More government “help”

The UK has jumped on the smoking ban-dwagon, it seems. A quick glance at the laws indicates they aren’t quite as rabid as the ones in California that attempt to even ban smoking outside. (Yeah, I’ll think that’s a fair law when we also ban emissions from factories, etc. Ain’t happening, sweetheart.) Anyway, UK Smoking Law Resource Center can help business owners find their way through the new regulations. Each country in the UK has or is adopting a different law, so you’ll need to be sure to check out the particulars for your locale. That’ll be simple at because the site is well laid out, and very clean to navigate.

I did find it interesting that a pub owner from Scotland has noticed a severe drop-off in business since the ban went into effect there. Duh. Smokers won’t go out to drink (or eat) if they can’t light up. Here’s why: you can buy all the alcohol and food you want and bring it to your house, where you can still smoke in peace (unless you live in California, I guess). Smokers smoke. That’s what they do. It’s my opinion that these laws do nothing to save lives, but merely cripple local businesses. And do you know what a floundering economy does? Yes, makes people smoke to relieve stress. Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out for ya.

Technorati Tags:

15 thoughts on “More government “help”

  1. Yeah, here in Arkansas they have what they call The Arkansas Clean Indoor Air Act, which passed by a wide margin. So now, NO business can allow smoking inside. I used to work at Arby’s which is connected to a truck stop. Hello? Truck drivers in and out all day and all night = smokers who aren’t happy at all. This truck stop is privately owned, but private business owners are told what they can and cannot do within the doors of their own business – unless they own a bar, which is exempt, or a tobacco store, which is also exempt. duh.

  2. Yeah I know. Way to be, SCOTUS! not. I’m fairly certain that rumbling you hear is the founders rolling over in their graves.

  3. Having lived a good portion of time in Madison WI, one of the first cities to start a smoking ban, I can say.. it didn’t hinder business (smoking was still allowed in bars, but not restaurants) Restaurants that had bars, smokers could smoke, only in the bar section, and some restaurants went to great length to partition the sections and make the restaurants truly smoke free.
    It first bugged me when we moved there. But I grew to actually like it. I still will not eat in a restaurant that allows smoking… just as I won’t let anyone smoke in my home.

  4. I don’t allow anyone to smoke in my home either. That doesn’t give me a right to tell other folks who own property (and pay taxes on it) what they can and cannot allow on/in said property.

  5. It does give the government the right if its a public health issue.. and it is. Second hand smoke kills. I don’t want my kids exposed to it at a public restaurant.. and I feel badly for the people who HAVE to make a living working multiple hours a day in a smoke filled environment.

  6. See, in my mind, what happens on private property is not a “public” health issue. That’s why they call it “private” property. Back when such designations meant anything, of course.

  7. Well then I should be able to do illegal drugs in my home, right? Wrong.
    Even if its private property, it caters to the “public”, where the “public” relies on the business owner to provide a safe environment.

  8. No. Smoking bans affect only certain types of properties, where as drug laws apply to all types of propery. That’s discrimination.

    But frankly, yes, you should be able to do pretty much anything you want to within your own four walls, which you paid for, and continue to pay taxes on. You should have minimal government interference in your home.

    And why would the public rely on a business owner to provide a safe environment? When did it become a business owner’s job to take care of us instead of our responsibility to ensure we stay safe by making informed decisions?

  9. I would agree with that if smoking ONLY affected the smoker. It doesn’t. THAT is why there are bans.

    Additionally, I want to say that I don’t agree with banning smoking in pubs/bars/taverns. Where only adults can visit anyway.
    But I whole heartedly support smoking bans on restaurants, where children, and babies are patrons.

    I guess its depends on where the business is, but the debate in Madison was a non debate. Some businesses saw an INCREASE once the smoking ban took effect because FAMILIES were more comfortable going out and dining in a smoke free environment.

    Oh and it IS a business owners responsiblity to provide a safe environment. From the handling of food, safe entry ways and rest rooms (no ice left in winter for someone to fall on, broken step to trip on) Not to mention the safe environment for employees.
    Additionally, if a person cannot make it through a meal without lighting up, THAT is a problem. Even when I was a smoker, I did not, EVER, smoke in a restaurant.. its just rude to smoke when others are eating. Gross.

  10. Carla, would you like the government to tell you that you had to allow people to smoke in your home? That’s your private property.

    Shouldn’t each business proprietor be allowed to decide whether or not to allow smoking, based on the clientele they’d rather have? For every business that has had an upswing there are probably two that have suffered. And it’s *not the government’s business*.

  11. you know.. a home is completely different than a business that CATERS TO THE PUBLIC
    Again its a public health issue. And AGAIN, smokers don’t only kill themselves, they affect EVERYONE around them.
    And again.. what the heck is wrong with asking a smoker to step outside the door to smoke? You know so that they don’t slowly kill everyone else around them along with themselves?

    We’re not going to agree on this obviously. I just wish you acknowledged what it actually is.. a public health issue. For as much as you think a smoker has the right to light up whenever whereever, others have a right to breath clean air, which is far more important.

  12. Whoops, back up 🙂
    I am not arguing that the smoker has a right to smoke wherever and whenever. He ought to not bother other people with his habit, inasmuch as that is possible.

    I’m arguing that it’s the not the government’s right to tell a property owner whether or not he can allow smoking on the premises.

  13. The government has every right to tell a private property owner what to do when they are licensed to serve the public at large. Again.. PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.
    Just as its common sense to regulate food service for public health reasons. Or OSHA to regulate workplace safety.. On.Private.Property.

  14. Ok, Carla, I recognize that you think the government has the right to tell people what to do with property they’ve bought and paid for. I hardly think that smoking bans fall into the same category as food service and workplace safety, which I do agree are good concepts *theoretically* (as I watch my dad suffer repeated work injuries in a job supposedly protected by OSHA, but whatever :roll:).

    It’s still my premise that business owners should have the right to decide for *themselves*, based on their clientele and business plan, whether or not to allow smoking on. their. private. property.
    Then let their business prosper or fail based on their decisions, not the government’s.

Comments are closed.