reasons.

[LWC]

^With mary-jane giving people munchies, could you imagine how high up the Fortune 500 that KFC Yum! would rise? There would be doobie smoke filling every restaurant all across the world!

(Please take that as a joke, it is intended to be one)

[TheRealVille]

I never realized how libertarian this forum was.

Most other forms of anything, I have no problem with. I feel as if any true restaurant that wanted to serve alcohol by the drink, as long as they realistically limited a persons consumption should feel free to do so. If you want to serve alcohol to anyone that can legally have it, great. Dancing girls? If you so choose, fine. Gun shows that adults can have target practice while enjoying a T-Bone? Why not! Private business, means private business.

However, smoking is altogether different from many other substance or practice. Second hand smoke is dangerous and can be lethal. So, just being in the same place where someone else smokes is dangerous.

Many of you are saying private business. When I think of private business, I think of a business that can legal restrict someone from entering. A place where a membership is required or a person must be of a certain legal age to enter.

Just with my experience in restaurants, any restaurant that is a franchise must allow anyone to enter. The only exceptions? Someone with no shoes on, or no shirt on, OR someone that tries to start smoking or someone that will not put out their cigarette/cigar/pipe/ before entering. Basically, I can "own" a McDonalds, but I have to let in whoever wants to come in.

So as far as restaurants go, if franchised, they ARE public places. A person may not have to enter one, like a courthouse, etc... but they are public, nonetheless. I am sure there are loopholes, just as with anything.

To sum it up, to allow smoking or not, is the one decision that I do not want in the hands of businesses. Pretty much anything else, I am fine with. I agree with many of you. Let the market dictate how successful you will be.

PS-If by some wild chance, smoking pot (reefer, not kettles. I know there is a smarty-pants reading this right now, lol.) ever becomes widely legal, I throw that in as well, but for different reasons.

Yes, a restaurant that intends to sell goods to the public is a public place. If the owner doesn't want to run a business that allows the general public in, put in a private business that doesn't invite the public in.

[Hoot Gibson]

I never realized how libertarian this forum was.

Most other forms of anything, I have no problem with. I feel as if any true restaurant that wanted to serve alcohol by the drink, as long as they realistically limited a persons consumption should feel free to do so. If you want to serve alcohol to anyone that can legally have it, great. Dancing girls? If you so choose, fine. Gun shows that adults can have target practice while enjoying a T-Bone? Why not! Private business, means private business.

However, smoking is altogether different from many other substance or practice. Second hand smoke is dangerous and can be lethal. So, just being in the same place where someone else smokes is dangerous.

Many of you are saying private business. When I think of private business, I think of a business that can legal restrict someone from entering. A place where a membership is required or a person must be of a certain legal age to enter.

Just with my experience in restaurants, any restaurant that is a franchise must allow anyone to enter. The only exceptions? Someone with no shoes on, or no shirt on, OR someone that tries to start smoking or someone that will not put out their cigarette/cigar/pipe/ before entering. Basically, I can "own" a McDonalds, but I have to let in whoever wants to come in.

So as far as restaurants go, if franchised, they ARE public places. A person may not have to enter one, like a courthouse, etc... but they are public, nonetheless. I am sure there are loopholes, just as with anything.

To sum it up, to allow smoking or not, is the one decision that I do not want in the hands of businesses. Pretty much anything else, I am fine with. I agree with many of you. Let the market dictate how successful you will be.

PS-If by some wild chance, smoking pot (reefer, not kettles. I know there is a smarty-pants reading this right now, lol.) ever becomes widely legal, I throw that in as well, but for different reasons.

In our litigious, over-regulated society, your description of privately owned restaurants is legally correct. My comments were simply my opinion of how free our society should be and how much private ownership should be treasured.

In a perfect world, people such as you who see casual exposure to second hand smoke as a mortal threat, would simply patronize restaurants that voluntarily banned all smoking - and such restaurants would always exist because of the profit motive. Our society is not perfect, so we must tolerate the anti-smoking extremists who don't hesitate to blow the whistle on fellow citizens who are doing nothing but managing their private business as they wish.

Nobody should have a right to dictate the management of a private business unless the owner is willing to take on a partner who brings something other than self-rightgeous indignation to the table. (That comment is not directed at you, but at the crusaders who get these fascist laws enacted.)

[vundy33]

No...the government should not decide on whether PRIVATE businesses allow smokers or not. It's fine and well with government areas, but not private. I think that the owners should ban smoking on their own, but the government has no business doing it.

If I'm in a resturant that allows smoking, I almost always go outside anyway just so I don't bother people with my smoke, or a hot chick doesn't see me smoking. Places I'll smoke inside at is usually Vegas..it's upscale clubs/bars, strip clubs, and casinos. That's about it.