Who is the gov't to institue smoking bans. The last time I checked, cigarette's are legal. Let the market sort it out. If smoking is a big enough issue, then you will see a lot of non-smoking bars and restaurants open up due to demand. As far as somking establishments, if you don't want to be around smokers, don't go there. Also, the excuse about the workers doesn't hold water. If the workers don't want to work in that enviorment they can go to work elsewhere.

The last I heard this was supposed to be "the land of the free". If this nanny state continues to grow, you won't be able to leave your house without getting approval from you local municipal board to do so.

The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... and that's about it. The rest of this crap, they need to leave alone.
quote:
Originally posted by bubba81962:
I absolutely support a smoking ban in public places. This has never been the land of the free, it is a democracy and I think the majority supports a ban according to the polls I have seen. If our sorry municipal government would get off their collective a/s/s/e/s and do something they have a chance to make a difference in our city.


Technically it's a Republic, but that's for another discussion. I am all for letting the public vote. I believe in most cases it's a losing vote. I still believe in free enterprise though. Why do you think you need a law for EVERYTHING?
There was research done in Birmingham after they put a smoking ban in place. Everywhere that had the smoking ban actually benefitted from it. Sales went up. Initially, Birmingham was not in favor of the ban but once they saw the outcome, they were ecstatic. Smokers always say that it is their right to smoke and anyone that doesn't like it can go else where. That works both ways, if the smokers do not like the smoke free environment, they can also go elsewhere or stay at home.
quote:
Originally posted by MarriedSoon:
There was research done in Birmingham after they put a smoking ban in place. Everywhere that had the smoking ban actually benefitted from it. Sales went up. Initially, Birmingham was not in favor of the ban but once they saw the outcome, they were ecstatic. Smokers always say that it is their right to smoke and anyone that doesn't like it can go else where. That works both ways, if the smokers do not like the smoke free environment, they can also go elsewhere or stay at home.


The question is though, who are you to push your values onto the rest of the populace? Is there a problem with letting the free market sort it out or are you just bound and determined to push your beliefs on me?
I'm a smoker so I push nothing on anyone. I don't think the smoking ban has anything to do with morals though. Smoking is not an issue of morals. Smoking is an issue of personal choice and I respect the people that do not want to be exposed. Just because I make the decision to smoke doesn't mean that I should also make the decision for the person sitting next to me. If they do not want to smoke, it isn't my place to subject them to second hand smoke. They aren't harming me by not smoking so why should I harm them by smoking? Everyone has the right to clean air if they want to take advantage of it.
quote:
Originally posted by MarriedSoon:
I'm a smoker so I push nothing on anyone. I don't think the smoking ban has anything to do with morals though. Smoking is not an issue of morals. Smoking is an issue of personal choice and I respect the people that do not want to be exposed. Just because I make the decision to smoke doesn't mean that I should also make the decision for the person sitting next to me. If they do not want to smoke, it isn't my place to subject them to second hand smoke. They aren't harming me by not smoking so why should I harm them by smoking? Everyone has the right to clean air if they want to take advantage of it.


Which is why I say letter the market sort it out. There will be places for smokers and for non-smokers if there is truly a demand for such. The market will deffinately fill the niche if there is a strong push for non-smoking establishments.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Who is the gov't to institue smoking bans. The last time I checked, cigarette's are legal. Let the market sort it out. If smoking is a big enough issue, then you will see a lot of non-smoking bars and restaurants open up due to demand. As far as somking establishments, if you don't want to be around smokers, don't go there. Also, the excuse about the workers doesn't hold water. If the workers don't want to work in that enviorment they can go to work elsewhere.

The last I heard this was supposed to be "the land of the free". If this nanny state continues to grow, you won't be able to leave your house without getting approval from you local municipal board to do so.

The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... and that's about it. The rest of this crap, they need to leave alone.



