|smoking bansPage 3 of 16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)|
|Yes, they are trying to illegalize it in your personal homes. I understand apartments or rental homes because the resident isn't the owner and the owner will have to rent the place to someone else later. But your own home that you may even have the mortgage paid is also a target of further banning.|
Like I said, I can live with not being allowed to smoke indoors in places upon which non-smokers have no choice but to be. It's not about the smoking to me. It's about the fact that government goes beyond the bounds of Democracy and that while today it's this, what is it tomorrow?
It's about a situation where laws are not enforced by law enforcement where they are trained in the aspects of dealing with the citizenry in regards to law, but power is given to the lady that has a judgmental opinion on everything with no law enforcement training.
It's about those who are happy as clams as long as it's everyone else being discriminated against that sends the message of approval to further and more intrusive stripping of liberty.
I don't know what the equitable answer is, but this isn't it.
Posted: 4/17/2008 2:59:19 PM
|Smoking bans.....were the prelude to all Liberal agendas and enviormenaltist aka the tree huggers!|
First Smoking ban
cell phone restrictions
language..everthing is now a letter not a word (if someone says it hurts) lol
certain cooking odors
house sizes in certain neighborhoods
and even those who are voting for the bans don't realize that even fat folks will be banned from eating to much! lol... That's apart of the new Health Care System!
Sweets and so on....
Control Control Control.....where will it end nobody knows! But ride on Dude The man says we need to be told how to act think and live! So much for Freedom of Choice!
Posted: 4/17/2008 3:20:32 PM
Get a clue people, you don't have the "right" to do whatever you want if it affect others.
I don't smoke or drink or eat too much or violate others in any area!
But I don't agree with banning everyone who you don't agree with!
I don't drink ....dont you think those who drink and drive kill people? does it not effect others? What about fat folks? doesn't that effect others? Health care costs? Who are you to say what affects bothers who?
So whats the solution? ban everything we deem as we don't like? As they keep cutting their throats.....Half the state taxs come from Smoking Booze bars clubs all the things the flamers can't stand....so their solution is to start first by raising the taxs and now banning? their goin to end up banning all their tax money!
in the name of Liberalism!
Posted: 4/17/2008 5:04:52 PM
|>>> That is because the majority of people see the harmful affects of smoking and don't see it as a "right" like many smokers do. |
I agree- smoking wherever your want is not a right- but I see nothing wrong if the property owner chooses to permit smoking. They are the one who owns that right, not you.
>>> With the majority of the population voting against it, implementing what the people want is democratic.
Have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? I remember Hitler was democratically voted in- so was Saddam- does that justify their actions?
>>>Those saying that we are not allowing capitalism to dictate what happens are mistaken, capitalism is ruled by the peoples (majority rules) choices affecting the system.
Yes, but the hinge in that is the individual gets to choose- not the collective.
Posted: 4/17/2008 5:41:16 PM
So whats the solution? ban everything we deem as we don't like?
Who gets to choose next time?
Posted: 4/17/2008 6:57:51 PM
|/\/\/\ YES. RADON is the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer. If you don not smoke, it is your LEADING cause of lung cancer. |
All in all, lung cancer death rates are average about 500 per 100,000 AT AGE 79, SMOKER or NON-SMOKER. Doesnt matter.
Theres such a small difference in lung cancer statistics between smokers & non-smokers below age 40 that its not even graphed. Theres a nice layout graph on the National Cancer Institute site :
Whether smoker or non smoker, the graph maintains a statistical zero per 100,000 until it reaches the age 35-39 bracket. At that age its only a few per 100,000. It really starts to climb steadily at 60 and peaks at age 79.
Lung cancer is responsible for .5% of ALL deaths at age 79. What on earth are the other 99.5%, or 99,500 people dying from?? That would concern me more.
Hardly epidemic proportions that we are led to believe, considering average North American life expectency is 77.
As far as those measly 500 deaths per 100,000, smoking is responsible for for about half (250)of those deaths. But RADON comes in a close second at around 150 deaths of those 500 per 100,000. The other top 10 factors account for remaining 100 deaths of that 500 per 100,000 total.
When looked at it that way, why is there this hysteria over tobacco, whilst the dangers of RADON are virtually unknown to the general public?? I know the answer to that one.
