Smoking Ban Poll

[XOKCowboy]

Let's say theoretically that I own a tavern. On the front door or my tavern is a sign that proclaims This Is A Smoking Establishment. If Smoking Offends You Then Please DO NOT ENTER! This is also a condition of employement. Should my little local bar be subject to any local anti-smoking bans? Please discuss.

[Webster Green]

1. I know of a few bars like that in Northern CA...

It's against the law, but they just do it anyway. They are all the type of bars that open at 6AM, and there are old guys from the neighborhood in there, drinking cocktails for breakfast.

[NoSheep]

2. All should have a choice. If you don't smoke or don't like it, don't go.

The law should not interfere with that.

[iconoclastNYC]

78. Smokers should be round up and shot.

Just kidding. They should however be forced to step outside to smoke. I don't think this is a huge inconvience considering the stress thier habit puts on the healthcare system.

If the free market could support smoke free bars they'd exist. They don't and that's why we pass laws. In New York it's not a problem and I go out more because of it.

Just go outside to get your fix and quit your bitching. And focus your attention on the civil liberties being stolen from you in D.C.

[Canuckistanian]

Gotta say no

I have no problem with establishments calling themselves "Smoking" so people can make informed decisions.

On the other hand, I think there should always be some places that ban it, perhaps by regulation. Say, a certain percentage.

But the dividing line should be drawn.

I occasionally volunteer at a charity bingo and I KNOW I'm going to come home smelling like an ashtray.
But that's MY choice as well. The good outweighs the bad.

For those who work in a smoking environment - they should sign a "memorandum of agreement". Otherwise, no claims of "workplace pollution". Unless their situation changes.

[XOKCowboy]

4. I've got no problem at all with that.

Illustrates my point very well, thank you.

[Canuckistanian]

9. I'd say your poll results tell the same story

And you're welcome.

[Dulcinea]

59. We tried this with alcohol & ended up with the Mafia.

In Georgia, smoking is permitted in an establishment where no one under 18 is allowed to work or patronize the place.

Places like bars can allow smoking and places like family restaurants could be smoke-free. Something for everyone. People can vote with their feet. Smoking is a terrible habit, but no one is going to quit unless they really want to, & treating smokers like social lepers isn't the way to go.

Total smoking bans are a sign of creeping fascism. This is one area where I side with those who deplore the nanny state.

[XOKCowboy]

3. I ask thie because I live in Denver..

and we've just had another smoking ban bill go through the lege and common sense prevailed. What I noticed was that for the Anti-Smokers it's all or nothing. You can't smoke in any public place, period. Is it me or is that like fundamentalist religions?

[seabeyond]

75. it premises the same as fundamentalist, you are right

further i would suggest that we have decided our pet peeve is worth projecting onto another with validation and excuses and justification, as the next person wants to ban their own pet peeve. part of having a free society is the understanding that we HAVE to support the right of what we dont like in order to be free. but that isnt a concept this society at this time understands. though i dont spank my kids, i dont think it is effective, i dont like it, i will protect and support the parent that uses that as a disciplinary action. i dont like abortions, i wont get an abortion, but i will stand for the person that choses abortion. i dont like guns, and i will stand for a persons right to own a gun. i dont like safety belts, i expect that people will stand for my right to make that choice, ooops, i am wrong. i smoke, i dont blow in peoples face, i dont smoke in restaraunts i dont smoke in peoples home, but i expect people to stand for my right to chose smoking, as much as i hate it too.

[LSdemocrat]

5. No, but people should also be able to do the opposite

Including banning all smoking on the property and making nonsmoking a condition of employment

[XOKCowboy]

8. Yep

Informed Consent is a pretty good concept. I'm sure the lawyers would require the sign to be huge and multi-lingual I'm sure.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

25. I have a problem with that

On company property, I suppose, seems petty to me, but go for it.

However, what I do on my own time is my own business.

I know I will get the lecture now of how much my smoking costs you all and yada, yada, yada. Funny how the $2-4 per pack tax you pay for every pack never gets brought up in our "costs". Nor the Billions and billions of dollars that states sued tobacco companies for "damages" all us smokers "cost" them and then promptly blew the money on everything in the world except smokers.

No, when they make them illegal, then I'll dal with the black market, like I have with everything else this nanny society has deemed VERBOTEN, but until then, I don't think anyone has any business telling me I can';t smoke in my own time.

And that is what this "condition of employment" is, a de facto making cigarettes illegal, because it would become a condition for ANY employment, just like these goddamn piss tests are, which started out as a way to protect us from drunk/stoned pilots and engineers and now protects everyone from "something", I'm not sure what since just as many people use drugs today as did 25 years ago.

