No smoking

[TJS0110]

It's been recently announced that a bill may be past to stop smoking in public places. Certain places would be exempt, such as places that have less then 50 seats and places that make 80% of there income from alcohol sales. However bars that do not meet these requirements will not be allowed to set smoking areas, even if they want to. Infringing on rights or protecting our people?

 

[Schweddy]

Re: No smokeing

I am guessing this is for your state or city?

The state of California already has this - I have no issues for that state as it was VOTED on by the people.

Here in Dallas, there is a ban of ALL public places including bars and cigar shops. Somehow the major "proved" that she had gotten breast cancer from second hand smoke and it was never voted on but went into affect through council. This is flat out wrong. Let the people vote on it.

 

[TJS0110]

Re: No smokeing

I realy just have the opinion that if you don't want to inhale smoke dont go to a bar. Its up to the owner of the bar to decide if they want to allow smokeing. I dont smoke and i dont like sitting by a guy smokeing menthals but you know its his descision and if i dont want to be surrounded by smoke i leave.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: No smokeing

I heard on the news today that 7% of all people who get lung cancer get it from second hand smoke............If that is true then it is a staggering statistic.........

 

[TJS0110]

Re: No smokeing

again they should just leave. That seams inconvenient but its there responsiblety to take care of themselves. I don't want peope getting cancer but still its your responsiblety to take care of yourself.

 

[Deegan]

Re: No smokeing

The one issue I can't tolerate, it should be up to the owner, what next, no smoking in your own home?

 

[Stinger]

Re: No smokeing

The one issue I can't tolerate, it should be up to the owner, what next, no smoking in your own home?

Let the market place decide. If a private business owner wants to allow smoking then let him allow it, I won't go there if it bothers me nor will the 70% of the public which does not smoke.

More and more places do not allow it and I think more and more smokers are being shamed into not lighting up around non-smokers because they finally realize how intrusive it is.

As far as public places, yes ban it.

(An ex-smoker.)

 

[LaMidRighter]

Re: No smokeing

The way I see this issue(unfortunately as a smoker) is that of property rights.
-If a private citizen or corporation owns the business then they should be allowed to dictate all legal use of legal products within thier own walls and parking lot(exceptions being places where it could be an immediate hazard, such as places with flamable hazards) considering that they pay the bills and the argument boils down to property rights, many places already choose to ban smoking when it is optional anyway so making this law is insulting, controlling, and dangerous.
-If government owns the property such as offices, parks, shelters, etc. then by all means, let that body dictate what will be allowed within those borders.

The best argument(as far as laughs) that I have heard so far is that citizens don't have a stated right to smoke, this is overly simplified and I can turn it around, citizens also don't have a right to censure said act since tobacco is a legal product and to ban smoking on private property without a very good reason is actually more damaging to the concept of private property rights than the benefit it could possibly provide to the public.

 

[epr64]

Re: No smokeing

The one issue I can't tolerate, it should be up to the owner, what next, no smoking in your own home?

Yup, that's what is ALREADY happening..

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Banning smoking on company property is common. But Weyco in Michigan is banning workers from smoking altogether, even in the privacy of their homes.

The full article is here.

CU
Y

 

[gordontravels]

Re: No smokeing

I think if the property is private and you aren't required to be there such as employment, meetings, making payments or any other required visit, then it is up to the private property owner as to whether they allow smoking.

If you have to go on private property to pay bills, attend required appointments, as an employee or doing required business, etc., then smoking should be banned.

All public areas or buildings should have a smoking ban. Another poster points out that 7% of lung cancer is from second hand smoke. I don't know that this is true but I know the medical community believes it. Here's the stronger statistic. 50% of those that get lung cancer are dead within 5 years. Some much sooner. 50%.

Here's what you see: He is 180 pounds, 6'2 and in excellent health. He smoked all he wanted and enjoyed it although he quit 20 years ago. In March he is plagued with shortness of breath. He goes to the doctor and after tests, lung cancer is confirmed. It is April 2005.

He is less than 100 pounds. He is dead. It is early August of 2005. Those around him were devastated for the last 3 months having to watch what he went through. With the best medicine and care that money could buy he wasted away. The look in his eyes; you would never forget it.

Rest in peace Peter Jennings.

 

[TJS0110]

Re: No smokeing

Let the market place decide. If a private business owner wants to allow smoking then let him allow it, I won't go there if it bothers me nor will the 70% of the public which does not smoke.

More and more places do not allow it and I think more and more smokers are being shamed into not lighting up around non-smokers because they finally realize how intrusive it is.