Dang, Well Said Southern Patriot!!! Wink The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... Yep,keeping us safe would be to make sure we have food to eat,medical care for the sick,police to lock up bad guys,and keeping the land of the free, FREE!
I agree with the statement "The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... and that's about it." I think keeping us safe would also mean to keep nonsmokers "safe" from cancer that someone else is pushing on them. So, I guess the non smoking ban shows that the goverment is doing their job if part of it includes keeping people safe.
quote:
Originally posted by MarriedSoon:
I agree with the statement "The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... and that's about it." I think keeping us safe would also mean to keep nonsmokers "safe" from cancer that someone else is pushing on them. So, I guess the non smoking ban shows that the goverment is doing their job if part of it includes keeping people safe.


Have you ever heard the words Nanny State? Just exactly how much of your life do you want the gov't to run for you. Hell, out in San Fran they are trying to make it against the law to have a fire place. Do you have a fire place? do you like to sit in front of somebody elses fire place? Too bad. Nanny's gone take that away from you.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Who is the gov't to institue smoking bans. The last time I checked, cigarette's are legal. Let the market sort it out. If smoking is a big enough issue, then you will see a lot of non-smoking bars and restaurants open up due to demand. As far as somking establishments, if you don't want to be around smokers, don't go there. Also, the excuse about the workers doesn't hold water. If the workers don't want to work in that enviorment they can go to work elsewhere.

The last I heard this was supposed to be "the land of the free". If this nanny state continues to grow, you won't be able to leave your house without getting approval from you local municipal board to do so.

The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... and that's about it. The rest of this crap, they need to leave alone.



Dang, Well Said Southern Patriot!!! Wink The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... Yep,keeping us safe would be to make sure we have food to eat,medical care for the sick,police to lock up bad guys,and keeping the land of the free, FREE!


It's not the gov't job to feed you or give you medical care PBA and you know it, unless you just like a hand out. How bout the gov't lets you keep more of your money and you can buy your own food and medical care a whole heck of a lot easier. You might even donate some of your money to organizations who would feed the hungry and provide medical care for the needy that is a whole lot more fiscally responsible than our gov't is.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Who is the gov't to institue smoking bans. The last time I checked, cigarette's are legal. Let the market sort it out. If smoking is a big enough issue, then you will see a lot of non-smoking bars and restaurants open up due to demand. As far as somking establishments, if you don't want to be around smokers, don't go there. Also, the excuse about the workers doesn't hold water. If the workers don't want to work in that enviorment they can go to work elsewhere.

The last I heard this was supposed to be "the land of the free". If this nanny state continues to grow, you won't be able to leave your house without getting approval from you local municipal board to do so.

The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... and that's about it. The rest of this crap, they need to leave alone.



Dang, Well Said Southern Patriot!!! Wink The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... Yep,keeping us safe would be to make sure we have food to eat,medical care for the sick,police to lock up bad guys,and keeping the land of the free, FREE!


It's not the gov't job to feed you or give you medical care PBA and you know it, unless you just like a hand out. How bout the gov't lets you keep more of your money and you can buy your own food and medical care a whole heck of a lot easier. You might even donate some of your money to organizations who would feed the hungry and provide medical care for the needy that is a whole lot more fiscally responsible than our gov't is.



I agree with what you say, but how are we gonna make this happen?
quote:
Originally posted by MarriedSoon:
I think keeping us safe would also mean to keep nonsmokers "safe" from cancer that someone else is pushing on them.



I would hope most people would be able to do that for themselves.
If I stumble upon a pile of red-hot coals, I wouldn't need someone from the government to tell me not to stick my hand in them because they're hot.
If someone is afraid they'll get cancer and doesn't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, then by all means they should stay away from it. I agree with SP, let the market decide not the government. If enough people stay away, I'm pretty sure that guy who risked his life savings to open that restaurant will do what he thinks is best.
I am all for a ban on smoking in public resturants and maybe even bars.
As far as what SP and others say about government interference, there are already a LOT of things you can't do in a restaurant. For example, you can't bring your dog/cat (except for blind people), you can't sit nakked (at least not around here) and a host of other things. Why is smoking so different?
I am a smoker but don't have a problem with going outside of a restaurant to do it. Actually, my husband and kids always ask me if I don't need to go smoke coz it always makes the food come the second I step out the door, lol! Having said that, I'd like to ask a favor of all you nonsmokers who ask for the "first available" seating in a restaurant where they DO allow smoking...please don't ask for "first available", go to the smoking section because it's free first, and then sit and glare at me because I am smoking. Thanks!
quote:
Originally posted by SaltyDog:
I am a smoker but don't have a problem with going outside of a restaurant to do it. Actually, my husband and kids always ask me if I don't need to go smoke coz it always makes the food come the second I step out the door, lol! Having said that, I'd like to ask a favor of all you nonsmokers who ask for the "first available" seating in a restaurant where they DO allow smoking...please don't ask for "first available", go to the smoking section because it's free first, and then sit and glare at me because I am smoking. Thanks!



