|smoking bansPage 1 of 16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)|
|I'm with K-Lo all the way on this. I just don't believe the government should over implicate itself on choice. Perhaps that comes from the fact it had always been a certain way for a lifetime and now we have more government imposition. What's next? Another aspect is that police authority is given to non-law enforcement workers. Timmy's mom from the Health Department can walk up to you if you are 14' away from a doorway and slap you with a fine. Just not sure this is right.|
Now with that said, I have zero problems with the respect for the health of others aspect of it. It's not that it's a bad idea at all to have ways of having smoke-free environments. As a smoker, hopefully a former smoker very soon, I strive to be respectful of others and not impose my bad habits onto others.
Posted: 4/15/2008 10:44:59 AM
|Wait until they ban beer.|
Posted: 4/15/2008 11:26:19 AM
Kinda off topic though.
Not really. Most smokers understand the concept of not smoking around non-smokers, the topic does include a discussion of government intervention and regulation of personal choice.
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.
It's easy to say big deal when we're talking about regulating vices. But every time a government body takes away a liberty, they look to the next way to be intrusive. Next it might be that it is illegal to have any of the 80 cent lightbulbs in your home as you are required to have the $8 lightbulbs in every socket in your home. Environmentalists will say, no biggie... but to enforce it one day you have to open your home to compliance inspectors. Random searches of your home.
At some point you have to question where the line is.
Posted: 4/15/2008 11:38:30 AM
|Let me ask my buddies Crocket and Tubbs.|
I saw this post in another forum that I consider pertinent.
Posted: 4/15/2008 12:04:01 PM
|Microbrewies made me think of a time I was in a bar in San Francisco that had 40 taps lined up behind the bar.|
I ordered a Budweiser to which the bartender rolled his eyes and disappeared into the back for about 5 minutes or so. He came back in with a 6-pack still on the plastic rings. He told me he had to go to the liquor store across the alley to buy it so he could serve me. I told him I was feeling like having 7 beers.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Posted: 4/15/2008 12:42:48 PM
|TJ, we do understand that and on that point even smokers don't find fault with the benefits to others.|
As I got off onto the path of "this today, what tomorrow" it does become unclear what facets with which even we smokers agree with your point and what facets we find concerning.
Trust me K-Lo... I can already tell that it's a fine line I'd have to walk while in your establishment. You'd still run to the store to get me a Bud though right?
Posted: 4/15/2008 12:57:38 PM
|I'm getting this "Sometimes I wanna go where everybody knows my name" feeling K-Lo. |
Posted: 4/15/2008 1:05:47 PM
Please, having a beer beside someone that doesn’t like beer causes them no ill effects what so ever.
Don't you see... I used this example because this has happened. Some consider being offended as an ill-effect and will fight to take away a liberty of yours. And lawmakers can be pressured into taking it away.
Posted: 4/15/2008 8:30:33 PM
|I'm an x smoker and now very much hate it but I don't think it was government's job to ban smoking eventhough I sure do appreciate it. Not much different than other legal requirements heaped on by do-gooders.|
Posted: 4/15/2008 8:56:10 PM
|Is it really that hard to take your ass outside?|
Posted: 4/15/2008 9:16:19 PM
Your “liberty” to fill my air with your smoke has ended
Wow, I felt like I was hearing a soliloquy from Spartacus II on that one. Brava!
Miss the point, that's fine. I was entertained with the drama.
Posted: 4/16/2008 8:05:06 AM
|Yeah J-Marq but didn't he inspire you to go fight some Redcoats or something like he did me? I had a tear in my eye as I stood from my chair and applauded when I read that.|
It's great that a non-smoker can take such pride that someone else lost what can be perceived a liberty, but let's say he has a beloved family pet and tomorrow the police and animal control show up at his door to tell him that there is now an ordinance forbidding ownership of the pet at his home and they have to take it away. Will the sentiment of discriminatory liberty be consistent then?
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? Basically, in their view Liberace is violating THEIR air.