As far as public places, yes ban it.

(An ex-smoker.)

The law will not allow the owner to decide. You can smoke at your house

 

[walrus]

Re: No smokeing

I think if the property is private and you aren't required to be there such as employment, meetings, making payments or any other required visit, then it is up to the private property owner as to whether they allow smoking.

If you have to go on private property to pay bills, attend required appointments, as an employee or doing required business, etc., then smoking should be banned.

So smoking should only be allowed in places that no one needs to go to and which employ no one? Sounds like an outright ban to me.

All public areas or buildings should have a smoking ban.

But what is a public place? To me, a public place is one which is owned by the state and open to all, such as a government building. A privately owned restaurant, while open to the public, is not a public place. The owner is permitted to set the dress code, standards of conduct, and activities which are permitted inside - except for smoking. In the case of smoking the all-caring government has helpfully relieved him of the burden of that particular freedom.

Another poster points out that 7% of lung cancer is from second hand smoke. I don't know that this is true but I know the medical community believes it. Here's the stronger statistic. 50% of those that get lung cancer are dead within 5 years. Some much sooner. 50%.

You have an argument with the second hand smoke, although there are several contradictory studies on the subject. The second part smacks of other people passing laws in order to force me to do what they believe is best for me. Most smokers realize it is terribly bad for them - for one reason or another they choose to do it anyway. Do you really want to set a precedent of the government legislating which choices about your own health you choose to make? Eaten any fatty foods lately? Do you excercise as much as the surgeon general thinks you should?

The next step is almost certainly attacks on our rights within our own personal property. Of course, it will first be framed as "for the children". I mean, after all - if smoking is this deadly wouldn't it be child abuse to smoke around your child? Or with your child in the car? And once we have protected the children, what about adults? Isn't that charming door-to-door salesman worth as much as a child? What if he enters your home and is forced to be exposed to that horrible, deadly, second-hand smoke?

I am continually amazed at the number of people who seem to value personal property rights and personal freedom who are able to contradict their own beliefs for this one issue. I wish people would get past "sticking it to those nasty, good-for-nothing smokers" and see this as yet one more liberty that we are cheerfully handing over to the state in exchange for a perception of safety.

 

[Alex]

Re: No smokeing

I am guessing this is for your state or city?

The state of California already has this - I have no issues for that state as it was VOTED on by the people.

Here in Dallas, there is a ban of ALL public places including bars and cigar shops. Somehow the major "proved" that she had gotten breast cancer from second hand smoke and it was never voted on but went into affect through council. This is flat out wrong. Let the people vote on it.

This is not an issue for the people to decide, it is the decision of the business owners. If the state of Texas came to you and said you could not run this site freely, would you be alright with that? If they told you that you must allow only conservatives to register because Texas is majority conservative, would you be alright with that? Majority has no business deciding things like this. If they go to a bar that allows smoking and they do not like it, then leave and don't come back. Why is it that people feel the need to impose their social will on others? If you do not like smoking, do not go places are have smoking. That simple. No need to make it a law that completely bans it from public places. No need to impose your opinion on others.

 

[gordontravels]

Re: No smokeing

QUOTES in Black are walrus - So smoking should only be allowed in places that no one needs to go to and which employ no one? Sounds like an outright ban to me.

I really don't think I said that. Smoking should be allowed in bars, theatres, restaurants, stores and any other private place that people have a choice whether to go to or not to go to. Then the owner of those places can either separate smokers or ban smoking if they want or not allow it at all. Freedom for the property owner to do as they wish and the customers can make up their mind whether to go there and spend their money or not.

If someone works in an office and wants to smoke they should go outside or to a designated area. It is proven that 2nd hand smoke can cause disease or discomfort for others who smoke and don't smoke. If I have to work in an office I shouldn't have to breathe your smoke. It was difficult for me to stop smoking and I don't need to inhale someone else's smoke. If a doctor doesn't want you to smoke in his waiting room then you don't smoke. If a bar owner wants to allow it let him. Where a customer has the choice to go elsewhere let them go.

But what is a public place? To me, a public place is one which is owned by the state and open to all, such as a government building. A privately owned restaurant, while open to the public, is not a public place. The owner is permitted to set the dress code, standards of conduct, and activities which are permitted inside - except for smoking. In the case of smoking the all-caring government has helpfully relieved him of the burden of that particular freedom.

