Smoking bans in restaurants
There is an online version of our newspaper that had an article about it and then allowed people to make comments. It seems VERY much that either people love or hate the idea, nothing in between. Most people were mainly bringing up that they wanted the ban for health reasons, while most were against the ban for Big Brother reasons (though most also claimed they were smokers too). What does everyone think? |
|
|
| In my opinion, a state wide ban makes more sense than what's going on around here. We have city bans, which has had a big impact on bar and restaurant revenues in the impacted cities. When individual cities outlaw smoking, business in the bars and restaurants drops immediately as people move in to the next town. I'm not a smoker but I am a business peson and that's just not right.
I hate the idea of smoking bans because I think the market should dictate, not the government. If it made economic sense, restaurants would shrink or eliminate their smoking sections on their own. I also think that once the zealots have made it totally unacceptable to smoke, they will come after us overweight folks next. Can you imagine - there will be a BMI meter at the door and if your body fat is over the healthy level they will sit you in the "Salad Only" section! |
| I don't like it one bit. I don't smoke anymore but I don't think it needs to be dictated from above. Individual establishments can make the decision as to if they want to allow or not allow smokers in. Then, no matter your preference, you can choose to patronize that business or not.
I can think of a lot worse things that I'd like to see banned from restaurants and other public places. Working at the university, public behavior never ceases to amaze me... |
| I'm a smoker and I don't mind refraining from smoking in public areas like resturants or malls. I have no desire to impose my smoking on people who don't. I do however, resent, taking a long air flight and then having to go all the way outside on a layover to try to get a smoke in. Especially now that security is the way it is at airports. I also don't want to hear people complain if I am smoking outside! |
| Edmonton started the smoking band in resturants, a few restuarants closed then out lovely premier decide to make it province wide. But I guess you can still smoke in Calgary, you cannot smoke anywhere in Edmonton anymore. The nightclubs are suffering people are walking away from their bar tabs when they gho outside for a smoke. So not cool.
I don't like being told where and when I can smoke, all thses nonsmokers have rights but what about the smokers, we have rights too. I do not agree with it one bit. |
| I'm a smoker, but I think banning it in public places is a good idea. We all know it is bad for our health, and I think it is not right to damage someone elses lungs for the sake of our being able to smoke.
Smoking in ANY building other than your own home has been banned here for a long time. People fought it here at first too, but it went through, and IMO with good reason. Enjoying your own freedom can only go so far, not to the point where it may be harming someone else. |
barney1 wrote: What does everyone think?
In NY, it is already illegal to smoke in restaurants. let me tell you the top 5 reasons this is totally sweet. 5: smoked salmon tastes like HICKORY smoke, and not cigarette smoke. 4: the sweet, pale aroma of a nice lager is not alterred by the sour, choky stink of cigarettes. 3: my nice dress clothes which i wear to nice restaurants smell like my cologne, and not the marlboro man. 2: i can breathe easy, even when i'm under the weather. 1: i had cancer once already, and am not content to risk getting it again, as round one almost killed me. so it's nice to not have to. now, the one reason this sucks. 1: there is a crowd of people outside of the restaurant smoking which you have to fight through just to get inside. |
| Ontario started phasing in smoking bans in different citues. I'm not sure if there is now a total province ban or what, but I cannot recall the last time I smelled cigarettes in a restaurant or club. I almost forget what that smells like, and being an ex-smoker, that is good for me. |
I don't think it should be up to the government to impose a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.  I have never smoked and don't like to be surrounded by it but hate the idea of more legislation.
Let each establishment decide whether they prefer to attract the smokers or non-smokers. Then provide non-smokers with a comfortable area that is completely smoke-proof. |
| Warning: Devil's Advocation follows:
How about getting the government out of regulating this, and not even requiring smoke-free areas? Let people decide if they want to be in a smoker's restaurant or a smoke-free restaurant? Hey, but what about the workers? Ahhhh the workers can always get a job in a smoke free resaurant, right? Nothing holding them there... they know the risks, right? Just like the miners can always work in a safer place, I guess. No need to regulate the mines. |
| I'm not a smoker so I'm not upset that smoking bans are happening.
I used to bartend during college and people always blow smoke in the direction of the bartender, away from the people they are talking to seated next to them. Even though I've come to expect my hair & clothes to smell like an ashtray after I got home from being at a bar, it is nice not having to smell that anymore. I actually also got burned from someone walking with a lit cigarette at a shopping mall once too. |
| I'm totally against it. I don't vote for leaders to go into office to take my freedoms away. I expect them to fight for them. The smoke is only a coverup of the truth of what's really taking place. Where do they get all the extra time they spend on such nonsense? Are we as adults, not capable of compromising, being respectful and using common curteousy without government leaders thinking they have to meddle in everything? I can't understand why we, as adults don't put our foot down and stop this sort of action.