[orleans]

49. non smoking a condition of employment?

well, let's see.

i own a business so maybe i'll do more than just make non smoking a condition of employment.....

i think people are happier if they have sex on a regular basis--so i'm going to make that a condition of employment as well.

but i don't believe you should have sex outside of marriage.

so being married is also a condition of employment.

and because "cleanliness is next to godliness" i also want employees to have a clean, tidy house

and along with that tidy house they have to have a tidy appearance
(styled hair for women, short hair for men--and definitely no facial hair! facial hair can give the impression of someone lazy and unkempt)
absolutely no long, straight hair for women. it's too hippie-ish

now, how will i know you're not smoking? maybe i'll be able to smell it on you--maybe not. if you tell me you were at a party last night and that is why you smell like smoke then....i'll fire you because another condition of employment is that you do not associate with smokers.

and because it's important who you do associate with, and i'm a catholic, i'd better be seeing you at church every sunday--not saturday because you can't be bothered to go on sunday--but sunday! church! my church!

how will i know you're having sex on a regular basis? i think i'll have you sign a form every monday that assures me that you have had sex at least five times in the past week.

oh, and by the way--i don't want any of my employees posting on message boards--especially ones for democrats. i want to know how your voting, and it better be the way i am--and i'd better see some campaign signs in your yard for candidates i support, along with bumper stickers on your car.

all conditions of employment. still want the job?

(you get my point. right? i mean, where the hell does it end? and please don't tell me it's for insurance purposes--employers don't offer such things anymore!)

and because i am the employer i think i should also have some say as to what school your children attend. and because i'm catholic i think they should attend catholic school. not public.

can't afford to send your kids to private school? maybe you should look for another job! because if these personal things are not as much of a priority to you as they are to me then you probably wouldn't be a very good employee anyway.

[tyedyeto]

58. Right on!

Once you have dictated what people can and cannot do during work hours, it's becomes easy to tell them what they can and cannot do during their off hours. That is happening today, unfortunately.

That is what forms my opposition to drug testing. It has nothing to do with what you do at work and all to do with what your lifestyle is on or off the job.

[petronius]

77. You have to tell people what they can and can't do during work hours

That's why we call it "work". :-)

I understand your point (esp. WRT drug testing) but I think that overall the slope is not as slippery as you describe. Employers should certainly have the right to regulate 'at work' behavior, and it should be easy to do this without sliding over into affecting 'at home' behavior. Drug testing is an area where the line gets blurred, but I think it is an exception rather than the rule...

[LincolnMcGrath]

68. Well Said my friend! That the poor oppressed smokers would force

their will on the least of us, just to feed the monkey on their back, is disturbing to say the least.

[AJH032]

6. If people want to ruin their bodies, let them

it's not the government's place to stop them.

[skids]

7. No, but you should be held to air quality standards.

...as should everyone else, smoking establishment or not. And they should be more strict than they likely are today, and they should also be regularly enforced.

[burrowowl]

104. Air quality

yes and this should include the mercury spewed by coal fired plants, cars (emissions in may places are not controlled), while we are at it BBQ grills (you should smell the lighter fluid in summer and some idiots start cooking before it is burt off), gas-powered leaf blowers, weed whippers, lawn mowers, etc.
edit: I forgot people who do not want people to wear scents because they are allergic to them (some suits here of course some stuff does stink).

[Mythsaje]

10. I'm actually surprised

that this poll has turned out this way here on DU.

[Canuckistanian]

11. On the whole, smoking is on it's way out

I know, it's got a long way to go, but kids these days absolutely know that smoking will kill them.

And I'm surprised at the anti-smoking feeling among them.

So, I'm confident that this won't be a generations-long problem.

[Mythsaje]

12. It's a good thing, really...

I just wish people weren't quite so disdainful of those suffering with the addiction now.

[SeattleGirl]

14. Agreed

Especially those who have never smoked, and who have no idea how difficult it is to quit. Along with smoking bans, how about money for smokers to purchase stop smoking products. The money wouldn't go directly to the smoker but to the pharmacy or doc who prescribes it. Just saying, "Smoking isn't good" isn't enough. There is not a smoker I know who is happy to smoke. Most of them want to quit.

[Mythsaje]

17. And the bad thing is that the craving never really goes away...

It follows you around like the smell that lingers on you after you have a cigarette. But smokers are just bad, or weak, and, amazingly, it's the most tolerant of people that seem to condemn smokers the worst, like Rush Limbaugh talking about drug addicts.

