<p>I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m one of the only ones on here who does not support a ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.
The argument is, of course, that if smoking is banned in a bar everybody who goes into the bar gets to avoid second hand smoke. But if there is no ban, the bar owner can still ban or allow smoking as he pleases, create a smoking/nonsmoking section, etc. You have the choice of whether or not you can go into the bar, so nobody is forcing you to go in and inhale secondhand smoke. </p>
<p>The issue is not whether or not a smoking ban would be beneficial, overall, to public health. It’s pretty clear that if you put as many barriers as you can to prevent people from smoking, there will be a positive impact. The question is, should the owner of a private establishment have the right to decide what is allowed in his bar, or should he be stripped of this right for the benefit of public health?</p>
<p>For, but mostly for selfish reasons. I don’t like to be greeted by a smokescreen of gagging stink every time I pay to eat dinner at a restaurant. And really. People should be able to go without smoking long enough to eat dinner.</p>
<p>Bars might be a different story. I haven’t decided yet.</p>
<p>There is no need to restrict smoking in privately owned establishments. The owner has the right to do whatever he wants with his property.</p>
<p>I live in a place with a smoking ban, and although I don’t much care to breathe in cigarette smoke, were there not a ban, I wouldn’t go to places where the smoke would bother me. I believe such bans are just another inappropriate waste of government time and taxpayer money, and am against all such limitations of private citizens. </p>
<p>That being said, I work part-time in a restaurant, and I would be quite unhappy were the owner to reestablish a smoking section. I would probably quit.</p>
<p>I like the ban. When I have children or my future wife is pregnant, I don’t want to have to search around for a smoke free building.</p>