Every time they decide something needs changed it costs someone their freedom, and the taxpayers, millions of dollars to accomodate their law. Establishments are run out of business, causing more and more people to become dependent on the government for financial assistance. That's where they want us, dependent on them. If your depending on them, you're going to do what they want in order to get the support you need. We need to remind our government leaders that they were sent to office for bigger and better things than SMOKE and how beetles have sex!!! How about FEMA, the national deficit that they keep increasing, the national defense, the immigration problems, etc......... Our freedom and our pay checks (tax dollars) are what's going up in smoke. Soon, the nonsmokers will be standing outside with the smokers in the food lines. What will they do then, make a new law? jmpo |
| I gotta agree with mouthypf on this one. It isn't so much the smoking
bans that I hate - but the idea. I am so sick and tired of our dear big brother protecting us from ourselves. Every single time one of these bans or laws pass it paves the way making it easier for the next. I think if the owners of these businesses wish to keep them smoke free - great. If they see a decline in business because of it - fine. They should be able to do as they wish. I have seldon heard of business increasing because of a no smoking policy. Maybe thats is just in my area though, who knows. What would be wrong with advertising "smoke free environment" or "smoking section available"? Then if you lean in one direction, you know it is or isn't a place you want to patronize. So what is it now - you can only smoke in your own home, with the lights off every third tuesday of the month, and only after 6pm? I just don't think the gov't should be involved in this, any more than they should be able to tell us what we can or cannot eat! I 'get it' that not all of us are equipped to make these decisions, but really... Shellie |
| We have smoking bans in Australia, in restaurants, pubs and clubs etc, most public places indoors. I am a smoker and I have to agree, especially in restaurants when you are trying to eat etc.
Smokes should be at home and not have anyone in closed public places that don't smoke have to put up with smelling and breathing in others smoke. Outdoors in public places is OK here as long as you dispose of the butt appropriately. So fair is fair with everyone  |
| We have some of everything in the various communites around here. Some communities only allow "bars," not restaurants with bars, to have smoking if they desire (well duh, of course they desire.)
Some restaurants have declared themselves totally smoke free and are supported by law. (I just wish management had more balls enforcing their own regulations.) Many have a Non-smoking section which is usually the larger part of the restaurant these days. (I have a gutsy friend who, after getting nowhere with the manager, went over and took the cigarette and dumped it in the water glass!) (she has since moved but I'm sure she'd attack cell phones users too) I have been known to get up and walk out of a restaurant where the ventilation is inadequate and the nonsmoking section still stinks. Ditto when the music is too loud.........and I always tell the manager before I go. |
| Just curious. When there were no "no smoking" laws, did those of you that complain about the smoke, patronize these same establishments without making a fuss about it? If you were quiet about it then, what exactly sparked your fuse when you did speak up? Not intending to flare tempers, I'm just curious.
What makes cologne any less dangerous than smoke? People with asthma and serious lung problems can't tolerate any type of odors. These odors take their breath, which puts them in danger whenever they're around them. So, what about a no cologne in public ban for their health and comfort. While sitting around in their smoke-free enviroment discussing new laws to intrude in my privacy and take my rights, they allowed terrorists to enter my country and kill thousands of people in a matter of hours. When the smoke cleared and the dust settled, what good was their clean air act that day? When Katrina hit, what good did their clean water act do? They pumped all that crap right into the lake and ocean. I think that would've been against the law had it been done by any of us or by any business. Not to mention the wasted gas hauling trailors for the victims of that tragidy the wrong direction. They talked of all the human waste, the chemical spills and such, but as soon as the waters gone they let people right back in there. The bacteria is STILL there. Its not smoke they need to worry about, its the disease and such that will soon start showing itself from that disaster. I'm sorry, I just think there are soooo many more important things that needs to be addressed. Anyone checked into the new Medicare Part D for anyone you know? Yeah, elected officials, you have created yet another mess. Go ahead, clear the air of smoke, we may be able to see better then, but I doubt the quality of air will be any better. JMPO mouthypf |
| Okay, I've been silent so far on this issue. I think I presented the question in an impartial way so as not to create a tone one way or the other.
I've lived in California my whole life, up until 2 years ago when I moved to Virginia. California has had a smoking ban for restaurants for as long as I can remember and a smoking ban in bars for longer than I've been able to go to bars, so basically I've grown up in a smoke free environment. My parents said there was the whole debate of 'would the restaurants survive' and 'would people still go to bars' if they couldn't smoke. And obviously that answer is of course. People like to go out to dinner. People like to go to bars. Moving to Virginia was a shock to me, in many ways. One of the biggest was the enormous amount of smoking here. It has made it hard to make and maintain friends because I DO have asthma and cannot tolerate smoke for much time. So, back in California I had a very good social life and my friends and I would go to bars and restaurants all the time. I tried that here and I just couldn't. I felt like the party dud by having to leave by 10pm at the latest, since the smoke grew denser the later it got. I would literally leave a restaurant or bar gasping at the fresh air outside. There are very few restaurants here that are designated as smoke free. Even nationwide chain restaurants like PF Chang's you are allowed to smoke in the bar section, which wraps around most of the restaurant, so you are basically surrrounded by the smoke. And in the restaurants with a smoking and non smoking section, more than once I've been separated by a plant from the smoking section. I would love a smoking ban in restaurants. I don't see it as a loss of people's personal liberty. Do smokers not see that they are potentially giving innocent by-standers cancer? Or worsening their asthma? That's the part that I don't understand. You can't smell the food in front of you in the restaurant for the smell of smoke. It inhibits one's taste buds. And, at least here, there really isn't an alternative place to go for the most part. I know there are NO smoke free bars around here (not saying that I am a bar fly by any means, just that I'm in my 20s and we like to go out to bars on weekends). I've heard many smokers say that non smokers are just being whiny and selfish about not wanting smoking in restaurants. I've heard them say that non smokers are trying to tell smokers how to live their lives and that they are trying to eliminate smoking altogether. I don't think that's what non smokers are implying at all. I feel that it is a person's choice to smoke and they can go ahead and do it, but given its health impact, it seems like common courtesy to not do it near others who don't. Finally, I don't understand the big brother aspect to this issue. People have said that it should be up to businesses or that smokers should be considerate enough to know not to smoke certain places. Well, to me that doesn't seem to be the case. Laws are made for the good of people--to keep them safe. A law like this is going to make me safer, and is only limiting a smoker as to where they can smoke--it's not telling them not to smoke. Mouthy-as for cologne--yes, people can be sensitive to it, but it isn't going to kill them. It's not the same thing at all--but it should be common sense to the wearer of the cologne that a little dab will do you...AND, the whole issue of the government should be keeping terrorists out and preventing hurricanes than banning smoking is just a silly argument. For one thing, a government can't spend all its time on one issue. And, since the smoking issue is a state government issue, it has nothing to do with the terrorist attack, or Katrina. Are you against all law or all government? |
barney1 wrote: Are you against all law or all government?