Have you ever run into jerks that have the balls to say your cologne offends me? lol. It has not happen to me, but I have heard other people say it happen to them. lol
This is lunacy...Communism reering its ugly head in America...These folks calling for smoking bans are Nazis. I believe it was Southern Patriot(if not I apoligize) that said it right...This is a free market issue. Open a smoke free bar and grill and see how it goes. Otherwise, have a smoking section and non-smoking section. It works with alcohol. I hate being around drunk a$s fools, and I have choices that keep me away from that possibility.
Smoking is about personaly choice...what if a ban on homosexuals in all indoor public areas was instituted, or no morbidly obeese people can wear tight cloths, or (as PBA aluded to) no strong pufumes, no kissing in public(gay or straight), no mini-skirts on hot women or sleevless shirts for the ripped jocks(wouldnt want any jealous people trying to eat).
This is ridiculous people...We hear so much about rights getting taken away...these are the types of things that are the real warning signs, not the patriot act...THIS!!! Pay attention, there will be much more of this political correct feel-goodism pussification to come.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
quote:
Originally posted by SaltyDog:
I am a smoker but don't have a problem with going outside of a restaurant to do it. Actually, my husband and kids always ask me if I don't need to go smoke coz it always makes the food come the second I step out the door, lol! Having said that, I'd like to ask a favor of all you nonsmokers who ask for the "first available" seating in a restaurant where they DO allow smoking...please don't ask for "first available", go to the smoking section because it's free first, and then sit and glare at me because I am smoking. Thanks!



Have you ever run into jerks that have the balls to say your cologne offends me? lol. It has not happen to me, but I have heard other people say it happen to them. lol


Although I have never said anything to anyone, I have left restaurants, because of smoke, and I have left church because of women's strong smelling perfume.
I have also cut short visits with friends because they smelled like an ashtray.
Whine about the nanny state all you want. One smoker can completely stink up the inside of any business, restaurant, or bar. One non-smoker might only be quietly obnoxious. I wouldn't have a problem with smokers in public if they wrapped themselves in impermeable plastic and kept their stink inside with them, rather than sharing it with the world. That would also go along with overpowering perfume. The rest of it, like size 24W stretch pants, 300 pound women in bare midriff shirts and "JUICY" shorts, and teenage boys with six inches of their underwear showing above their belts...well, at least you don't have to breathe their fumes. Mostly.
It is a public health issue...smoking tobacco in confined spaces to the extent that others are inhaling that did not intend to inhale. The same government that operates the CDC, Center for Disease Control and the same government that had manufacturers place health hazard warnings on cigarette packs, can also invoke and enforce smoking bans in enclosed, confined spaces where air is re-breathed, such as restaurants, bars and other small businesses.

The same government that wiped out smallpox, polio and other illnesses by requiring vaccinations, can also, in the interest of public health, ban smoking in confined spaces.
For all the years that I was a smoker, I apologize to everyone I offended or endangered with my smoke and my inconsiderate attitude toward others who did not chose to smoke my smoke.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Who is the gov't to institue smoking bans. The last time I checked, cigarette's are legal. Let the market sort it out. If smoking is a big enough issue, then you will see a lot of non-smoking bars and restaurants open up due to demand. As far as somking establishments, if you don't want to be around smokers, don't go there. Also, the excuse about the workers doesn't hold water. If the workers don't want to work in that enviorment they can go to work elsewhere.