Are anti-smoking crusaders ever concerned that they perhaps breathed RADON in their homes where their precious children live?? I dont think so. Little do they realise that they have breathed far more RADON than 2nd hand smoke in their lifetimes.
You should still have the choice to smoke in your house, but other than that, the government has a duty to protect the other people and the environment...
......I do think though that they should ban smoking in cars while kids are present
This is another fine jewel of the hypocritical double standard practised by the anti smoking crusaders. If it was NOT about their general dislike of tobacco smoke and it was truely about childrens health, we would have had smoking bans in CARS and HOMES long before we had smoking bans in BARS and WORKPLACES.
They use the tobacco health issue, and now their diabetic Ritalin-saturated children, as a hijacked vehicle to impose their intolerance on others.
Childrens' well-being is a glaringly visible afterthought, only deemed important AFTER the adult anti smoking crusader gets his or her way. How sad.
Children do not go to bars or workplaces . Anti smoking crusaders do, therefore the sad selfish agenda exposed....at the expense of children they hold so precious.
Double standard and hypocritical.
Posted: 4/18/2008 7:53:48 AM
I definitely believe business owners should be able to make this decision for themselves. It's Capitalism.
I don't think it's going to make a difference for much longer. Smokers have become a smaller and smaller part of society, and non-smokers don't want to patronize restaurants and bars where there are smoking.
So regardless of whether federal or local authorities ban smoking, establishiments that cater to it are on their way out.
You might like to have a beer with your steak, but there are non-drinkers at the restaurant that don't want to see a beer on your table when they eat theirs. They get other tee-totallers involved and then an activist pastor in town rallies a huge group into the county board meetings. Next thing you know, you've lost a liberty.
LOL. The objection of non-smokers to smoking isn't SEEING smokers or cigarettes, it's SMELLING the cigarette smoke and also suffering the damage that second hand smoke does to your body.
If cigarettes, cigars and pipes didn't emit carcingenic materials, were smokeless, and didn't smell I doubt that anyone would care. Regardless of whether you drink or not, the beer at someone else's table doesn't compromise your dining experience or harm your health.
ou have to understand the main reason for smoking ban in bars and restaurants. It's to protect the workers. They say that if you work in an enclosed area with several people smoking for an eight hour shift, it would be the equivalent of smoking several packs of cigarettes.
In California the law IS an OSHA law to protect workers, however, the laws are not OSHA laws in all states.
However, you are correct that retaurant workers are harmed by smoking. I know a long-time bartender who right now is dying from the effects of second-hand smoke. And he was a life-long non-smoker.
Well, that makes sense. So the banning of trans fats in NY was really because the lawmakers finally got the message that people are offended by fat people.
I gather this is a poor attempt at humor. Banning transfats won't make people any skinnier. There are plenty of healthy foods that can make you very, very fat.
Saturated fat isn't very good for you, but transfats are much worse. The reason for this is that a transfat sticks directly to your arteries and can't be flushed out with bran or other fiber. A saturated fat looks like this ^ , i.e., arched in the middle. A transfat looks like this ---, i.e. a straight line. So when you eat bran the fiber will catch some of the saturated fat and clean it off your arteries, and the saturated fat doesn't make as good an attachment because of the shape. On the other hand the transfat, because it is completely fat, adheres to the artery and is pretty well impossible to flush out unless you have an angioplasty.
If enough people band together for a cause (restriction) that then passes a referendum, then I guess I’ll have to live with it. I’m sure there are many dry counties in the States where this type of situation still exists. Your “liberty” to fill my air with your smoke has ended, and I can live with that.
That's exactly how we define liberty in this country. Liberty generally ends where the next person's space begins. After all, we denied Ted Bundy his liberty to rape and murder women, and Jeffrey Dahmer his liberty to murder and eat his victims.
We deny people their "liberty" to own handguns in many places, and we deny all convicted felons the liberty to own guns.
So we deny people various liberties all the time to protect the rights of other people.
If you drink and are caught driving a car you will be arrested for drunk driving, and your "liberty" to drive will be taken away. Because your liberty to drive drunk is outweighed by the rights of other people not to be killed by a drunk driver.