There's no right answer to this question, but my concern is "how much government is too much? There's a fine line between passing laws for "the good of the people" and passing laws that take away personal liberties. For example, many people are allergic to dogs. What if more people started petitioning for laws restricting dogs from flying in the cabin on planes, flying in the cargo hold because dander could get on their luggage, going to public parks because people with allergies might run across a dog... eventually we'd still have the "right" to have dogs but would be unable to take them out of the house. There are days when I'm in the mood to pass a bunch of laws. Like spaying/neutering any person who abuses a child. Or outlawing chewing gum when I step in it (hey, they did it in Singapore). But, all in all I would rather see the government (city, state and federal) err on the side of personal freedom. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Sue |
| Just this year, the city of Chicago has banned smoking in restaurants. However, I think if the restaurant has a bar in it, they can also have a smoking section in the restaurant. Some of the suburbs near where I live are following suit. I have to admit that I LOVE THIS! I have allergies and am very sensitive to any smell, i.e. perfume, cologne, smoke. I used to go to bars and wake up the next day feeling hungover despite the fact that I didn't drink anything. I went to California on vacation once, drank & danced to early morning and felt great the next day. The reason...no smoke inhalation. I'm one of those people who will leave a restaurants and other establishments I'm near smoke, strong cologne, or loud children. If the staff isn't accomodating, I will leave and tell all of my friends not to go there anymore. In my little world, I hope that has made a statement.
Unfortunately, my experiences have shown that many people are inconsiderate and don't think of others around them. So, I guess those inconsiderate smokers ruined it for the considerate smokers. That is why the government stepped in. I also think they are assisting smokers and nonsmokers in becoming healthier. I've talked to several smokers who say that it has cut down on their smoking habits. |
To answer the question, yes, I have moved away from people with heavy cologne. My nose would gradually stop registering the smell, but I didn't care to wait that long. I don't have asthma, for me it's a matter of comfort at a restaurant, movie, on a bus, etc. And if a person has BO, I quietly move too.....probably faster 
I have given up wearing perfume and cologne and go for lightly or unscented shampoos, etc. Currently I'm embarassed my hair spray smells like Grape Soda...but I forget to get a new unscented can. I try not to offend others with my smell so they must wash their clothes and body after being near me. Nor do I wish to offend others with my actions, manners or voice......especially my singing voice |
| scotland starts a smoking ban next month in all confined pulic places. Im a smoker and i dont mind this ban at all. I really hate the smell of smoke (CRAZY I KNOW)i dont like going anywhere that is smokey. Id rather smoke out in the fresh air. |
boobaby wrote: Id rather smoke out in the fresh air.
oh sure, ruin the good stuff,  |
| Being someone who was a smoker up until 2mths ago,I strongly feel smoking bans can be good.Here in Madison Wi they just made it illegal too smoke ANY wheres in the city,now I feel thats a bit nutty,but I do feel certain places truely need too be off limits when it comes too smoking. How many times have you walked into a hospital and before entering you walk through a HUGE cloud of cig smoke?I know I HATED that when taking Samantha too her heart Dr. app..Here we are TRYING too keep her healthy,and the last thing before we walk into her dr.'s office is inhaleing nasty smoke  .I also feel places where we eat,should be smoke free.I remember eating at a nice reaturant in the NON SMOKING section and the only thing blocking the smokers from the nON was a row of tables!!LMAO!!So eating was just very uncomfortable.Going too bars back when I smoked was just that drinking=smoking,atleast for the people who smoke.I dont understand why when it comes too bars,why dont someone just open up a non smoking bar?Even going too casinos HOLY CRAP! The smoke in those places will choke ANY smoker,I went too a casino w/ my best friend we was there 2hrs,when we got home my lungs were so tight and I didnt even smoke that night.Its crazy.I think the public needs too be realistic,ban smoking in places of dining w/ families,in front of malls,and in front of medical buildings,but dont excpet people too not smoke in bars and such.I really feel opening up a non smoking bar and keeping bars that allow smoking would be a good idea. |
| Sue......IM on that ban wagon w/ you on getting people who abuse childern fixed!!Child abuse is digusting(as i was an abused child)and it needs too stop some how,so any time you want me too sign up you just let me know!! |
mouthypf wrote: I'm totally against it. I don't vote for leaders to go into office to take my freedoms away. I expect them to fight for them. The smoke is only a coverup of the truth of what's really taking place. Where do they get all the extra time they spend on such nonsense? Are we as adults, not capable of compromising, being respectful and using common curteousy without government leaders thinking they have to meddle in everything? I can't understand why we, as adults don't put our foot down and stop this sort of action.
