Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Peptide Pro
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsPeptide ProUGFREAK

100% non smoking bylaw

mattcanning99

New member
People are discussing this here in Ontario...What do you all think about that? Pros, cons?

This would mean all restaurants / malls would have to be non - smoking. Basically you would be limited to smoking outside or on your own property (If you smoke).
 
I think it's bullshit. I like the idea of no smoking in places with food for obvious reasons or malls and things like that but it should be the business owners choice to allow it or not. If I have smoking in my place and it turns customers away then I'd ban it in my place by my choice. If I didn't have smoking in my place and lost business and couldnt make the choice to allow it because of a state law that bullshit. I refered to state because I'm in the U.S. I see you refered to Canada.

BTW- I don't own a store. But I see how this law can affect business places like bars for example.
 
Last edited:
flex123 said:
I think it's bullshit. I like the idea of no smoking in places with food for obvious reasons or malls and things like that but it should be the business owners choice to allow it or not. If I have smoking in my place and it turns customers away then I'd ban it in my place by my choice. If I didn't have smoking in my place and lost business and couldnt make the choice to allow it because of a state law that bullshit. I refered to state because I'm in the U.S. I see you refered to Canada.

BTW- I don't own a store. But I see how this law can affect business places like bars for example.


I agree. It should be up to the marketplace to decide. If smoking was bothering enough people then it would affect business and the business would ban it, not the government. This is one of the most basic ideas of a capitalist system.

Florida just passed that law last week

Just for the record - I don't smoke
 
TheStromba said:


I agree. It should be up to the marketplace to decide. If smoking was bothering enough people then it would affect business and the business would ban it, not the government. This is one of the most basic ideas of a capitalist system.

Florida just passed that law last week

Just for the record - I don't smoke

you are correct, unfortunately i let my emotions get the best of my better judgement and i voted to ban smoking.
 
i hate smoking

i hate smoking. i think it should be outlawed in all public places. if you want to smoke and hurt yourself, thats fine with me if you do it on your own property where it doesn't bother anybody else. There's nothing I hate more than walking to class and following somebody who is smoking, or walking into a classroom building where it seems smokers congregate and having to walk through a haze of smoke to get into the building. You may choose to smoke, but i don't, and i sure don't want to breathe that garbage.
 
A person's right to smoke stops at my lungs.

I equate blowing smoke in someone's face to attempted murder. Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than you think. In fact, second-hand smoke kills more children than falls down the stairs or drownings in the pool.

I agree with giving businesses the right to decide what goes on in the establishment. However, by the logic presented here, since second-hand smoke, which is harmful, should be OK in public places, then swinging fists wildly, which is harmful, should also be OK.

Obviously not. One's right to swing your fist stops at my face, just like one's right to smoke.

-Warik
 
Warik said:
A person's right to smoke stops at my lungs.

I equate blowing smoke in someone's face to attempted murder. Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than you think. In fact, second-hand smoke kills more children than falls down the stairs or drownings in the pool.

I agree with giving businesses the right to decide what goes on in the establishment. However, by the logic presented here, since second-hand smoke, which is harmful, should be OK in public places, then swinging fists wildly, which is harmful, should also be OK.

Obviously not. One's right to swing your fist stops at my face, just like one's right to smoke.

-Warik
my thoughts exactly, put on paper quicker and more eloquently by warik than i could.
 
business owners do not have the legal right to refuse service based on color, etc.

So, you cannot say "what i do with my business is my choice" because in reality that is not the case.

I wonder if allowing smoking in bars infringes on the rights of non smokers... it might. People who chose to not smoke should have the right to enter a bar and not inhale second hand smoke, based on afforementioned health dangers... maybe non-smokers should just go to another bar?

What about bars with patio areas? i take it smoking will still be allowed there? If so, if i was a bar owner, and i did not have a patio, i'd build a patio real fucking quick...
 
Puc said:
I wonder if allowing smoking in bars infringes on the rights of non smokers... it might. People who chose to not smoke should have the right to enter a bar and not inhale second hand smoke, based on afforementioned health dangers... maybe non-smokers should just go to another bar?

That's not the point, though. The point is that one should not be legally able to damage another's health. You can't shoot people, you can't inject people with drugs, you can't hit people, so why is it OK to infect their lungs with poison smoke?

Now, I've heard of bars that cater strictly to smokers and they sell cigars and shit there. Those kinds of bars really should be immune to these laws because the nature of the business revolves around cigarette smoke. You won't see a non-smoker go in there simply because the business is a "smoking business." But a normal bar or restaurant? You go there to eat/drink... not to smoke.

-Warik
 
I would much rather the market place decide on things such as rather than gov.org sticking their gruby hands in yet another aspect of our lives.

Laws such as this will only lead to gov.org telling us that we cannot smoke in our own homes. In the next 5-10 yrs someone will come up with a reason to have a law for this. Mark my words.

You say it can't happen? Just take a look at where we are today.

Funny how some people want the government out of our lives except when it comes to something that annoys them.
 
Top Bottom