Posted: 4/16/2008 8:17:51 AM
|I don't think bans should be legislated. Leave it up to businesses to make those decisions for their own establishments. They will usually make the right decisions for their customers. |
I have a hard time respecting smokers, and the habit is one of the dumbest things you can do in life. Fortunately, most smokers make some effort not to smoke in mixed company and will refrain from smoking in non-smokers' homes. I'm still willing to meet them halfway.
Posted: 4/16/2008 9:00:34 AM
|These bans are a bit overdone. Yes you or I have the right to choose to not be exposed to something and sometimes that choice will mean NOT going somewhere rather than insisting everyone change to agree with us.|
It should be upto the owner of the establishment with enforcement by actual cops coupled with large fines for the few rude individuals that will insist on lighting up in a non-smoking by owners choice establishment.
Posted: 4/16/2008 9:04:56 AM
and the habit is one of the dumbest things you can do in life.
One of? I'm a smoker and I will agree we can substitute in place of "one of the" with "THE".
I'm working on it.
Posted: 4/16/2008 11:31:57 AM
|Maybe the next President can appoint him Secretary of the Atmosphere.|
Posted: 4/16/2008 11:41:34 AM
|I hope you're not talking about air, K-Lo. I think Sir Thomas Payne already laid claim to it. Wasn't it Payne that said "Give me MY liberty or give me death"?|
Posted: 4/16/2008 11:50:53 AM
|Man... I was WAY off!|
Posted: 4/16/2008 12:19:30 PM
|Will I have to pump my own air K-Lo?|
That's cook that you've been to those places. I bet Monticello was cool.
Posted: 4/16/2008 12:59:27 PM
|If there was really a great demand for non-smoking bars and restaurants, then all of them would have gone non-smoking years ago. Non-smokers would have been standing in line to get into them all this time.|
But no, some non-smokers can't stand the idea that someone on the other side of town, in a bar they would never visit, might be smoking a cigarette.
Some non-smokers have no problem with destroying their brain cells with alcohol. Don't dare try to keep them from driving when everyone can see they're too drunk.
But damned, if someone on the other side of the room lights a cigarette.
Damned, if someone in an apartment, at the other end of the hall, smokes a cigarette.
If five people are standing in a hurricane, the one guy smoking is endangering the other four with his second hand smoke.
Posted: 4/16/2008 1:03:47 PM
|It's been awhile since I've seen Spaceballs. I need to watch that again since my life has slowed down from the Ludicrous Speed lifestyle.|
Apples and oranges? When you didn't know as much? I don't think we've come as far as we'd like to think. Tunnel vision is not a sign of enlightenment but rather the opposite.
Oh well, at least we were granted the use of air.
Posted: 4/16/2008 1:15:07 PM
|That's where I'm at. Get my kids grown and then off to find the retirement community with the nicest Shuffleboard court.|
Posted: 4/16/2008 1:49:28 PM
|I won't need shuffleboard at your brothel because there'll be other things to do like... ummm.... uhhhh.... there'll just be other things to do.|
Posted: 4/17/2008 7:26:27 AM
|I don't support bans- I've made a topic about it in the past, but it seems it's been removed because of inactivity.....|
Here is the rant I started it out with......sorry in advance for the size....
I got to say, right off the bat- I cannot, with good and honest conscience, see how ANYONE can support a ban of smoking in Bars and Restaurants, while still claiming they believe in freedom. What you really must ask yourself, right here and now, is do you believe freedom and rights are all encompassing for all- that all people, be they man or woman, black or white, landowner or homeless- *deserve rights*- or, you must ask yourself, do you believe that some people deserve less or no rights, for such meaningless titles?
That’s what this law does- in our urges to save people from making bad choices- to free them from their complicated lives- we're actually denying landowners their rights- solely and entirely because they aren't doing what you what them to do with –their- property. In your rush to make the world a better place, you've stripped people of their rights- all the while, you retain your own. This isn't an issue of health, or common courtesy, or convenience- as wonderful as those goals are, freedom, liberty, rights- these things are far, far more important- if not for us, then for the following generations.