Well it has been pointed out that in California it was a vote of the people that set that standard. When I was a smoker I went to California many times and never had to wait long to have a cigarette. At least it was a majority in a democratic process that made the decision. Since this has set a precedent that works some cities and states are doing the same. Smoking causes disease and is one thing that can be controlled to protect others against disease, allergies and discomfort. Surely you don't think that is wrong?

You have an argument with the second hand smoke, although there are several contradictory studies on the subject. The second part smacks of other people passing laws in order to force me to do what they believe is best for me. Most smokers realize it is terribly bad for them - for one reason or another they choose to do it anyway. Do you really want to set a precedent of the government legislating which choices about your own health you choose to make? Eaten any fatty foods lately? Do you excercise as much as the surgeon general thinks you should?

Actually when I stopped smoking in 1998 I also began a healthy diet and a good exercise plan. I still eat fried foods but not often. I watch what I eat and it has improved my health so much I don't want to tell you. I don't eat fast food but maybe 6 times a year and I don't eat beef (antibiotics). Some poultry (antibiotics) and lots of fish. I don't starve but watch carbs which turn to sugar in your system. Anyone can do what I do

You mention contratradictory studies on second hand smoke. Then you say smokers realize it is terribly bad for them. Yes I say. Let them pay higher insurance premiums so you and I don't have to subsidize their illness. Let them smoke if they want but not in a place that is open to the public and is not a privately owned place. If it is a museum and is owned by the county or state, no smoking. If it is the Jackrabbit Museum of Route 66 or Don Garlitz Dragster Museum and is privately owned then it is up to the owner whether you can smoke there or not. Seems simple to me.

The next step is almost certainly attacks on our rights within our own personal property. Of course, it will first be framed as "for the children". I mean, after all - if smoking is this deadly wouldn't it be child abuse to smoke around your child? Or with your child in the car? And once we have protected the children, what about adults? Isn't that charming door-to-door salesman worth as much as a child? What if he enters your home and is forced to be exposed to that horrible, deadly, second-hand smoke?

I think anyone that smokes around their own children or around anyone that doesn't smoke and can't get away from the smoke is disrespectful at best. I may not be in favor of laws in the private home but what do you think about someone that will smoke in a home with a child there all day long? Do you think it is healthy for the child? And, what choice does the child have?

I am continually amazed at the number of people who seem to value personal property rights and personal freedom who are able to contradict their own beliefs for this one issue. I wish people would get past "sticking it to those nasty, good-for-nothing smokers" and see this as yet one more liberty that we are cheerfully handing over to the state in exchange for a perception of safety.

The personal freedom that you talk about here kills people. Both people that smoke and don't. It is a horrible way to die. It is interesting that you see it as "sticking it to those nasty, good-for-nothing smokers" and a matter of liberty when a 7 year old just wants enough liberty not to die at 13. I was a smoker and I visited a state that had many places you couldn't smoke. Believe me, it is easy to adapt. Most places you have to go to don't allow smoking anyway. Those can take a long time like getting a driver's license. If you consider that in a restaurant you spend most of your time eating it is a small price to pay. Besides, it is so wonderful to light up as you walk outside after a good meal isn't it?:duel

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Re: No smokeing

It's been recently announced that a bill may be past to stop smoking in public places. Certain places would be exempt, such as places that have less then 50 seats and places that make 80% of there income from alcohol sales. However bars that do not meet these requirements will not be allowed to set smoking areas, even if they want to. Infringing on rights or protecting our people?

I'm a smoker. Florida has a no-smoking law in public places. I don't have a problem with that. I never did smoke indoors when it was legal, and never did smoke at home.

It takes very little effort to step outside, it's good excercise, and your house and clothes don't reek of cigarettes. I must admit that once in a while I give in to temptation and smoke in my car.

 

[gordontravels]

Re: No smokeing

I'm a smoker. Florida has a no-smoking law in public places. I don't have a problem with that. I never did smoke indoors when it was legal, and never did smoke at home.

It takes very little effort to step outside, it's good excercise, and your house and clothes don't reek of cigarettes. I must admit that once in a while I give in to temptation and smoke in my car.

Well watch out. I hear New Jersey is considering a law to outlaw smoking in your car. It isn't for your internal health but because they say it is distracting to the driver when the driver smokes. Now I don't know if it applies to the passenger but who knows.

I think it's a good idea though. And then if this works we can outlaw AM/FM Radios, cassette players and CD/mp3 players. Oh and don't forget that gas guage. That one really distracts. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: No smokeing

I am guessing this is for your state or city?

The state of California already has this - I have no issues for that state as it was VOTED on by the people.