jmpo This is an old thread but I had to jump in........ How about MY FREEDOM??? My freedom to go to a restaurant and not get blasted with cigarette smoke, my freedom to go to an outdoor sporting event and not worry that the person sittin in fron of me is going to chain smoke throught the entire event? Or how about my freedom to work anywhere I want to without worrying about the health riskes of second hand smoke. Cigarette smoke has been proven to be KILL YOU, clean air has not. So where does the freedom come in? Freedom to contribute to someone elses death?????? Would you also like the freedom to pull out a gun and shoot someoone?? This is a subject I feel quite passionate about. As a lifetime asthma sufferer I can't tell you the number of events I have had to leave, restaurants I couldn't eat in and nights I have spent being UNABLE to BREATHE because of someones elses cigarette smoke. Nothing angers me more than to hear someone call it their freedom. Freedom is the fact that you are still allowed to go into the store and purchase the deadly things. Freedom is the fact that despite KNOWING cigarettes KILL YOU and that there are no know benefits of cigarettes and that our young people are at the greatest risk of becoming smokers our country still allows the the tobacco companies to even exit. Freedom my fanny. I live in NY and the public smoking ban is the greates thing that has ever happened. Now the majority, THE NON SMOKERS, once again have freedom. |
| Since this is a bill that is going through Virginia's House right now, and they had the online article about it and people could respond and give their opinion, I read them and then asked my older brother who is a lawyer what he thought of some of the comments.
One of the most used comment was that this ban would be taking away people's freedom and that the government was stepping in where it shouldn't and that it was unconstitutional. Well, I read the Constitution at that point and nowhere did it say anything about this type of ban being illegal. It says that the government will do its best to protect the people. So, as far as I can tell, banning smoking would protect more people. But my point with that is that most people have not read, nor do they understand, the constitution, yet they use it in their arguments. My second thought is that smoking bans aren't a federal issue at all, so the constitution has nothing to do with it...it is up to the individual states and their own constitution. |
| To play devil's advocate again...
Shouldn't it be ok for someone to create a "smoker's only" restaurant? Shouldn't I as a smoker be allowed to patronize, or not, an establishment set up to cater to my desires, without having to be forced to associate with people (non-smokers) with whom I'd rather not? Shouldn't the government just ban smoking altogether if it's such a harmful thing? If not, why don't they create heroin-free restaurant laws, and allow people to use it at home, or out in the street? Isn't this really a perfect example of the very slow eroding of a "right" to smoke, where the "tree huggers" have won by slowly but surely having small laws enacted the continually strip eensy tiny little freedoms at a time, so that nobody realizes that the right is completely gone? Isn't this EXACTLY what the NRA is fighting against when they fight against assault weapon bans and other sorts of tiny little encroachments? /devil's advocate off |
Ron wrote: To play devil's advocate again...
Shouldn't it be ok for someone to create a "smoker's only" restaurant? Shouldn't I as a smoker be allowed to patronize, or not, an establishment set up to cater to my desires, without having to be forced to associate with people (non-smokers) with whom I'd rather not? Isn't this EXACTLY what the NRA is fighting against when they fight against assault weapon bans and other sorts of tiny little encroachments? /devil's advocate off I guess I wouldn't object to a "Smoker's Only" restaurant......anyone who went there would certainly know what they were getting into patron OR employee so I'll give you that one 
The NRA now, THAT'S an entirely different matter and post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Sign me "just another tree hugger" (after all I live in {near} Ithaca NY now) |
Tasker's Mom wrote: ..1: How about MY FREEDOM???......... ..2: So where does the freedom come in.......... ..3: Nothing angers me more than to hear someone call it their freedom... ..4: Freedom is the fact that...... ..5: Freedom my fanny........ ..6: Now the majority, THE NON SMOKERS, once again have freedom Starting with #2: Where does the "freedom" come in? I think the 6 lines I have quoted from your post answer that question. #3: Are you not, in fact calling it a freedom yourself? #4: Thank God we still have those freedoms, regardless of whether we indepentally like them or not. #6: If, "non-smokers" ONCE again have their "FREEDOM", because of these bans, I would have to assume that smokers "LOST" theirs. With smoking and non-smoking sections both had the freedom to choose. The "freedom of choice" is what we "ALL" lost. Tasker's Mom wrote: ........Freedom to contribute to someone elses death?????? Would you also like the freedom to pull out a gun and shoot someoone?? .... That statement crosses over into many other areas of lifestyle choices. BUT, many of those choices ARE protected by law. They can just as easily contribute to someone else's death or illness, BUT the potential threat to the public goes on unseen. There are people with many differant diseases preparing and serving you your meals in those nonsmoking establishments, BUT they have that "right". I don't want the right to shoot someone, BUT I do want the right to bare arms. barney1 wrote: .....Well, I read the Constitution at that point.....It says that the government will do its best to protect the people.... And, which group of people would that be? I remember seeing drinking fountains that said "Colored" when I was a child. Not being able to ride on the backseat of the bus. Yeah, I seen there were a lot of African Americans back there, but I didn't know they "HAD" to sit there!!! THEY HAD TO SIT THERE!!!!! To BAN smokers is VERY minor compared to that, BUT now a smoker HAS to stay so many feet away from the building, can't smoke inside, etc......... I can't see how people can this as anything but taking away a freedom, the freedom of choice. Yeah, this is AMERICA, home of the FREE, land of the brave........ barney1 wrote: .....But my point with that is that most people have not read, nor do they understand, the constitution, yet they use it in their arguments. We had to memorize the Declaration of Independence in grade school and government was taught in high school. I think if someone doesn't understand freedom, its because they grew up in the age when the school books changed to read "what our leaders" wanted taught. barney1 wrote: .....
