Should the government decide the smoking rules for privately owned businesses? I personally feel it is just the politicians trying to get more votes, but feel that since it is a private business, it should be the owner's decision on whether or not they want a smoking restaurant.

I think it's a grey area..... Up here there's laws that force the establishments to have a closed off area for the smokers which is good but that's as far as it goes if I'm not mistaken. So in a way the goverment made the rule stricter but in no way forced all businesses to be smoke free. That I think is good and that's as far as the gov. should go. If a restaurant owner wants smokers they should be in an environment that prohibits smoke from going to the non-smokers and to do it effectively. Clubs are a diff story the gov can't enforce that as good. so Maybe there should have been a third option "with limits" or something.

My city recently made a law that bans smoking in any restaurant and I believe any establishment that does not rely on more than 50% of it's sales being alcohol, meaning bar/grille restaurants also. I know when I was in NY, one of the counties had banned smoking in any rastaurant or bar

In Alameda County, California, you can not spark up a cigarette within 18 or so feet of a public building. Smoking areas and smoking zones are worthless when they share the same open area or HVAC system as non-smoking areas. And even though I used to smoke occassionally, I find that the smell of cigarette smoke is nasty and offensive, and something that everyday people should not be subjected to.

It is a matter of public health and there is a proven societal cost to the state from second-hand smoking illnesses, so I think in this case the government does have the right to regulate smokers. I am a libertarian and my philosophy is that if it doesn't hurt anyone else, then the government shouldn't touch it. But since smoking in public areas, like driving drunk, does effect other people's health, then government regulation should apply.

"Is it the government's place to enact smoking bans? "

Yes, it's the government's job to look out for the health and wellfare of the people. If a person wants to smoke, the government requires health-warnings and the person can choose to smoke knowing some of the consequences. If a person doesn't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke that is no fault of their own, the government is allowed to make regulations to protect non-smokers by restricting the places where people can smoke.

The way I see things is, if you want to go to a restaurant that will have no smoke, go to a non-smoking restaurant. If the business owner wants to cater to non-smokers, so be it, but if the business owner wants to exclude these people, it is his own profit and his own sales that he is losing out on.

I was thinking of that too. Just put a sign in front of the establishment that states whether it is smoking or non-smoking then people can make a choice. I don't think this idea should apply to public places.

Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
I was thinking of that too. Just put a sign in front of the establishment that states whether it is smoking or non-smoking then people can make a choice. I don't think this idea should apply to public places.

Yeah, here, even private establisments are banned from allowing smoking inside

Same here in California. I hope they never ban smoking in Las Vegas. If the players or the dealer asks me not to smoke, I have no problem with that.

Unless a Federal law is enacted to ban smoking, it will never be banned in Vegas. The lobby from the casinos is too strong. They had a few casinos go non smoking a couple year ago. They had to switch back or go out of business. I smoke and I always sit in a non smoking section when I go out to eat. The smell when I'm eating is harsh.

This is not a case where anyone's Constitutional rights are being violated.

Therefore, rational basis applies. The government gets to do whatever it thinks works the best for its people.

Jon