Same with smoking. Smoking causes harm to people other than the smoker. Therefore various states and municipalities have banned smoking. This is to protect the health of the nonsmokers who patronize and work in their restaurants.
Actually it would be a lot more democratic and capitalistic to allow freedom to go ahead and allow new bars to be built to cater to the human rights of smokers and all non smokers can then party down in their active locales.
There are actually private smoking clubs, even in California. Here's a link to a cigar lounge in Modesto:
And one in San Francisco:
Here's how I heard it described by the "regulars" at a bar once. They have gone to the bar 2, 3, or 5 evenings a week for 10 years and smoked with their buddies. Then the guy that comes in maybe once a month or every other month walking through the place like Liberace in too tight pants complains belligerently about the smoke. Why the hell did he even come in there then?
Even at bars, the ratio of non-smokers is much greater than smokers. So if you're making the argument of "majority rule" (which is not the reason for smoking bans), then in this case the majority IS ruling.
Seems to me everytime a law is passed a freedom is lost.
Really? Then should we repeal laws against murder, rape, theft, identify theft, arson and terrorism? I get it, 9/11 was really freedom of expression. How dare we encroach on personal freedoms. After all, all these folks are doing is expressing themselves.
We have and always will have laws that protect citizens from being harmed by the actions of others.
Posted: 4/19/2008 11:35:00 AM
|If a non-smoker dies of lung cancer, he died of lung cancer.|
If a smoker dies of lung cancer, he died of smoking.
The Surgeon General has determined that there is NO minimum tolerance for tobacco smoke. Even Plutonium has a minimum level of tolerance.
So, if a smoker dies of anything, he died of smoking.
If a non-smoker dies of anything, he died from being exposed to second hand smoke, which infiltrated his air after being carried over the ocean on the Jet Stream from a smoker in Japan.
Posted: 4/21/2008 9:05:43 PM
|Jiperly, was your message #77 written by you? It's a great post and defines what freedom really is. I do not smoke cigarettes but I am totally against putting constraints on PRIVATE business.|
Here in Minnesota we had a smoking ban passed last October. I have a close friend in the restaunt business who's an excellent businessman and watches where every penny is coming and going. As soon as the ban came into effect his gross sales were down $1000 a day. Business did come back a little after people got used to it but not at the level it was prior to the ban.
The ban in Minnesota was skillfully (or shall I say politically) worded as "The Freedom to Breathe Act" As if we weren't free to breathe before that. But wording it in that way feeds on peoples' emotions and that's what politics has sadly become.
Now if our leaders who pass these bans are doing so based on their concern for the health and well-being of we citizens, which is indeed how they sell it, then why are there not bans on the sales of tobacco in these states? Of course that would mean kissing goodbye that $1.75 in tax the state of Minnesota gets for every pack sold here. They do not want to lose that. They banned smoking in all public places. You can still buy a pick of cigs at your favorite watering hole. You just can't smoke 'em there. These bans have nothing to do with health and are simply popularity issues. While many of the state senators who voted in favor had the best of intetions, I believe there are just as many who did it based on what they thought would make them more popular amongst the voters. And elected leader who casts a vote based on what they think the voters want is no leader at all. And that includes Governor Tim Pawlenty, a republican.
A good analogy on this issue is second hand drinking. How can there be such a thing as second hand drinking, you may ask? Well what about innocent children growing up in a home with one or even two alcoholic parents? What about homes and families that have been broken and torn apart because of alcoholism? Just think how many lives are affected by one alcoholic through work, friends and relatives. What about that young couple many years ago who were just married and on their way to their wedding reception when their limmo was hit by a drunk driver, killing the groom. That 70 yr old grandmother killed by a drunk driver while crossing her own street. Shouldn't there be a ban on drinking in public too?
We've all seen those TV ads advocating responsible drinking and hopefully it's taught a few people to think twice before getting behind the wheel after drinking. But I would love to see an ad on TV advocating PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY. That means not relying on the government to ban smoking just because someone doesn't like it. Freedom is wonderful and freedom is something that's deep inside each and every human spirit. We want to be free. But with freedom comes our own personal responsibility in making choices for our own well-being and not relying on the government to do it for us.