Here in Dallas, there is a ban of ALL public places including bars and cigar shops. Somehow the major "proved" that she had gotten breast cancer from second hand smoke and it was never voted on but went into affect through council. This is flat out wrong. Let the people vote on it.

I watched a piece last night by Peter Jennings about cigarettes, taped in the late 1990s. He made one very strong point:

Cigarettes are the only consumer packaged goods sold in the USA that, when used as directed, cause cancer. Think about that?

I used to smoke and I know how evil nicotine is. I would avoid doing things I would have otherwise done so I could have a cigarette. That's messed up.

Why should people have to leave a bar to not be exposed to cancer? We have a complete indoor no smoking law here in NYC and it's great to go to bars and restaurants now, no more intrusions into peoples lives, we are not exposed to cancer. Let's also not forget that less than 30% of Americans smoke cigarettes.

Cigarettes are the only consumer packaged goods sold in the USA that, when used as directed, cause cancer. Think about that?

 

[Fantasea]

Re: No smokeing

I never met a smoker to didn't become 'hooked' as a kid.

Whenever I hear a person say that he smokes because he enjoys it, I have difficulty believing him. I just think it's out of his control.

When I hear a person say that smoking calms his nerves, I understand that the nicotine has worn off and he needs another dose to stop the jitters.

When I hear a person say that it's his own business, I remember that cancer treatment is a big business that the taxpayers have to subsidize. I think, too, about the suffering of the women and children, widowed or orphaned by some otherwise good husband and father who just couldn't quit. It seems to me that it's somebody else's business, too.

When I see a smoker who is the parent of a child with respiratory problems, I am saddened.

Whenever I hear a person say he'd like to quit smoking, I believe him.

However:

Is nicotine addictive?
In February 2000, the Royal College of Physicians published a report on nicotine addiction which concluded that “Cigarettes are highly efficient nicotine delivery devices and are as addictive as drugs such as heroin or cocaine.” [1] Two years earlier, the report of the Government’s Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health stated that: “Over the past decade there has been increasing recognition that underlying smoking behaviour and its remarkable intractability to change is addiction to the drug nicotine. Nicotine has been shown to have effects on brain dopamine systems similar to those of drugs such as heroin and cocaine”. [2] Both the RCP and SCOTH reports confirmed the findings of the landmark review by the US Surgeon General in 1988 on nicotine which also concluded that cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting and that nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction. [3]

Full article: http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact09.html

So to me, the entire argument of 'personal freedom' in the matter of smoking, is nothing but a big load of :bs

 

[Alex]

Re: No smokeing

I watched a piece last night by Peter Jennings about cigarettes, taped in the late 1990s. He made one very strong point:

Cigarettes are the only consumer packaged goods sold in the USA that, when used as directed, cause cancer. Think about that?

I used to smoke and I know how evil nicotine is. I would avoid doing things I would have otherwise done so I could have a cigarette. That's messed up.

Why should people have to leave a bar to not be exposed to cancer? We have a complete indoor no smoking law here in NYC and it's great to go to bars and restaurants now, no more intrusions into peoples lives, we are not exposed to cancer. Let's also not forget that less than 30% of Americans smoke cigarettes.

Cigarettes are the only consumer packaged goods sold in the USA that, when used as directed, cause cancer. Think about that?

A television can cause cancer. The computer screen you are looking into right now can cause cancer. It is known that animal products can cause arthritis. Should all these things be outlawed. To say that smoking should be banned in public places because of cancer risk is not an exclusive arguement.

Many packaged foods cause obesity. Should they be outlawed?

"...no more intrusions into peoples lives..."? Isn't it more intrusive to prevent someone from running their business they way they want? No one is being intrusive here except people who are imposing their will for non-smoking places on others. I am wondering if you chose the wrong word here.

You see "less than 30% of Americans smoke cigarettes." I see 30% of Americans who have rights.

What is wrong with the business deciding what is best for them? Your health is your responsibility and no one else. If you go to a place that allows smoking, you have the option to leave. Why do you need government babysitting to do everything for you? Be an adult and make your own decisions and allow others the same respect.

 

[edb19]

Re: No smokeing

I don't smoke and prefer that my dinners aren't interupted by cigarette smoke. However - we live in a free market society and as such I have serious problems with a government banning smoking in public places without the public's vote of support.

In Toledo the city council passed a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. They did allow for a smoking area with completely separate ventilation systems and totally isolated from the remainder of the facility. The facilities that chose to have a smoking area spent 10s of thousands of dollars in construction costs.