Did you ever think about the Restaurant or bar owner who welcomed the business of smokers? Obviously they existed, or else there would be no need for the law-What about THEIR rights? They pay for their property- they pay their taxes- and yet, you have passed a law stating they do not have the right to decide if people can smoke in their property or not? How can any rational person not be outraged by this? Would you not be outraged if the same law was passed against you? That, the smokers of Canada rose up and claimed discrimination, and forced you to accept smoke in YOUR property, least you be fined or arrested?
I suppose its wrong for your property rights to be restricted, but people who own stores- well, they can do with some less.
Can anyone within the sound of my voice tell me one- one good reason to support this law?
There always seems to be the health belief leading the pack- and its a decent belief, I'll give you that- smoking is a disgusting habit- one of whom I have not personally tried. I honestly cannot understand why anyone would like to smoke it, especially with the health risks- but should we really have the right to pass a law that basically turns cigarettes into scarlet letters? Because a person doesn't agree with our opinion? Shouldn't, as an adult, and with understanding of the risk they do to their body, shouldn't they have the right to put their health at risk if it makes them happy? And what kind of dangerous road are we traveling when anything that can be lead to unhealthiness can be legally ostracized or banned? Should we ban McDonald's from being sold, or even beef all together? Eating in excess, just like smoking in excess, can kill you. Or what about Cars- and oh, cars I find are the best example- Cars poison us far more than we give them credit- Cars spew pollution into the air, slowly ending each and every one of us lives prematurely- there’s no point denying it- Cars pollute- and London has it most of all, with some of the highest pollution in Ontario- You can sit in a room for a week brimming with second hand smoke with no real damage to yourself, except for an awful smell- you sit in a room brimming with car exhaust, you won't last an hour. Cars are, by far, much much more dangerous to our health and the health of everyone around us than second hand smoke- and yet, we ban smoking in bars and open up a Hummer Dealership.
Other than the fact that laws should not punish people for legal choices, why the hell should any of us have to pay for that? Why should I have to pay to protect people from bad choices? Why am I responsible in helping to pay to condemn people’s choices? What about personal responsibility? Not to sound callous, but if someone wants to take a risk, I shouldn't have to pay to be their safety net- they are grown adults- they should have to be responsible for their own well being- and if they choose not to be, I should not have be the responsible one. Instead, we pass a law- and laws are never enforced simply because they exist- we will all have to pay for this, from police raiding bars, looking for cigarettes, to the trials of the people who have enough love for freedom to risk their own for everyone’s- this will cost you and me money- money that could be better spent.
And then, of course, we have the argument about 'the other people'- that, if you go to a bar that allows smoking, you have to -*GASP*- tolerate second hand smoke. Seriously, I..... I simply do not understand this train of thought.....its borderline communism- from what I can grasp of this dissolving argument is that you believe you have the right to not have your airspace impaired in a bar or restaurant if you don't want it- a somewhat fair argument I suppose, although it ignores all known laws and rights we hold as Canadians, but what you must never, never forget is, if you don't like something at a Bar or Restaurant- *You-Can-Leave*. Say it with me now- *YOU-CAN-LEAVE* - its such an empowering sentence, so full of freedom, and respect.
You are not entitled as a Canadian with the right to enter any building you wish and demand how things should be run- if I were to enter a VH1 store, I don’t demand the music be turned down because it hurts my ears- I keep my ass outta VH1, and they suffer because they don’t have my Business. Likewise, if strippers offend you- do you demand The Rippers fire all their strippers, or do you stay out of the Rippers?
And that one, simple concept that, somehow, has been incomprehensible by those who support the ban on the grounds of other peoples health- that you are not *forced* to be there. No one is *forced* to be there. It’s a Choice. It’s a Restaurant. It’s a Bar. If you go there, you *CHOOSE* to be there. Not a single person I can imagine since the moment this country became free and offered its people rights, not once has anyone forced to go to a Restaurant or a Bar if they didn't want to. And, just like if you *choose* to put your health at risk by smoking a cigarette, if you choose to go to a Restaurant or Bar that allows it, you may also be putting your health at risk- if you don't want to, that’s great, wonderful, I completely support you- don't go back to that Restaurant, and tell all your friends about how terrible it was for you- with time, they'll loose business, and have to *choose* to go non-smoking or not. Just like you, they too should be responsible for their choices.
