Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.webtalkforums.com/showthread.php?t=17...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Having a smoking section in a restaurant Is like having peeing section in a swimming - Webmaster Forum
Having a smoking section in a restaurant Is like having peeing section in a swimming pool.
Agree or Disagree
|
|
|
It depends on how they separate them, I've seen and been to some restaurant that use glass divider in order to separate the smoker and non-smoker.
|
|
I'm not a smoker and guess it's not a pretty "feeling" staying inside the "box" ...
I personally prefer enjoy my drink with the rest...
I've also made a passive smoking campaign ( first started as a college project, 2 years ago ) where anyone can send their stories, their disagreements regarding this issue.
|
|
|
Totally agree.
Smoking should be banned within 100 metres of any non-smoker who objects.
If someone wants to blacken their lungs then that's their decision but they shouldn't expect me to breathe their noxious second-hand fumes or pay for their medical treatment.
I find a lot of smokers objectionable in terms of both smell and common courtesy.
|
|
|
I agree. It's not that hard to go outside.
|
|
Totally agree.
Smoking should be banned within 100 metres of any non-smoker who objects.
If someone wants to blacken their lungs then that's their decision but they shouldn't expect me to breathe their noxious second-hand fumes or pay for their medical treatment.
I find a lot of smokers objectionable in terms of both smell and common courtesy.
Originally Posted by CountryBoy Hi,
CB, Here is my thought.
The owner of the establishment should have the right to choose smoking or non-smoking.
Just like you have the right to choose to eat their or not.
Not the state or local city votes but the owner choice.
I feel this way, A sign should be posted say smoking allowed or no smoking allowed.
Now if you don't want to be around smokers don't go their.
Just that simple.
Another thought on is.
I do not feel that sales of cigarettes should be allowed in a non smoking place.
If you can't smoke their then they should not have the profit form the sales either.
I feel this way on booze to.
Let it be sold in the bar on/off sales.
Not at the gas station, super market, wall-mart and such.
Sami
|
|
Hi,
CB, Here is my thought.
The owner of the establishment should have the right to choose smoking or non-smoking.
Just like you have the right to choose to eat their or not.
Originally Posted by Sami4u I agree.
|
|
I could have not said it better myself sami!!!
I also find this interesting:
Government and Lawmakers get paid from tax dollars,then (lets take two voters/tax payers, Tom and John, Tom has a nice office job, he makes 60,000 a year and does not smoke.
John has a nice office job, he makes 60,000 a year and smokes) I guarantee you, John brings in at least twice as many tax dollars to his local economy than Tom.
Lets say you worked for two people every day, (4 hours in one place, and 4 hours at the other place) and you did the same exact job for both, and your performance was the same at both places, but one place pays you $1000 and the other place pays you only $500.
I dont know about you, but me,with all conditions and situations being equal at both places, but one place paid me twice as much, I can tell you very easily were my loyalties would be
BUT POLITICIANS ARE TURNING THEIR BACKS ON THOSE WHO PAY THEM THE MOST????
Give me a break!!!
Sorry Non-Smokers, had to get that out!!!
|
|
Totally agree with Sami4u!
I'm so sick of the government sticking their nose into mom and pop businesses especially telling them how to run their establishments.
I'm sick of smoking becoming such a huge topic...as i this is the worst thing out their for you!
Tax the crap out of cigars...oh no, can't do that, that would effect the politician bottom lines.
Tax the crap out of booze that is killing innocent drives on the road...nope politicians again may be effected.
Come on, anti-smoking campaigns are nothing more then the newest PC topic.
Its not like the government truly cares about us...they only care about their bottomline!
|
|
Come on, anti-smoking campaigns are nothing more then the newest PC topic.
Its not like the government truly cares about us...they only care about their bottomline!
Originally Posted by Kaos Hi,
Right you are.
Plus the campaigns LIE I remember the one that said every cigarette you smoke takes 15 min off your life.
My Grandfather lived to 90yrs he smoked over a pac a day.
From 14 on. Now do that math any non-smoker you know of lives to what 500+.
I also seem to recall them saying don't eat eggs
Sami
|
|
|
I am all for no smoking in restaurants.
Which is great in Iowa, as no smoking in public places.
And you would be surprised at how many restaurant owners are non-smokers and happy to see smoking banned.
|
|
|
Sami great posts
|
|
I am all for no smoking in restaurants.
Which is great in Iowa, as no smoking in public places.
And you would be surprised at how many restaurant owners are non-smokers and happy to see smoking banned.
Originally Posted by iowadawg Hi dawg,
I am sure they are.
The point I am trying to make is the the state is still collecting the tax money.
Didn't the sale of cig get a $1 tax bump first?
Pick one or the other.
This is like have your cake and eating it to.
If they don't want smoking in the state they state should outlaw the sales the if cigs in the state.
Now let them figure out how to get that $1+ from something else.
Where do you think the state should add that tax loss to?
Sami
|
|
|
You are out there comparing apples to oranges.
I would be all for banning cigarettes, cigars, etc.
Remember, our government will tax us, one way or the other.
But cost wise, it does save the state and local governments, insurance companies, etc for every smoker who quits or never starts.
Smoking is not a right.
|
|
I totally disagree.
It's simple, if you don't want to go to a smoking restaurant DON'T go there!
Go elsewhere, boycott them!
|
|
I am a smoker and I still agree.
I never smoke inside anywhere out of respect for people who dont smoke.
You should see some of the people i know, they smoke around kids.
If I see a kid coming I either walk away or put it out.
It sucks in winter, but those are my morals lol
|
|
I totally disagree.
It's simple, if you don't want to go to a smoking restaurant DON'T go there!
Go elsewhere, boycott them!
Originally Posted by GRIM I was just stating the drift affect.
I not saying to ban or not to ban.
|
|
|
That's a nice example ;-)
|
|
|
Smoking is banned in all public access buildings in the UK - that includes open rail/bus stations and even bus shelters.
|
|
If your going to ban smoking how about drinkers as well, there is nothing worst than drunk people.
Also have you ever seen a person have a few too many smokes and then go and bash someone?
The whole smokers verses non-smokers is ridiculous, there are millions of $$ being spent on advertising for people to stop, if they want to stop they will.
Also this money can be spent on important things like stopping child abuse.
I dont care if someone is smoking around me, also if your with a group of people who are smokers, you find that when its time to eat.
They dont smoke until everyone has finished.
If you dont want to go to a restaurant that has smokers, then dont.
Restaurant owners should be able to make up their own minds whether their businesses are for smokers or non-smokers.
|
|
|
|