My second thought is that smoking bans aren't a federal issue at all, so the constitution has nothing to do with it...it is up to the individual states and their own constitution... If local and state government want funds, they kiss federal governments behind. Our state officials are a portion of the federal government. jmpo |
| Most respectfully, my freedom, choice, right (you pick the word) to have a clean smoke free atmosphere does not cause physical harm to anyone, and is in fact, the "natural" state . Can you say the same thing about a smoke filled room? |
mouthypf wrote: Starting with #2: Where does the "freedom" come in? I think the 6 lines I have quoted from your post answer that question. #3: Are you not, in fact calling it a freedom yourself? With smoking and non-smoking sections both had the freedom to choose. The "freedom of choice" is what we "ALL" lost. I don't want the right to shoot someone, BUT I do want the right to bare arms. barney1 wrote: .....Well, I read the Constitution at that point.....It says that the government will do its best to protect the people.... And, which group of people would that be? ......... I can't see how people can this as anything but taking away a freedom, the freedom of choice. Yeah, this is AMERICA, home of the FREE, land of the brave........ barney1 wrote: .....But my point with that is that most people have not read, nor do they understand, the constitution, yet they use it in their arguments. We had to memorize the Declaration of Independence in grade school and government was taught in high school. I think if someone doesn't understand freedom, its because they grew up in the age when the school books changed to read "what our leaders" wanted taught. jmpo In response to the first part of the above quote, I think 'freedom' when arguing about the right to breathe fresh air is not the best term to use. I know I tend to use the word to respond to all the attacks stating that smoking is a freedom. So I would think that maybe using a different word would better distinguish between a need and a freedom. As for having the choice to sit in the smoking or non smoking section, this is true, there is a choice. And I am so amazed at the technology that houseplants have been grown to absorb all the smoke in the air. They must--I mean, that is usually all that separates me from the smoking section and they have promised me a smoke free environment with equipment to rid the air of smoke... As for the right to bear arms... I've never really questioned or had issues with the right to bear arms, but I always wonder what the big deal with it is. To me, it seems like such an antiquated section of the constitution, back in a time where all people did bear arms, and then the frontier people, etc., but it almost seems a relic to me (aside from game hunting). As for the which group of people the Constitution was meant to protect...I believe it was meant to protect the majority of people. That's one problem today, I think. Too many people are defining themselves as a certain 'group' of people and they have different needs than other groups and therefore are the most important. If you have one set of rules to cover millions of people, of course you can't cater to each one, but you can strive to help the most within the population. Finally, as for the Constitution being understood, etc., I learned about the Declaration of Independence in grade school, too, as well as in high school, but I would say most people don't remember a ton from when they were 8 or 17, school-speaking. Also, the Decl. of Ind. is not the same as the constitution. People in this country graduate high school and go on to college with barely knowing how to read in many cases, so I wouldn't put a lot of faith in their ability to remember their government class. Also, if you look back at school books from a long time ago, they were filled with a very different viewpoint than they are today. It is just the changing times. I remember my teachers were intrigued by the new books after the fall of the Berlin Wall because they had been teaching a Cold War perspective to history for so long, they didn't know how things would change...JMO |
| I think the Constitution protects everyone, the majoprity as well as the minority; but it's most important aspect is the fact it protects the minority.
The majority can always change the laws of the country easily to suit themselves; it's the minority that needs the constitutional protections when the majority gets into a little bit of "mob rule". |
| I agree. I think the Constitution protects everyone. I'm just saying that you can't please everyone all the time... |
| Someone w/ asthma can sit next too someone of color VS someone who just smoked a cig.Thats a silly comparison of yrs past people of color having too sit in the back of he bus making their "freedom" stifeled.People w/ severe lung disease can NOT take sitting next too or standing next too someone who has just smoked or someone who is smoking.Thats a fact.True and simple.Everyone who smokes KNOWS the health problems they are bringing too themselves,if hey continue too smoke then so be it,but when you bring that smoke in public your hurting others. With todays knowledge it was only a matter of time before we got smart and realized 2nd hand smoke DOES irritate already in place lung disease,and can trigger health issues in a healthy person.You wanna smoke then go ahead smoke til you cant breathe it desnt matter too me.However dont bring it around me.There are plenty of places too go smoke.I dont look at it has the gov. is taking our frredom from smoking where we want too but I see it has Dr's,and sciencetist doing test too see if cig smoke does in fact cause 2nd hand illnesses and they found it too be a fact. I can see that if the gov. didnt put a band on smoking in a few yrs someone would sue the gov. for not protecting the non-smokers w/ the knowledge they have. So why would a smoker want too smoke right next too a child,or too someone who has lung disease?Why would a smoker have issues about not smoking in public or smoking in asigned areas when they know IN fact smoking causes MANY illnesses?Seems too me anyone w/ any kind of feelings for another human would say well that makes sence too me,and wouldnt want too aid in someones health going south. I do think compraing banning smoking,and the civil rights of black people being taken away is WAY off the mark.No one is saying you cant smoke,all they are saying is you cant smoke where YOUR smoke can harm someone else. |
| Well, let's see. Exhause from my motorhome would certainly affect someone with asthma. Should the government stop me from driving my motorhome because some people may become ill from it?
