Shouldn’t it be up to the owner of a building to decide if people can smoke there, and if non-smokers don’t like it they can just go somewhere else?

[Anonymous]

If an owner allows smoking, they’ll attract customers who don’t mind it. If others prefer smoke-free spaces, there will still be plenty of places that ban smoking. This way, the choice is left to both the business owners and the people who decide where to go

I agree

I disagree

[FreyaRed]

Forbidding smoking is considered a display of power that's why foreboding smoking is good while allowing smoking is considered as a lure strategy. Even though most people don't smoke nowadays and statistically non-smoker make bigger possible customer group than smoker.

[Anonymous]

When smoking was legal no businesses banned it because they wanted the customers. So the non-smoker's choice was go someplace that was full of smoke or don't go out at all, and most people chose to just go out and deal with it. My grandmother said she never smoked a cigarette but her clothes smelled like smoke all the time because she was always out.

[Kaneki05]

Yup, but government is so corrupt they won't even let you as a owner decide to do that.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Is the owner liable for the health damages caused by second hand smoke?

[Asker]

Like I said if non smokers have an issue then they can go to venues where smoking is prohibited

[seeyounexttuesday]

So a restaurant can sell poison food, if you don’t like it don’t go there, kind of thing?

[Asker]

Yeah exactly. If someone wants to poison themselves then thats up to them. If someone doesn’t want to be around second hand smoking then there will be plenty of other venues where smoking is prohibited.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Seems like a bad business decision.

[Nikki1989]

In the ideal world, yes, but the world doesn't work like that.