Louisiana Senate approves smoking ban in Bars and Casinos

Didn't see this anywhere else

La. Senate Approves Expanded Smoking Ban - Politics News Story - WDSU New Orleans

personally, I've always been of the opinion that it should be up to the owner of the establishment.

If you don't like being inside a place that allows smoking, don't go into the ones that allow it.
If you feel like you must smoke at the slot machine, only go to the ones that allow smoking.

 

There are so many reasons why a government body would enact laws to encourage people to stop smoking. There are really zero positive health benefits from smoking and the cost for state provided health care related to smoking has got to be a budgetary eye sore.

I understand what you are saying about nonsmokers staying away but why exactly should the onus be on them to have their choices limited? Shouldn't the smoker bear the bigger burden?

Lots of states have gone this direction and the results are never as bad as some think.

Smoking has been banned out here for so long that if I travel to a state that allows it (Oregon and Nevada are recent examples for me) I literally can't sit and eat a meal amongst smokers. I detest Las Vegas and there is NOBODY there who bans smoking. I have NO choice to be smoke free there. I actually forgot my eye drops and had to buy a small bottle in the hotel store........for almost 10 friggin dollars.

 

That's one of the few things that California has actually done right. Cigarettes are filthy and I don't want to breath your toxins in a public place. Poison yourself in the privacy of your own home.

 

I like to do karaoke, so on a personal level, it would be cool for me. There's nothing like trying to sing in a room full of smoke. Unfortunately, there's almost no where to do karaoke that doesn't allow smoking in Louisiana.

 

there is no burden at all on you. if you dont like the smoking establishments, dont go. to say you have less options is false.

you have businesses that will fail because of the law. if a private business owner makes more money due to allowing smoking it should be his choice. you surely arent going to pay him the difference in losses or if he folds.

tell that to the private owner. its not bad for you since its not your investment.

its all about choices. dont go. fewer places allow it anyhow so its not like you're limited as you claim. thats just another means of imposing the will of another amongst the owners who risked their own capital.

we have no right to dictate this.

sure you do. dont go. if i know a place has asbestos, even though I like the home fries there, I dont go. I have other choices.

man, thats terrible but its a good thing they werent banned. otherwise you would have had to deal with blurry eyes and not been able to eat the entire trip.

i read a study how longterm use of eyedrops impairs your vision so ill be hoping thats next on the docket. might wanna stock up just in case someone feels like you and wants to impose their will on eyedrops manufacturers.

i mean, we seriously cant be inconvenienced, now can we.

 

could this ban be due to the effects of second hand smoke on the workers of such establishments? and the costs to the state since wait staff generally do not have health insurance?

im not stating that as fact, im asking it as a legit question. i am wondering what the health costs of second hand smoke are, and how much of that falls on public health systems?

 

If there are 10 restaurants in town and 5 allow smoking, then my choice is now limited to 5. That is indeed less options.

Business owners can now save money on cleaning and air circulation. But no, I still won't make up the difference. And,

You are correct. Consumer choice will either make or break the business.

Smokers could also not go.

I'll admit my point of view is hypocritical. I advocate less government intervention in almost every way. I was not in favor of the ban on trans fats in restaurants because people should be able to eat what they want and of course it doesn't have an impact on anyone else in the restaurant. Smoking is a different entity IMO in that it can't be kept JUST to the individual who is smoking.

 

of course it isnt although the worker still has a choice.

this is about the government making choices for us once again. We should not have the paternalistic government telling us we can serve heart attack inducing big macs yet cant do so amongst smokers.

privacy is the real issue here. its a private business being dictated how to run their business.

 

not if 5 fold or change their business due to you forcing your will upon them. And no, this cant be overstated enough.

you miss the entire point. consumer choices were dictating this already hence, there were ones which served those who wished to smoke and those that didnt. now they will serve one.

its no different because you are not impacted if you choose not to go. there are almost unlimited options for almost any service.

you just dont want to be inconvenienced once a month at the expense of many private business owners. the free enterprise ones that make america great.

 

That is an inaccurate statement. Smokers are not banned from any establishment, they can still go anywhere they want. They will however be banned from blowing toxins in everyone's face and from forcing others to breathe the poisons that they chose to inhale. If they can't sit in a restaurant for an hour without polluting the air maybe they should seek professional help for their problem.