[SeattleGirl]

20. I know!

I've known people who smoke marijuana like fiends. I don't particularly care if they do (though I hate the smell, so leave when they light up), who say marijuana is NOT harmful. 'scuze me folks. Maybe it doesn't have all the nicotine/tar crap of cigs, but you cannot honestly tell me there's no harm, no foul. Your brain is all messed up on that stuff, and frankly, I'd rather you not be on the road while under the influence.

[Mythsaje]

24. I'll have to disagree

with some of that. Most of that, actually. Pot's not all that bad, in the scope of things. And it only screws up your brain if you allow it to. I guarantee you wouldn't know the difference between something I posted straight and something I posted while stoned.

[SeattleGirl]

26. Um, you cannot control how a drug will affect you

If you don't smoke much, yeah, you could still function well. But believe me, having worked for 6 years in alcohol/drug treatment, I can quite assure you that marijuana is NOT harmless in the big picture.

[Mythsaje]

31. Oh, yes you can.

Having worked in alcohol/drug treatment, you've been indoctrinated into a certain way of thinking that generally precludes any other way to look at the issue.

It fosters the adoption of certain assumptions about drugs, human behavior, and societal norms that doesn't quite mesh with reality. Your assumption that you actually know more about the effects of pot than I do is quite amusing, really, since it can't possibly be true.

I know for a fact I know more about the effect of drugs than you do. There is a LARGE difference between being fed approved information and experiencing things first and second-hand.

[SeattleGirl]

36. Sorry, but you have absolutely NO idea how much knowledge

of what I do and do not know about drugs effects. I have experienced the effects of marijuana first hand. Please do not tell me what I know and don't know. It is quite unseemly.

[Mythsaje]

40. Ah, but the question remains

how MUCH experience have you had with the effect, and have you learned to adapt the way your brain works to correspond with the change in the effects of stimuli on your consciousness? It's a learned adaptation, which requires a certain amount of experience to get the hang of it, as it were.

A friend of mine from years ago (4.0 student, 163 IQ, regular pot smoker) explained it thusly: During the course of our everyday lives our brain is conditioned to shunt off a certain amount of stimuli to allow us to continue in our forward motion, basically to ignore anything that is not immediately relevant to our understanding of current circumstances. The effect of marijuana is to slow down this process to allow us to receive stimuli into our conscious mind that usually doesn't impinge on that awareness. Thus, we become aware of facets of things we would ordinarily take for granted--taste, smells, sounds, sight, and even touch, becomes more sensitive to ordinarily discounted stimuli.

For some this generates a level of uncomfortable confusion, since they're not accustomed to dealing with what could be seen as an overload of information. The subconscious mind generally deals with all of this, and it takes a while for the conscious mind to learn to adapt to the new arrangement.

The alcohol and drug rehab community generally deals with people with serious problems with regards to these substances, and remains blissfully unaware that the vast majority of those who partake of them do not suffer serious problems from their use. They tend to automatically equate use with abuse and, through this assumption, are incapable of recognizing that for many people it isn't quite that cut and dried.

My apologies for assuming you were completely ignorant of the effects on a personal level, since it was assuming facts not in evidence, and, as you said, quite unseemly. I just have an issue with what I take to be the regurgitation of the propaganda that's been foisted on us since the War On Drugs began back during the days of "reefer madness."

[SeattleGirl]

41. I hope this reply sticks -- my last one disappeared.

To me, your argument is just a way to justify smoking pot. Personally, though I used to smoke it, it absolutely nauseates me now. Cannot stand it. And, I absolutely believe it affects one's mind, judgement, etc.

But more of a bottom line is, there are folks who cannot stand the smell of pot; there are others who cannot stand the smell of cigarettes. I think the best solution is for those folks to respect others. Please do no smoke pot around me. And I will absolutely support your desire to not have someone smoke cigarettes around you.

Thank you for your apology. I hate the "War on Drugs" as I think it is a waste of time and money. But as I said, I cannot stand to be around the smell of marijuana. I feel as strongly about being able to breathe air free of that smell as you and other non-smokers feel about not smelling air filled with the smell/smoke of cigarettes.

I think we are coming from the same place. We just approach it differently. :hi:

[Mythsaje]

42. Of course it effects one's mind and judgement

that's the point, isn't it? The question is whether it does it for better or worse. I'd say that's probably an individual thing. I certainly doubt it's universal.