Several bar owners pushed for the smoking ordinance to be put on a ballot. After more than a year they were successful, the people voted to lessen the ban and as a result modifications were made. In the meantime - many bars and restaurants lost business (and the resulting income for the city) to the suburbs.

 

[ludahai]

Re: No smokeing

Well watch out. I hear New Jersey is considering a law to outlaw smoking in your car. It isn't for your internal health but because they say it is distracting to the driver when the driver smokes. Now I don't know if it applies to the passenger but who knows.

I think it's a good idea though. And then if this works we can outlaw AM/FM Radios, cassette players and CD/mp3 players. Oh and don't forget that gas guage. That one really distracts. :duel

Who would have guessed that the slippery slope of banning cell phones in cars would lead to banning smoking. I wonder what would happen if they tried that here in Taiwan, or worse yet, in China?

 

[ludahai]

Re: No smokeing

Cigarettes are the only consumer packaged goods sold in the USA that, when used as directed, cause cancer. Think about that?

I used to smoke and I know how evil nicotine is. I would avoid doing things I would have otherwise done so I could have a cigarette. That's messed up.

This is one of the very few issues I will ever agree with this fan of the Damn Yankees on. My father died from lung cancer that he acquired due to smoking at least two packs a day for two decades. I have found that in many cases, smokers are among the most insensitive people in regards to non-smokers rights. I am not saying all smokers are like that, but are distressingly large number of them are.

In the late 80s, New Hampshire passed what I thought was a sensible law. Restaurants could only have a smoking section if that and non-smoking sections could be physically separated (i.e. by a wall) from one another. Most restaurants couldn't, so immediately went non-smoking. However, I am concerned about servers who are required to work in the smoke filled room. I once worked at a Cracker Barrel restaurant when I was a student in Georgia and was required to work the smoking room about once a week. I needed the job to help pay my tuition, but I couldn't stand the cigarette smoke in the room. Not only that, but smokers tip like crap! Probably spend too much money on their smokes to tip well.

I am very hesitant to endorse policies from the government that infringe on personal choice, but this is one in which I agree with sensible restrictions. Cigarettes in public places (including places of public access) should be regulated by the government. The rights of too many people are being infringed otherwise.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: No smokeing

A television can cause cancer. The computer screen you are looking into right now can cause cancer. It is known that animal products can cause arthritis. Should all these things be outlawed. To say that smoking should be banned in public places because of cancer risk is not an exclusive arguement.

Many packaged foods cause obesity. Should they be outlawed?

"...no more intrusions into peoples lives..."? Isn't it more intrusive to prevent someone from running their business they way they want? No one is being intrusive here except people who are imposing their will for non-smoking places on others. I am wondering if you chose the wrong word here.

You see "less than 30% of Americans smoke cigarettes." I see 30% of Americans who have rights.

What is wrong with the business deciding what is best for them? Your health is your responsibility and no one else. If you go to a place that allows smoking, you have the option to leave. Why do you need government babysitting to do everything for you? Be an adult and make your own decisions and allow others the same respect.

Your argument might have merit, except for four words in your final sentence, "...make your own decisions..."

It is not the person, but the nicotine, which is making the decision. If you don't think so, consider this the next time you pass a tall office building on a cold rainy day.

Why the hell are these numb skulls standing out here in the rain having a smoke? They had to stop work, leave their desks, grab a raincoat or umbrella, take the elevator down, come out here for a smoke, take the elevator back up, drop off the raincoat or umbrella, go back to their desks, and resume work.

Are these the rational actions of persons making their own decisions?

No. These are the actions of persons addicted to nicotine who were beginning to get the shakes as the stuff was wearing off and needed a smoke "to calm their nerves." How many times have we heard those four words -- to calm my nerves?

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact09.html

If you're hooked, you'll deny it. That's the way it is with any addiction. If you're not hooked, be thankful and stop trying to discourage others from getting "unhooked".

 

[akyron]

Re: No smokeing

again they should just leave. That seams inconvenient but its there responsiblety to take care of themselves. I don't want peope getting cancer but still its your responsiblety to take care of yourself.

Banning smoking is taking care of yourself. If you want to smoke you can go somewhere else as well. The burden should be on the more harmful side I think.

 

[akyron]

Re: No smokeing

The best argument(as far as laughs) that I have heard so far is that citizens don't have a stated right to smoke, this is overly simplified and I can turn it around, citizens also don't have a right to censure said act since tobacco is a legal product and to ban smoking on private property without a very good reason is actually more damaging to the concept of private property rights than the benefit it could possibly provide to the public.

Well do you have the right to breathe the best clean air you can get?