The last I heard this was supposed to be "the land of the free". If this nanny state continues to grow, you won't be able to leave your house without getting approval from you local municipal board to do so.

The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... and that's about it. The rest of this crap, they need to leave alone.



Dang, Well Said Southern Patriot!!! Wink The gov't job is to fix the roads, keep us safe... Yep,keeping us safe would be to make sure we have food to eat,medical care for the sick,police to lock up bad guys,and keeping the land of the free, FREE!


I am writing in hopes of contributing a comment in reaction to the smoking in cars with children ban now being discussed nationwide and internationally, claiming "child abuse?" as the platform.

Many involved in this issue don't realize how anti smoking has grown into anti smoker, in the full reliance of that distinction. Smoking bans have their roots at the World Health Organization as one of the more profitable of HIA health interventions. [Yes, I said profitable.]

The intervention model calls for partnerships to be sought out among those who would find the most benefit from a targeted campaign. A social experiment gone horribly awry.

In the beginning finding a harm in second hand smoke was an arduous and expressive venture in worst case philosophies. As time progressed the reasoning and support became almost too easy to define in use of epidemiology to express the dedicated and quite obviously biased view.

The sad realization we have all come to see here, is that smoking bans are a booty call to the corrupt, who revel in that corruption enthusiastically, when it is safe to participate openly and in public view.

Smoking bans and other HIA health interventions clearly demonstrated to the world; how deeply embedded in our societies corruption truly exists and how easily others can become corrupted when it serves common goals.

Utilizing national socialism is not unique in our history. Mussolini more affectionately called it industrial socialism when we last saw an irresistible attraction to centrist politics by means of protecting the public from the threats, other targeted individuals imposed.

Perhaps by evaluating HIA health interventions, we can see them more clearly now as a social experiment, to measure corruption by encouraging partnerships with absolutely conflicted objectives, to see, how corrupted societies have become. The partners include; Industrial concerns, Politicians in all camps, The media and most prominently the numerous medical charities at the forefront.

Unfortunately we haven't fared so well, considering the expansive growth of; global warming, Anti fat, Anti alcohol and most predominantly anti smoker fear campaigns defined now as "the model" for lobby campaign success.

How well the campaigns were supported and how quickly they grew, with constitutional and legal challenges so easily put aside, we come to see the full value of the dollar, in respect to how dedicated many have become to a dollar. Accentuating how little respect they see for the more traditional principles which are the foundations of our civilizations and governance.

It's really a sad thing to see, how low we can sink when considerations of others become secondary in our concerns and greed is allowed to rule.

It is well past the time the experiment ended and the public was let in on; the joke of our time, before no one can see a reason to laugh as the joke becomes more cruel by the hour.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Whine about the nanny state all you want. One smoker can completely stink up the inside of any business, restaurant, or bar. One non-smoker might only be quietly obnoxious. I wouldn't have a problem with smokers in public if they wrapped themselves in impermeable plastic and kept their stink inside with them, rather than sharing it with the world. That would also go along with overpowering perfume. The rest of it, like size 24W stretch pants, 300 pound women in bare midriff shirts and "JUICY" shorts, and teenage boys with six inches of their underwear showing above their belts...well, at least you don't have to breathe their fumes. Mostly.



I love it when people only read or even CARE about one side of the REAL story and then ending up stepping in the proverbial poo!!! Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
It is a public health issue...smoking tobacco in confined spaces to the extent that others are inhaling that did not intend to inhale. The same government that operates the CDC, Center for Disease Control and the same government that had manufacturers place health hazard warnings on cigarette packs, can also invoke and enforce smoking bans in enclosed, confined spaces where air is re-breathed, such as restaurants, bars and other small businesses.

The same government that wiped out smallpox, polio and other illnesses by requiring vaccinations, can also, in the interest of public health, ban smoking in confined spaces.
For all the years that I was a smoker, I apologize to everyone I offended or endangered with my smoke and my inconsiderate attitude toward others who did not chose to smoke my smoke.



The Government YOU are talking about was many years ago when they kept American and their welfare to heart.

That Government doesn't exist anymore. Today's government just wants to see how many hoops they can get one to jump through before the person starts complaining. Sad but true.