OK, my motorhome is big and burns diesel fuel, just like a big truck on the highway. How about my moped? How about my gas lawnmower or leafblower or weed whacker?? I didn't even mention my car, or a motorcycle. All of these things I mentioned are either recreational or can be accomplished manually. Should the government ban them for the health of a few sensitive individuals? Maybe they should just be banned from the cities. Or maybe sensitive individuals should be banned from the cities? Who gets to choose which "hazardous" activities are "rights" and which are "governmentally controllable"? |
| Ron, all those things can be used OUTSIDE, just like smokers are allowed to burn thier cigarettes..OUTSIDE. And yes, even those machines are being controlled due to the pollution it is all causing. Look at the pollution controls that are in effect. That takes away a lot of ability for people to do what they want, but it is for the GOOD, not the bad.
Hey, aren't there laws abut exposing oneself? I'm sure nudists would love to parade all over the place bare naked, but for whatever reason it is not allowed. (not sure why, but whatever). However, they have parks etc set up for the nudists to go, and they can walk around nude al they want in thier own homes. Just don't do it in a public place, where people may be harmed...(By eye-strain, perhaps?) That is a more similiar comparisan. |
| Fair enough.
There are efforts afoot to ban smoking from all public places, indoor or outdoor. In fact it is illegal to smoke at Fenway Park, an outdoor stadium, regardless of where you are in the stadium, or whether there is someone else in the park. It is illegal to smoke on open-air train platforms, again, irrespective of who is or isn't around. Pretty soon, I'm sure, it will be illegal to smoke in the public parks around Boston and Cambridge. I've heard of people complaining about smokers in front of them walking down the sidewalk. Surely a puff of smoke wafting backwards will be deemed an annoyance, if not a health hazard and outlawed. I know that some people are very anti-smoking. But as a minimum, we need to take as a lesson from this how "the system" works. How it is that one group of people, a minority of as many as 25% of the adult population, are having their liberties taken from them for the "good of the majority". |
| Well I gotta say my 2 cents:
Smokers have had their day, in all public restaurants, and bars etc...all of us NON smokers tolerated it, and yes a tiny plant is a joke in separating the 2 areas...when you have issues of health, or children. Now it is our turn...we tried it that way now let's try it this way. If it works then great, if not then can't we figure something else out. So far here in Edmonton, I believe it is working. I still see lines outside the most poplular places, and people still going to bars, or pubs to watch a game...for my husband he now frequents the pub more often to watch a game. So if they lose smoker business then I am sure they have gained from non smokers. Now we have so much more enjoyment when we go out, the whole establishment smells better, the food smells good, I don't have to worry about being uncomfortable and start choking on smoke coming my way. I appreciate how difficult it must be for the smokers out there that enjoy a cigarrette after their meal...but it comes down to courtesy for others. I it is a huge issue, order a pizza and eat at home. For anybody that wants to complain about going out. Or learn to respect that we should all be able to sit and eat together and enjoy ourselves. In a clean, healthy environment. After all it's only an hour or so. JMOP |
| Warning! Sarcasm!
Well ya know, those tail dockers and ear croppers have had their way for 200 years now, let's give non-mutilation a try and see how that works out. It will make me feel a WHOLE lot less uncomfortable; everytime I see one of those poor defenseless sheepdogs prancing around tailless I get a shiver up my spine thinking about all the pain that they've been put through. I just can't go and enjoy my dogs shows with those poor mutilated sheepdogs, and cropped Dobermans everywhere! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If smokers in restaurants made you uncomforable or sick, how about asking your freinds and family to take you to a restaurant that offered a real and true non-smoking section or a completely smoke-free environment? Where were the boycotts of the smoke-filled restaurants? I never saw a single one! They weren't there because the people REALLY didn't care ENOUGH to do anything about it. But if the government does it for me, takes away the rights of the restauranteurs without bugging me, yipee! Just because the majority was too lazy and truly uncaring about it to vote with their feet doesn't mean that the government should step in and do the voting for them, does it? I'm not directing this particularly to you, Daisie. Your argument is exaclty the argument many, if not most, people believe to be the right side of this issue. |
case in point .... went for a 4 mile walk with my trainer...and I wanted a cig on the way back...she looked with horror at me...NOT because she is my trainer..she could have cared less...but it was what other people would have thought...and I am talking about the "bridle trail" in downtown phx...on central...where the main traffic goes north and south...okay...so you can suck in the car fumes, but one cig would ruin you??? I didnt smoke because it meant more to her than it did me...and that is how I run my smoking...I ask at resturants, if it bothers, I put it out....but only while they are eating...I get it....but if they are going to sit at a smoking bar....take the chance....not everyone is as nice as me  |
Ron wrote: Warning! Sarcasm!
