Prescott wrote: They lost customers. It doesn't where those customers went or why they went there. Lost customers equals lost revenue which equals lost jobs.

So who is to say that the downturn in business in any single place is due to "no smoking"? Are smokers everywhere just boycotting life?

For those of you who cannot - for whatever thick-skulled reason - see how it's simply wrong to dictate to a private business owner the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking on-site is flat out ludicrous.

If a business decides to cater to smokers than so be it. As a non-smoker I simply won't frequent the establishment and allow the free market to determine whether or not the business owner made a sound business decision.

It's about choice and freedom.

But - alas - the Big Government types insist that we cannot be trusted to make our own decisions so screw choice and freedom in favor of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to protect us from us.

I swear to you I will never understand that mindset.

So who is to say that the downturn in business in any single place is due to "no smoking"?

This wasn't part of your initial statement. I'm sure that not all of the lost business is due to the smoking ban. I'm just as sure that some of the lost business is a result of the smoking ban.

But - alas - the Big Government types insist that we cannot be trusted to make our own decisions so screw choice and freedom in favor of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to protect us from us.

EXACTLY!!!

I don't remember any non-smokers NOT going to a restaurant a few years back when they allowed smoking (had smoking sections).
Bars either, for that matter.

Hmmm....

believer wrote: For those of you who cannot - for whatever thick-skulled reason - see how it's simply wrong to dictate to a private business owner the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking on-site is flat out ludicrous.

If a business decides to cater to smokers than so be it. As a non-smoker I simply won't frequent the establishment and allow the free market to determine whether or not the business owner made a sound business decision.

It's about choice and freedom.

But - alas - the Big Government types insist that we cannot be trusted to make our own decisions so screw choice and freedom in favor of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to protect us from us.

I swear to you I will never understand that mindset.

This, and only this, explains in words, what I cannot.

Topic dead? (I'm EXTREMELY bored)

ernest_t_bass wrote:

believer wrote: For those of you who cannot - for whatever thick-skulled reason - see how it's simply wrong to dictate to a private business owner the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking on-site is flat out ludicrous.

If a business decides to cater to smokers than so be it. As a non-smoker I simply won't frequent the establishment and allow the free market to determine whether or not the business owner made a sound business decision.

It's about choice and freedom.

But - alas - the Big Government types insist that we cannot be trusted to make our own decisions so screw choice and freedom in favor of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to protect us from us.

I swear to you I will never understand that mindset.

This, and only this, explains in words, what I cannot.

Agreed. Believer nailed it.

While this is only antecdotal, the local American Legion reported that it's business was down 30%. The reason?....guys USED to hang around, drink, and smoke cigars and play cards.

CenterBHSFan wrote: I don't remember any non-smokers NOT going to a restaurant a few years back when they allowed smoking (had smoking sections).
Bars either, for that matter.

Hmmm....

If that's the case, it seems all of this legislation is a solution in search of a problem.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: I don't remember any non-smokers NOT going to a restaurant a few years back when they allowed smoking (had smoking sections).
Bars either, for that matter.

Hmmm....

If that's the case, it seems all of this legislation is a solution in search of a problem.

Haha I getcha!

Seriously though. Sit back and remember...

20 years ago, whoever decided NOT to go to a local Elby's (had smoking sections) because they might get cancer?

2 years ago, whoever decided NOT to go to a local bar because they might get cancer?

Come on now...

believer wrote: For those of you who cannot - for whatever thick-skulled reason - see how it's simply wrong to dictate to a private business owner the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking on-site is flat out ludicrous.

If a business decides to cater to smokers than so be it. As a non-smoker I simply won't frequent the establishment and allow the free market to determine whether or not the business owner made a sound business decision.

It's about choice and freedom.

But - alas - the Big Government types insist that we cannot be trusted to make our own decisions so screw choice and freedom in favor of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to protect us from us.

I swear to you I will never understand that mindset.

The question is what makes this choice different than any other one that has been made for businesses by the government, be it a health issue or anything else?

The only reason this one pisses people off is because it forces them to actually change their routine.

People like to get laid, but I don't see anyone whining about how they can't start a brothel or become a pimp in Ohio. That would also be a denial of free enterprise, and a denial of the choice and freedom of a businessman and potential clients. What's the difference?