OUR Government today hsn't wiped anything away. Not even WAR. They don't care if kids eat, if they get to go to the doctor, if people freeze to death, if disease keeps coming back, nope, this government wants to make sure that they pit smokers against non smokers, when it just is NOT necessary. THE BUSINESS OWNER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CALL HIS BUSINESS THE WAY HE WANTS IT TO BE!!!! Pure and simple. Otherwise you have just put another nail into the coffin of the Constitution. Our Children will be so proud of us. Roll Eyes

Smoking is just another way for them to whittle at our Constitution that all you out there are so happy to see them do. When our constitution is gone, then what country is everyone going to migrate to???

This is so simple it is UNREAL, but people want to make it complex.

"Allow the business OWNER to see what mixture his clientele is, smokers or non smokers. Then said business owner has to REGISTER the business as a SMOKING business or a NON SMOKING business. The signs will be on every door so people who don't smoke can't be confused, and people who do smoke will remember to not light up.

Why make everything so complex when there is really only ONE CONSTITUTIONAL Way of doing this.

And P.S., I don't smoke, but I DO love the Constitution, or what is left of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:


The question is though, who are you to push your values onto the rest of the populace? Is there a problem with letting the free market sort it out or are you just bound and determined to push your beliefs on me?


Actually, that isn't the question at all. If I brought a skunk into a restaurant everyone there would have a hissy fit and I'd be thrown out. If you bring your equally stinky tobacco into a restaurant, you should expect the same.
What gives government the right to regulate cleanliness in a restaurant? To rate establishments? To close down unclean places? Common sense, that's what. It is entirely appropriate. Does a person have a right to blow a known carcinogen into the air in a restaurant? Of course not. No more than a person would have a right to bring a rat into a restaurant. Or to run a restaurant dirty and unclean and unhealthy in any regard. A private place is still public in the sense that government does have authority there. If a crime is committed in a private place the police still come and investigate. By what authority? It is private. This shows the fallacy of the argument that government has no business telling a business not to allow smoking. It not only has a right to do this, it has a duty to do it. A restaurant is a quasi-public place even if it is private owned. The same government that insures food safety, can and should ensure air safety as well. People have a right to expect that when they are in certain places they are protected form harmful situations, within reason. Government doing what it can to stop a carcinogen from being blown into the air in a restaurant is within reason. As is it doing what it can to make sure the food is fresh and the place is clean. It's a no-brainer.
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:


The question is though, who are you to push your values onto the rest of the populace? Is there a problem with letting the free market sort it out or are you just bound and determined to push your beliefs on me?


Actually, that isn't the question at all. If I brought a skunk into a restaurant everyone there would have a hissy fit and I'd be thrown out. If you bring your equally stinky tobacco into a restaurant, you should expect the same.



Ah, but your argument don't hold water and still hold up to our Constitution either.

IF the Business owners, you know, the ones who PAY for their businesses, their licenses, their taxes, decides that in THEIR BUSINESS on THEIR PROPERTY they WANT SKUNKS to be patrons, then so be it, those who don't LIKE skunks can find another establishment to go to.

On the other hand, Another business Owner who don't like Skunks, don't want skunks and they too pay their taxes and own the Business, then they can put a sign on the door NO SKUNKS. That way no one would "accidently" walk in with one.

The other owner who does allow Skunks can put SKUNKS ALLOWED on the door, and then the anti-skunk folks can move on to a different location.

I don't think it is anything more than a POWER STRUGGLE, and people taste the power to MAKE folks do what THEY want them to do, without thinking of all the repurcussions of it.

I do not think anyone on this forum, any other forum, this town, any State has the RIGHT to sit there and take OWNER'S RIGHTS AWAY from them. Otherwise, while you are doing that, burn our Constitution and we will be like Russia before too long.