Equally this goes towards the workers arguments- they CHOOSE to work there- London has some excellent programs to help people find jobs, and the Human Resources of Canada Website has hundreds of requests for jobs in London on a weekly basis. The Government does NOT own the bar- they do not have the right to pass laws over them- nor does the Government own the job, so they do not have the right over it either.
Although I should take this point since, being the socialist country that we are, yes, we do have a universal healthcare system, and yes, this system does indeed mean we have to pay for the people who make bad choices through their health bill, I do agree- but then again, that would be an argument AGAINST the Federal Healthcare System- that the healthcare system protects people from the consequences of their actions.
Don't worry- we're almost done- just as a recap, lets review, since, sadly, we need a review on what is freedom. We've discovered that, yes, since a person owns a property, just like if you should have the right to decide if someone can or cannot smoke on your land, so should they. We've understood that, although smoking is undesirable, making a law against immoral things is, frankly, immoral, We've come to realize that, just as the Restaurant owner or Bar owner or even a smoker are responsible for their own actions, so are you- so if you choose to go somewhere you've deem unhealthy, you should have to own up to the consequences of your actions, and we've learned that its wrong to make the population pay to protect other people from their inability to act responsibly.
The last one of all is the most appalling- the last excuse for a law like this is *convenience*- that, because smokers choose to smoke in a building that chooses to allow it, and you don’t smoke, the smokers should have to leave because it inconveniences you- Which is, frankly, is insane- its not your property- you cannot demand other customers leave because you don’t want them there
Equally, the stance might be on convenience on the belief that, since all the non-smoking establishments are far away, it incontinences you, so you don’t have a choice. Once again, I don’t mean to be rude, but too bad. Life is hard- sometimes, the Eastside Mario’s is just too far away, or traffic’s too bad to get to Montana’s- Personally, I would love to have a Wendy’s burger right now- but just because I want it doesn’t mean I have the right to demand it. Equally, just because you want a non-smoking bar or restaurant, doesn’t mean you can demand the bar owner to obey your wish. You certainly do have power- you can REQUEST or talk to the owners, or you can tell you and your friends to no longer to there, tell them to tell everyone they know not to go there, and let the market decide for themselves- you can pressure people to change without forcing them
I have literally just stood here and explained why every concept and reason for this non-smoking law is wrong- and I’m not certain what is more awful- that people so cheerfully celebrate the stripping of other peoples freedoms, or that the good people of London- the people who see this as an attack against freedom- stand by and let it happen.
Yes, health, convenience, safety nets- these are noble and wonderful goals, I agree- but not more important than rights.
If you have, even an inkling of agreement with what I have to say- get your word out. Mail to the local papers; call your representatives, put up flyers on telephone poles, come down here to speakers corner- demand equal rights for all people.
Posted: 4/17/2008 8:20:16 AM
I'm not a smoker, and as I said personally I was in favor of the bans here (I have personal reasons which I don't want to go into here). But the price on cigs here is admittedly getting absurd. If they're going to ban it , everywhere except your home or car or on your own property basically, or 15 - 30 ft from any public doorways, etc, as it is here in IL, AND keep hiking the prices on them, then .... ? How much further does it have to go before they're practically (de facto) forcing ppl to start looking into quitting?
In your own home? Some places are already looking and making it illegal to smoke in your own home. If it is an apartment building, condo, townhouse, or if minors reside in the residence.
Force them to quit? Did America learn nothing from prohibition? Gangs and thugs will soon start running cheaper cigarettes from reserves, lower taxed states or hijacked semi'sloaded with tobacco. Then other taxes will have to go up to replace the voluntary "sin taxes" lost.
16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)