I smoke it's safer that way. I mean have you heard about the Dangers of second-hand smoke??? Good thing I get it from the source

I honestly think it should be up to the business owner as to whether or not to allow smoking or have a smoking room or to have their business smoke-free. After all whose business is it anyways? We the consumers can simply choose not to go to those establishments that don't do what we like. After all, it's our money. I fail to see any sort of need for Government interference.

In the US, they have pretty much a national standard of having all places that sell alcohol closed at 2 am. Not every where, but almost. Well some cities are having to pass laws allowing bars and nightclubs and restaurants to sell booze later than that now. They do this because of the loss in revenue from -cough cough - smokers. Smokers that go to surrounding cities that don't have that ordinance to spend money. I guess as an added bonus they make more $$$ with DUI fines.

And I can understand the intent in these policies to get people to eventually quit smoking, but isn't this something smokers should do on their own? And to non-smokers, Wouldn't the money spent enforcing these laws and ordinances being be better spent for dealing with real criminal offenses or better roads or schools or something?? LOL if they don't raise taxes, they'll probably cut back on health care to cover it.

What it comes down is the government (rightly, imo) deciding that the individual's right to use every single public house/place of work/etc etc - without having to breathe in someone's cigarette smoke - is more important than the smoker who decides to either force that smoke on that person or force him out of that pub/place of work/etc etc.

I always thought it was inconsiderate/rude of people to be smoking in these places (the ones that allowed smoking) anyway, it's always basically been saying to other people: "inhale my smoke or f**k off". If people had stopped to think about others we wouldn't need this law at all. But then again, it's the old "well it's been going for years so it's acceptable" chestnut.

Quote from sinbad :

What it comes down is the government (rightly, imo) deciding that the individual's right to use every single public house/place of work/etc etc - without having to breathe in someone's cigarette smoke - is more important than the smoker who decides to either force that smoke on that person or force him out of that pub/place of work/etc etc.

I always thought it was inconsiderate/rude of people to be smoking in these places (the ones that allowed smoking) anyway, it's always basically been saying to other people: "inhale my smoke or f**k off". If people had stopped to think about others we wouldn't need this law at all. But then again, it's the old "well it's been going for years so it's acceptable" chestnut.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that as both a smoker and a business owner, I shouldn't be allowed to smoke in my own place of business? Or to decide for myself whether to allow smoking or not just on the odd chance that you might come to visit it? I mean if you don't pay the rent on the building, pay the employees, pay the taxes on a business, then why should you be allowed to dictate any policies towards it aside from exercising your right as a consumer?