As Jiperly stated earlier "we have choice". Very powerful words, indeed.
Posted: 4/22/2008 1:47:54 AM
|What I see is the level of intolerance exceeding my tolerance level. Smokers are intolerant toward non-smokers, non-muslims intolerant of muslims (and vice versa) etc. ad nauseum. No one seems to tolerate anyone any more. Are some people so "right" that no one else can be? Why can't people simply agree to disagree and go about their business instead of insisting on sticking their nose in everyone else's business? It sickens me. This whole population sickens me. I often wonder if people will ever smarten up and realize that only together can we survive. Otherwise, we lose.|
Posted: 4/22/2008 4:30:13 PM
|With smoking it has nothing to do with tolerance. It has to do with health and the desire to have a pleasant experience when out dining. |
I know I personally don't care if people smoke, and have never told anyone I know that they should quit.
However, I don't allow people to smoke in my house and I don't go to restaurants where smoking is allowed -- not even at the bar.
Posted: 4/22/2008 8:12:26 PM
|They banned smoking here in Toledo a few years ago before going statewide. It killed off a bunch of longtime bars and restaurants. |
I say, if a product is legal, it should be up to the proprietor to establish the rules regarding it's usage. On the other hand, I no longer smell like smoke after a night out.
Posted: 4/23/2008 5:33:26 AM
|>>>However, I don't allow people to smoke in my house and I don't go to restaurants where smoking is allowed -- not even at the bar.|
And theres nothing wrong with that- hell, we're encouraging that line of thinking- the kind of thinking the people who oppose these kinds of bans is the belief that they can dictate what you can and cannot do in your private business- just like you believe you have a right to decide if someone can or cannot smoke in your house, so should all property owners have that liberty- and if you don't like the smoke, you do not have to take your business there, and they will lose money because of it.
>>> the desire to have a pleasant experience when out dining.
And if you feel the restaurant or bar is ignoring your needs as a consumer, why would you believe it is your right to change their policies? If I go to a highway-side restaurant, and they insist on keeping all their windows open despite the fumes coming from the highway, do I have the right to demand they accept my preferences on their property or have their property taken away?
Posted: 4/23/2008 10:13:20 AM
|Firstly, let me say I smoked for 25 years and am now a non smoker. And everyone knows there's nothing worse than a reformed anything. I might be the exception.|
Years ago my S/O and I met with his long lost cousin from out of town for dinner. While enjoying our meal, the conversation naturally turned to what we were all doing currently in our lives for employment.
His cousin, explained that the reason he was in town was because he works for an organization that goes from town to town across the country bringing awareness to the health hazards of smoking and initiating the needed paperwork to get the smoking ban initiated on the local ballots.
The next election--sure enough--the smoking ban was on the ballot in my town. The community voted for the smoking ban.
Shortly after the smoking ban went into effect I was aboard an airplane flying out of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. The smoking ban still fresh on everyones' mind I struck up a conversation with the gal next to me as we were ascending through the clouds of the 5th (?) largest city in the country. Naturally we started discussing the smoking ban in the valley.
Angry at the audacity of the law -- knowing that it was brought on the ballot from an outside organization to our community -- I pointed out the window of the aircraft and said... "Look out that window. Look at the polution we're ascending through. Do you REALLY BELIEVE second hand smoke is our major concern in this community?"
And in defense for the bartenders and waitresses/waiters who work in restaurants/bars that cater to smokers that need to be rescued from such an unhealthy environment, why is it they're victims? If they have a problem with it, go get another job. This is America. No one is chaining them down to do that job.
I saw the writing on the wall when after talking to my S/O's activist cousin. First, for the safety of everyone public places outlaw smoking. Once the groundwork for that is established legally, start closing in on other liberties -- like smoking outside and in your private domain.
And as far as having a "pleasant experience" when dining out, I'd rather sit on the lap of a smoker any day as opposed to having to put up with that unruly child that yells, crys, runs, and generally ruins my dining experience time and time again.
When's the last time someone mentioned RADON?
Posted: 4/23/2008 11:43:25 AM
|There were a lot of Jewish people in Germany in the 1930's who figured that if they just obeyed the law and didn't cause trouble then they'd be OK.|
But, it didn't work out that way.