P.S., I am a NON SKUNK person!!!
quote:
Originally posted by FDR:
What gives government the right to regulate cleanliness in a restaurant? To rate establishments? To close down unclean places? Common sense, that's what. It is entirely appropriate. Does a person have a right to blow a known carcinogen into the air in a restaurant? Of course not. No more than a person would have a right to bring a rat into a restaurant. Or to run a restaurant dirty and unclean and unhealthy in any regard. A private place is still public in the sense that government does have authority there. If a crime is committed in a private place the police still come and investigate. By what authority? It is private. This shows the fallacy of the argument that government has no business telling a business not to allow smoking. It not only has a right to do this, it has a duty to do it. A restaurant is a quasi-public place even if it is private owned. The same government that insures food safety, can and should ensure air safety as well. People have a right to expect that when they are in certain places they are protected form harmful situations, within reason. Government doing what it can to stop a carcinogen from being blown into the air in a restaurant is within reason. As is it doing what it can to make sure the food is fresh and the place is clean. It's a no-brainer.


The vast majority of "health issues" that is on the scoreboard of restuarants are because of things that needs to be repaired, NOT because of it being "dirty".

It is a NO BRAINER for a NON SMOKER to go to a smoke free restuarant, while a smoker goes to a smoking restuarant.

Your RIGHTS END when the OTHER PERSONS RIGHTS BEGIN, and in this case, we are making decisions for BUSINESS OWNERS and we have NO RIGHT to do that. We don't own it, THEY do.

Don't like their atmosphere, go elsewhere.
I like how the non-smokers say you can just stay home, but when the smoker says you can go to a non-smoking restuarant your like I should be able to go any where I want and have no smoke around me at all.

If someone wants to put in a smoking section they should be able too, if they want to make it completly non-smoking they should be able too, in fact there are more and more non-smoking establishments because more and more people fund those. This is where you need to spend your money and as this portion of society becomes more profitable we will see less and less smoking establishments. Instead you want to create law, laws to force someone who owns a bar to ban smoking even though all of his clientel might smoke...so his clientel stays home now this owner is out of business I guess we can pass a law to help him out too.

Let the market decide, if you look around it already is...
quote:
Originally posted by FDR:
The non-smoker's reasonable expectation that they can have safe air to breath trumps a smoker's "right" to smoke anywhere he wants to. By a long shot.



Then SEEK out the businesses that doesn't allow smoking, that way you are safe. Don't try to be a control freak and take our Constitution away.

If you succeed, there will come a day you will be so very sad you made that decision.
quote:
Originally posted by FDR:
The non-smoker's reasonable expectation that they can have safe air to breath trumps a smoker's "right" to smoke anywhere he wants to. By a long shot.



This is not about non-smokers right too breathe clean air, or smokers rights too smoke anywhere they want. The question is, does the government have a right to, in the interest of public health, pass a law and enforce it in a private business thereby taking away a business owners right to decide what's best.

The government eradicated many diseases by vaccinations. Do you think the government has the right too come into your home and hold your child down while they vaccinate him ?

There's a reason why police can't go into a bar and arrest somebody for "public intoxication".
Making a business' conformation too certain health standards being a determining factor about whether they can be opened or closed is one thing, but passing a law and enabling police to enter a private business to enforce it is quite another. If you start down that road, as Kindred said, you might as well tear up the Constitution.
So, let me see if I get this, you want the "right" to breathe clean air, and you think the government should do whatever is necessary to ensure that right, even if it means trampling someone else's.So "the ends justify the means". It's funny, if you said that about the Patriot Act, you'd be crucified. Oh, I get it, it's ok to take away someone's rights, if it insures yours.

If the goal is too have smoke-free businesses, there are ways to accomplish that without running rough-shod over the Constitution.
Besides, I'm sure the police have better things to do than be on smoking patrol.
Midknight, among other things, you are wrong about not coming into a bar and arresting a drunk. When drunks get loud, aggressive and disorderly, the bar calls the cops and the subject is arrested for public drunkness and disorderly conduct.
A place that serves the public is a public place unless it is operating as a private club where paying membership is required.
One other thing, smokers are in a clear minority. Major companies are forbidding smoking on the job, some will not hire you if you are a smoker and some will fire you if you are smoking at home. The health considerations of smoking are impacting insurance costs. If you want to smoke, use a pistol instead, it is quicker and more painless...cheaper in the long run also..

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×