I used to know a guy who absolutely couldn't smoke it. It made him homicidal. Seriously. Or so I was told. I never had the urge to find out.

I've also known people who were allergic.

And your reaction is similar to that which I had to clove cigarettes. I smoked them for a while when I was eighteen or nineteen, then started getting nauseated by them. I stopped and, for a long while, couldn't stand to be around the smell. Eventually I got to the point where I could tolerate it, but I haven't tried smoking one again. Can't think of a good reason to do so.

[SeattleGirl]

44. That is indeed the point.

Some folks don't like being around cigarette smoke; others don't like being around pot smoke.

To me, it's up to the offendee to say something.

And, it is the responsibility of the smoker to honor the request of the offendee that they not smoke cigarettes and/or pot around them.

I do not smoke around non-smokers. While I abhor my habit, it is not so bad that I think I have a carte blanche right to impose it on another.

I hope most of the smokers around you do the same.

[Mythsaje]

45. I'm actually a smoker myself...

Quit for two years but ended up starting again out of self defense. My wife quit for six months and I fought the urge for another year and a half and finally gave up. The smell is fairly loathesome and awfully hard to avoid, particularly when you sleep with someone, or if you ride in a car with them when they ALWAYS smoke in a car.

It just got to be too much.

And I've always been respectful with regard to smoking.

I had a friend that used to say "I'll quit smoking in their airspace when they quit driving in mine."

He didn't drive. Still doesn't, as far as I know. Walks, rides a bike, or takes public transportation. Or, occasionally, catches a ride with someone else, though I'm pretty sure he's never really comfortable riding in a car.

[SeattleGirl]

46. That's cool.

My daughter asthma, my husband has horrible allergies, and my mom has a bad lung condition. So, I don't smok around them, evah! And I don't feel piled upon at all. I consider it a gift to them,that I don't get in their face with my bad habit.

[Mythsaje]

47. We smoke outside, believe it or not...

Our animals don't need to breathe it.

[SeattleGirl]

48. Yep.

I do have an area in the house that I smoke in that doesn't affect Mr. SG or the animals.

[0007]

60. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[SeattleGirl]

67. Would you care to elaborate?

Or are drive-by insults your specialty? If you're going to make a statement like this, you could at least give reasons why you think I don't know what I'm talking about. You don't know me; you don't know what I know about things. So, your insult is without grounds that I can see.

[High Plains]

62. I'm curious. What harmful effects?

It's been my experience that pot is about the most innocuous of psychoactive substances.

Yeah, people can smoke too much dope and not do much else. I know people like that. I also know people who are regular, daily users (you would call them "dependent" and the drug czar would say they need drug treatment)who do demanding jobs and live full lives.

Putting smoke in your lungs can't be good, but there seems to be little evidence that pot smoke causes lung damage, and there are even some studies paradoxically suggesting that pot soothes asthma and that it has anti-cancer properties. Go figger.

To what are you referring?

[SeattleGirl]

66. I'm referring to the impairment it can cause in a person's

ability to drive, or do any number of other things. Look, I don't care if someone smokes pot; I just don't want them on the road while they're under the influence, or flying a plane or anything like that. While marijuane doesn't have the harmful effects on the body that smoking does, it can cause harm by messing up people's heads when they are under the influence.

And I know it can be helpful to people. In fact, in the 70's when my father was undergoing chemo, and would get so nauseated he couldn't function the rest of the day, I begged him to try some pot, but he refused. He didn't want to turn into a "pot head". I told him I wasn't suggesting he smoke it 24/7, but just to try it to see if could help his nausea. I couldn't get him to do it though.

[MrScorpio]

30. I can

You're posting stoned at this moment, right?

[Mythsaje]

32. Nope.

Why do you ask?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. How about now?

I guarantee you wouldn't know the difference between something I posted straight and something I posted while stoned.

:D

[Starbucks Anarchist]

51. Personally, I love pot.

Hi, SG! :hi:

[SeattleGirl]

52. Hi SA!

I don't have any problem with that. I just prefer not to be around it, is all.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

53. That's cool.

I also smoke cigarettes, so I guess I balance things out in the end. :shrug:

Pot's much better though, particularly when listening to music. I smoked some recenly while I was on an Allman Brothers kick. :hippie: :D

[Dorian Gray]

81. No Kidding.

I quit almost a year ago (March 15th), and it's still really hard. Particularly when I'm out with friends, and they are enjoying a smoke after a couple of drinks. The urge never goes away.