The tyrant needs scapegoats and people to blame. He needs a good excuse for a good cause. He's saving lives, protecting the country, ensuring the security of the motherland or fatherland or the homeland. He's righting wrongs and battling unseen enemies on the frontier.
When you see the tyrant beating down your neighbors door, just wait.
You can follow the law, and stay out of trouble.
But sooner or later, the tyrant will get around to you.
Posted: 4/23/2008 1:05:22 PM
|I don't smoke. I was a heavy smoker (up to 3 packs a day in 1994) for 35 years, and I decided to quit in 2000.|
Cold turkey. Smoked my last cigarette Jan 1, 2000, haven't touched them since. Not tempted at all.
I made the decision not to smoke, and I don't want to inhale others' smoke. I resent the cloud of tobacco smoke that lingers around the doors of non-smoking facilities, and I support any and all public smoking bans.
Having said that, I do agree that some restaurants should be allowed to petition for an exemption to allow smoking, so long as the restaurant prominently advertises the fact that customers will be exposed to tobacco smoke on the premises. Proprieters could charge a "cover fee" to help pay for the "smoking permits" required, which could be as costly as a liquor permit.
Posted: 4/24/2008 2:06:30 PM
|Yes, NY signed a statewide smoking ban into law in 2003. California did it in the late 90s. |
I have homes in NYC, the Bay area in California and the DC metro area -- all of which ban smoking. DC has a had smoking ban in place since 2006, I think, and many counties in Maryland also prohibit it. Virginia localities are not allowed to ban smoking by the state constitution, but that notwithstanding, close to half the restaurants in Alexandria and Arlington, VA do not allow smoking. That list grows every day.
Fact is that it matters little whether or not localities or states ban smoking, because increasingly the people who frequent restaurants insist on a non-smoking environment. There are few restaurants that will be happy only serving smokers, because they are only a small percentage of the population -- and are dwindling in numbers every day.
Smokers are either dying from cancer or they're quitting smoking. Either way there's fewer of them, and that will continue untileventually it becomes almost impossible to find one.
And that will be a good day!
Posted: 4/24/2008 3:50:32 PM
|Demo- a short, simple question for you;|
Why do you believe grown adults cannot make decisions regarding their own health?
Posted: 4/24/2008 6:59:39 PM
|That doesn't answer my question- weither or not we disagree with their choices or find them fatally flawed does not answer why grown adults cannot make decisions regarding their own health.|
So, if you please Demo- what is the reason why a grown adult cannot make the decision to act in an unhealthy manner?
Posted: 4/25/2008 5:20:20 AM
|>>> Quitting smoking is harder than quitting drinking. |
I thought your basis for argument is if its harmful to your health, then it should be illegal- correct me if I'm wrong. And Liquor is harmful to your health- and there are millions of people around the world who have no ill effects from smoking but have ruined their lives from drinking. While this is unfortunate, I do believe it is the individual's choice to make- clearly you feel that it is for liquor, but not for smoking- why the distinction?
>>>So many people today smoking cigarettes wish they hadn't started and that's a reason that cigarettes should be illegal.
Are those people the only ones who should be granted the privilege to learn from their mistakes? What about the millions who enjoy smoking cigarettes? Are their beliefs irrelevant?
Once again, addressing the comments above- you feel that irresponsible and unmoderated smoking will lead to people to regret their actions- is this not possible for drinking? Or eating? Or exercise? Take anything to the extreme, and you will suffer because of it- smoking is not alone in this issue, as literally doing anything irresponsibly or without moderation can cause harm. So why is smoking unique in this issue?
And you're still dodging the question- Why cannot a grown adult not make decisions regarding their own health?
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:05:30 AM
I still think that alcohol should remain legal as long as people don't get drunk while driving.
Ahh, the double standards some love to play.
Demo, if you're convinced that smokers are unhealthy for non smokers and therefore fully support smoking bans, you should then be just as concerned about drinking. Drinking, or I should say 'second hand drinking' has ruined more lives, destroyed more families and killed more innocent people than second hand smoking ever will.
I don't like smoking either but I love my liberties FAR more than I dislike smoking.
I'd like to see your answer to Jiperly's question.
16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)