Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + +
Talk:Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back? (view source)
Revision as of 19:32, July 22, 2008
, 19:32, July 22, 2008→Comments
::...but the restrictions have gone considerably beyond that, Dinsdale. While I'm not a smoker, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that to their lungs, I object to policies that dictate to property owners what they can and can't do with their property. If the owner of a restaurant, bar, or similar facility wishes to allow smoking, they should have that right; customers who object to second-hand smoke will vote with their wallets. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
::...but the restrictions have gone considerably beyond that, Dinsdale. While I'm not a smoker, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that to their lungs, I object to policies that dictate to property owners what they can and can't do with their property. If the owner of a restaurant, bar, or similar facility wishes to allow smoking, they should have that right; customers who object to second-hand smoke will vote with their wallets. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
:::That has not proven to be the European experience. Practically all owners of restaurants, bars, etc., have been so afraid to lose customers if they had unilaterally banned smoking that practially none have done so.Dealing with the problem of second-hand smoke effectively has taken legislation to make sure that all restaurateurs are put on an equal footing, so to say. Also, some restrictions and requirements concerning what owners of publicly-accessible properties can do are obviously necessary. Can't have a restaurant without fire exits, either, however much it may annoy the owner to have to install them. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:19, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
:::That has not proven to be the European experience. Practically all owners of restaurants, bars, etc., have been so afraid to lose customers if they had unilaterally banned smoking that practially none have done so.Dealing with the problem of second-hand smoke effectively has taken legislation to make sure that all restaurateurs are put on an equal footing, so to say. Also, some restrictions and requirements concerning what owners of publicly-accessible properties can do are obviously necessary. Can't have a restaurant without fire exits, either, however much it may annoy the owner to have to install them. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:19, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
:::That line of logic leads to ever-increasing government mandates on what a business owner can and cannot do. Overeating is also unhealthy; taxpayers in general bear the increased burden of obesity-related health problems. Should restaurant owners be told which foods they can and cannot serve? Before accusations of "slippery slope" are raised, please note that this is actually happening--laws banning fast food for precisely these reasons are currently being considered.
:::Where do we draw the line? How much power should the government have to insist that I do nothing unhealthy? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:32, 22 July 2008 (EDT)