Well ya know, those tail dockers and ear croppers have had their way for 200 years now, let's give non-mutilation a try and see how that works out. If smokers in restaurants made you uncomforable or sick, how about asking your freinds and family to take you to a restaurant that offered a real and true non-smoking section or a completely smoke-free environment? Where were the boycotts of the smoke-filled restaurants? I never saw a single one! They weren't there because the people REALLY didn't care ENOUGH to do anything about it. But if the government does it for me, takes away the rights of the restauranteurs without bugging me, yipee! Just because the majority was too lazy and truly uncaring about it to vote with their feet doesn't mean that the government should step in and do the voting for them, does it? I'm not directing this particularly to you, Daisie. Your argument is exaclty the argument many, if not most, people believe to be the right side of this issue. No offense taken....
True if we had a specific non smoking place...I would have chose that place, but they didn't exisit. We did complain, we did ask to be placed as far away from the smoking area, we ate outside if possible, our voice just wasn't heard until now. At least that's my perspective....again I am still young. I'm still not sure why this is such a big deal...can't we be a progressive country. As we learn exactly how much damage things like second hand smoke is...can't we agree it is the "nice" thing to do...to avoid making someone else uncomfortable for a moment of time. If we all stopped and put the needs of others ahead of our own...as Darcy did with her trainer...that is in itself a sacrifice she made, and I am sure the trainer appreciatated it too. I think this is something that is a good thing, but people who feel their "rights" are being taken away, have to realize we have 2 sides that have rights. This controversy will always be here if the gov't didn't make the decison....someone has to be the bad guy. We all need someone to blame, it better them than taking it out on the establishment owner, or the guy at the next table. They also see things from all angles such as our children are less likely to grow up and be smokers, if they can't go anywhere. Our health care is also changing...that's our city's latest controversy. |
Darcy wrote: but if they are going to sit at a smoking bar....take the chance....not everyone is as nice as me
I totally agree with this, if it is a known smokers hangout...you take your lumps, or leave. I don't go to bars etc...so I never quite understood why the ban was placed there. But for someone that has kids, I really like the ban at the restaurants. |
Quote: The following information is being borrowed from a post by Ron, on another thread:
....Exposure to pollutants on the job is thought to account for about 4% of all cancer deaths; exposure to environmental pollutants (both man-made and naturally occurring) account for about 2% of cancer deaths. Together, that 6% represents approximately 33,900 deaths in the US each year.... ......It goes on to discuss asbestos and radon and how people could be exposed to unsafe levels of these air pollutants indoors.... The authors also discuss outdoor air pollutants, including fine particulates, a type of air pollution often present in urban air, which has been linked with lung cancer and more strongly with heart and lung disease..... ..Also included is a section on secondhand tobacco smoke. It describes the lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke, which contains more than 50 known or suspected carcinogens. And Thun added a wider perspective on the health risks to non-smokers: "Secondhand smoke, in addition to causing about 3,000 lung cancer deaths, causes heart disease. In terms of absolute numbers of deaths the estimate for heart disease is about 35,000 deaths per year.”.... When you compare the number of deaths from polluntants on the job and elsewhere, inside and out, the plain truth is there really isn't anymore danger from one than the other. Its a matter of personal preference, as to what you want to tollerate or blame for cancer, etc.... There's a lot of money issues involved with all of this. Big companies are allowed to spit a certain amount of "smoke" out their chimney, but IF they get caught putting out too much, Uncle Sam charges a fine. But, the limit as to how much is allowed doesn't eliminate the fact that the pollutants are still there. The government is just "controlling" that issue, now they have something else to control, a smoker, whom they're also threatening with fines. |
| Yes, there are many cancer's caused by "other" pollutions. HOWEVER, most of these pollutions (and I am certainly not defending pollution of the atmosphere) are the end by product of something that has had a positive impact on society and life as a whole. Cars, industry etc.
I hope that someday there are ways of manufacturing, driving and producing fuels that do not produce any sort of pollution. But in the mean time it becomes a case of weighing to good vs the bad. THERE IS NO POSITIVE SIDE OF CIGARETTE SMOKE, no positive benefit, no positive end product, no improvement in the quality of life for one or for many. To justify polluting the air I breath with cigarette smoke because there are other pollutants in the atmosphere which cause cancer is just simply absurd. Cigarettes are an addiction, a drug, it is understandable that a person who smokes is so absorbed in their own addiction that they are unable to look past their own need to what is the right thing to do for humanity as a whole. Which is why smoking needs to be legislated, to protect non smokers from smokers. I believe it is the same concept as the DWI laws. People who are alcoholics are unable to make rational decisions about when it is safe to drive, so the government must make those decisions for them. If all smokers were able to make rational choices (there are many "considerate" smokes who do in fact care about the rest of us) then laws would not be necessary. But many (NOT ALL) smokers are so consumed by their addiction that common sense flies right out the window and their need for nicotine overides any concern for the health and welfare of another humn being. There that ought to really tick a few of you off! |
| There's also no positive impact on society from water skiers. Think of all the pollution those motors pour into pristine lakes and the air around them, and all the noise pollution. Think of all the fish that die being hit by boats and skiers. Should we ban water skiing?