Can we make polls without skewing the choices with parenthesized statements favoring one choice?

But yeah, I think it was poorly done. Smoking shouldn't be in most places. But if a business owner wished for his bar or something to have smoking it should be up to them but children should not be allowed in these establishments.

I think it should be up to the Business' whether they want to use asbestos in their air conditioning units too!

Do you really think that's an accurate comparison, or might there be an obvious reason why it isn't?

People like to get laid, but I don't see anyone whining about how they can't start a brothel or become a pimp in Ohio. That would also be a denial of free enterprise, and a denial of the choice and freedom of a businessman and potential clients. What's the difference?

The difference is that prostitution is an illegal activity, while smoking is not.

I would not have a problem with legalizing prostitution and I would not have a big issue with outlawing tobacco.

Against.

I had the poll changed from "For Govt." to "For Regulation."

I read in another thread about "responsibility." It is the responsibility of the consumer to make wise choices. I think that the "responsibility" card can play out here, as well.

As a consumer, YOU are responsible to make the right decisions. "Let the buyer beware." If you are buying a 12,000 calorie burger, beware that it may clog your arteries. If you are buying and drinking sugar loaded soda, beware that it may rot your teeth...

If you are going to go to this restaurant, beware... they allow smoking. If second hand smoke bothers you, you may want to find another restaurant. As a business, it is THEIR responsibility to make it known to their customers that smoking is allowed. It is YOUR decision to make the choice of where to consume.

There should be no "no smoking sections" though. Those didn't work and only provided the illusion of a smoke free setting.

ts1227 wrote: The only reason this one pisses people off is because it forces them to actually change their routine.

Not true. You would just like that to be the case so you can shape the facts to your opinion. Other reasons have been given, and are legitimate areas for discussion. If your premise was true, all non-smokers would be on the same side of this issue. We are not.

People like to get laid, but I don't see anyone whining about how they can't start a brothel or become a pimp in Ohio. That would also be a denial of free enterprise, and a denial of the choice and freedom of a businessman and potential clients. What's the difference?

No difference. Prostitution should be regulated to the degree the states feel necessary, but legal.

Suppose there was a cologne on the market called "cancer cologne" and for whatever reason people seemed to enjoy spraying that cologne all over themselves and the other patrons and employees when they were drinking at bars. It's widely known that getting sprayed with this cologne increases your chance of getting cancer. When a non-cancer cologner gets a job at a bar...these cancer cologners spray her constantly and all the time with the spray. But, even though he puts all of his other non-cancer cologners at risk, the owner doesn't want to ban the cancer cologne because he doesn't want to lose money.

The solution seems obvious...let the cancer cologners go smoke outside so they don't assault everyone else with their cancer spray.

Perhaps states that ban smoking out to provide money to counties and municipalities to help them construct back padios, etc. where smokers can smoke in a warm place, etc. instead of having to stand out in the cold entirely, etc.

^^Actually, the obvious answer is for the non-cancer cologner to not take a job at a bar that allows the cologne. The non-cancer cologner does not have a right to a job at that bar.

Everyone has given all the arguments, but me down on the side of property rights and liberty. I absolutely abhor cigarette smoke and can't be around it. But if I own a business, it's my property and I should be able to allow a legal activity within it. If we have no smoking ban, it is easy for me. I attend the restaurants and bars that ban smoking and don't patronize those that do. Freedom of choice, it's a great thing.

JoeA1010 wrote: ^^Actually, the obvious answer is for the non-cancer cologner to not take a job at a bar that allows the cologne. The non-cancer cologner does not have a right to a job at that bar.

Everyone has given all the arguments, but me down on the side of property rights and liberty. I absolutely abhor cigarette smoke and can't be around it. But if I own a business, it's my property and I should be able to allow a legal activity within it. If we have no smoking ban, it is easy for me. I attend the restaurants and bars that ban smoking and don't patronize those that do. Freedom of choice, it's a great thing.

+3,000,000,000

3 Billion? Hokie Smokes! (No pun intended)

Prescott wrote: The difference is that prostitution is an illegal activity, while smoking is not.

It wasn't always illegal, government just had to interfere... sound familiar?