How about snow skiing? Clearcutting those paths in the woods must do some nasty things, I can't think of any positive things for the country, well, except for the money and traffic and pollution it brings to pristine mountain areas, if you wanna call that good. So for the good of the many we should ban water and snow skiing, right? Certainly it can't be an economic issue as I'm sure that smoking generates more revenues for big companies, small groceries and tax revenue departments than just about any recreational activity. |
| One could argue the health benefits of both sports as well as the benefit to a persons mental well being of the relaxation of a physically healthy sport |
| I'm still upset about the pit-bull bans. What about the liberty to have the breed of your choice?
Just like a few bad owners caused the problems with the bullies, it was a few inconsiderate smokers who caused the smoking bans. Most of the reason that smokers cannot smoke close to buildings was not because the smoke goes into the building, but because of all the butts left all over the place on the ground, that was then tracked into the building. And who was going to pay to clean up the mess? Best have it out on the sidewalk where the City can clean it up. Along with the ones thrown out of car windows, and tossed on the grund and stepped on. HELLO! The filters are NOT biodegradable! |
| Well, here's an example for you. I work in a health care facility. I am supposed to set a good example for my patients as well as counsel pt's to quit smoking. There is one way for me to enter the building in the morning. That entrance happens to be where all the smokers "hang" to grab that last butt in the morning. God forbid they have to be cold smoking that last cigarette so they hang as close to the door as they can. Consequently I have to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke almost every stinking (and I do mean stinking) morning. So before I even start my day, my hair my coat, my clothes, NOT TO MENTION MY LUNGS are enveloped and saturated in cigarette smoke.
I have had more than one early morning patient ask me IF I SMOKE Is that right? I have worked with smokers for many years, it's always the smokers that get their breaks WITHOUT FAIL while the non smokers are left to pick up the slack so they can escape to "have their fix".
As far as I'm concerned smokers have had the world by the tail for long enough. It is an undefensable, dirty disgusting addiction. I have all the sympathy in the world for those trying to quit and support their efforts 100%. BUT A "RIGHT"?? I don't think so. |
| Hey Ron its called emission test on vehicles.You think for one min. people DONT get stopped on lakes toomake sure their boat,ski doos,etc arent leaking out extreme harmful chemicals?I know exactly that in fact the DNR is out in full force making sure our lakes,rivers,oceans,etc are being protected too their fullest power.IS there going oo be some idiot running some sort of water craft that isnt "up too power"?Of course there is,theres ALWAYS some idiot who is self absorbed who feels HE/SHE has the right too pour their chemicals or dump them into a body of water.Your RV,car,truck,trailer or whatever it is you drive is of course aiding in the whole of the ozone,but someone w/ a lung illness who is driving in their vehicle passing your vehicle more than likely thy will not have any issues just due too common sence,1st of is the person w/ a lung illness going too sit there and suck on your muffler?UHMMMMM..I highly doubt it,where has someone sitting in a diner right next too a smoker is 100% going too feel the effects of that cig.No questions ask.Everyone is bringing up very silly comparisons.Like the whole docking a dogs tail makes me feel unfortable.Maybe it does BUT its not going too aid in your health failing is it?Are you going too work yourself up so badly your health is in danger?Back in the 70's,80's and before you could smoke in church if you wanted too,but in the days of wonderful technolgy we now know 2nd hand CIG smoke WILL cause health problems,being irritate of a docked tail on an OES will not.Its a matter of time before the states that dont have a smoking ban for the people too start sueing the gov. for NOT puting a ban on public smoking,mark my words thats next. The whole idea of living on this planet ALL together is too make it a safer place for me,you,our kids,our loved ones,and if that means not sparking a cig up in public next too my 4yr old then HEY thats what it means. |
| And there are deforestation laws...you can't just go willy nilly into the forest and tear it down... |
| Saw this on CNN - again, it's a two edged sword. You could probably make the argument that it's fair to charge smokers more for health insurance. But some day they may extend the same surcharges to other "high risk" groups - the obese? People with high blood pressure? People with a family history of cancer?
_____________________________ "In Kentucky, tobacco has long been an important cash crop. It still brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. But tobacco has also brought the Bluegrass State something less glorious -- Kentucky has the highest smoking rate in the United States. Nearly 28 percent of Kentuckians smoke regularly, more than any other state. Considering the state's heritage, we found it interesting when Kentucky decided to start charging state employees who smoke more money for health insurance than it charges nonsmokers. The man who led the effort to add the surcharge is Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who also happens to be a doctor. Gov. Fletcher feels that insurance surcharges along with a wellness program will lower Kentucky's smoking rate. In addition, he thinks it is fair for smokers to pay more than nonsmokers because they cost the state so much more for medical care. But there are a lot of angry smokers in Bluegrass Country. Here's one common complaint -- Why doesn't the state ask other people in high risk categories to pay more? We asked the governor what he thought about that argument. He says right now smokers are indeed the only group paying more, but he wouldn't rule out expanding the surcharge to other higher risk categories. Posted By Gary Tuchman, CNN Correspondent: 6:56 PM " |
| Smokers are already charged more for life insurance, and if it is part of your benefit package and you pay a portion (or all) of it, your employer passes that right along.
Is this something extra charged by the health insurer, or is this just imposed as yet another backdoor approach to coercing people not to smoke (while raising money for the state)? |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|