[leftstreet]

13. The same organizations that back smoke-free legislation

don't do shit-all about the corporations pumping toxic crap into the environment on a daily basis. The smoking ban issue generates nonprofit donation$$$ and pulls fundy "sin" voters to the polls, looking for a place to vent their hate. It's disgusting.

[Katherine Brengle]

16. very true. n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

15. The day smoking cigs becomes illegal, I will support "Smoke Free"

laws for bars. Until then, it constitutes a foolish a law.

I do, however, support smoke-free workplaces such as restaurants, retail establishments, hospitals, government buildings--places where you should have a reasonable guarantee of avoiding second-hand smoke.

Bars are for drinkin' booze, not the general upkeep of one's health.

[tyedyeto]

63. Do you agree that 'smoke-free' encompasses an entire property?

Or city? That is what some places want to do. Make it illegal to smoke out-of-doors anywhere within city limits...even your own backyard.

Many of us only smoke outside but some cities want to ban even that.

[Telly Savalas]

65. Nevertheless a bar is a workplace too.

The argument that employees should deal with it or get another job can be used as justification for closing down OSHA altogether. It's a balancing act to protect the conflicting interests of worker's rights and those of business owners who wish to conduct their affairs as they choose. One can make a pretty convincing case that banning smoking in bars is drawing the line in the wrong place, but to put it absolutist "Live Free or Die" terms like the spokespeople for Big Tobacco do in this thread seems to steer pretty far from sensible progressivism.

[XOKCowboy]

102. So I'm a spokesperson for Big Tobacco? OK

Then are you a spokesperson for Big Brother? Do you really think that outlawing tobacco will stop people from smoking? Ever hear of Prohibition or looked at the Drug War lately? Education always works better than draconian laws.

[Minnesota Libra]

18. You have the right to set up your business as you think........

.....will bring the most business. I know, I know, that's not the way it always works but short of pronography and drugs involving kids, that's how it should work.

[KT2000]

19. The smoking ban

really makes me sick.
I visit a friend who lives in a nursing home. The aides who work there do some of the lousiest work on this planet. They are always kind and considerate but their work is hard physically and emotionally. They have huge turnover.
Since the smoking ban in Washington, the smokers have to go to a field next to the facility (which will soon be developed). The facility at least put up one of those canopies but it is open to the wind etc
It just makes me sad to see people treated like that, especially when I think of some of things they are exposed to in the course of their day. And they are definitely not paid much either.

[f-bush]

21. I voted no...

Fuck smokers, the tobacco companies overwhelmingly give to repuke candidates.

[SeattleGirl]

23. Fuck smokers?

While I can agree that no one forced someone to start smoking, but the uppity attitude really bothers me. Why is it that some people think that it's okay to be downright mean and nasty to people who do something you don't like? And you are making an assumption here, it seems to me -- that anyone who smokes is a repuke. You couldn't be farther from the truth.

Please, f-bush, don't make unfounded, generalized assumptions about a particular group of people. It's quite unseemly

[IsItJustMe]

27. Love

[SeattleGirl]

28. Well, that's a real intelligent response

If you disagree with me, please list your reasons, instead of doing a drive-by insult.

[IsItJustMe]

33. Peace

[SeattleGirl]

37. Stop it. I'm fucking sick of of uppity nonsmoking asshats

sitting on their thrones, deeming to judge others who do what they do not. You don't like smoking? Then stay the hell away from it. But for heaven sake, stop judging people. I get the feeling you are not a very fun person.

[Berserker]

61. I'm fucking sick of uppity smoking asshats

If bars had a sign don't enter if you don't like smoke what the hell would be the point ALL bars would do this. I fucking hate smokers I have had to put up with the stink of that shit all of my life. I think they should have a small room with NO ventilation to smoke in and leave the rest of us to have fresh air. Lots of people DON"T smoke why the fuck should we have to inhale your shit. No Bars or Restaurants should allow that shit and the day is coming.

[SeattleGirl]

69. Please do not lump all smokers into your stereotype of them

I do not smoke around non-smokers. And, I don't smoke in my own car, even when I'm alone. I've been in Vegas (and God knows there are a ton of smokers there), and sat down at a machine next to someone. When they saw me start to light up, they asked me to not do so. I said, "Sure, no problem." If you hate the smell of smoke, that's fine. But don't confuse a bad habit with a bad person.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

84. Yeah, okay.

:eyes:

[name not needed]

93. I feel so sorry for you

It must be awful for you, being chained to a chair while people blow smoke in your face for hours on end. Oh, wait. It's not like that at all. If it bothers you, go somewhere else. Like most people over the age of 4, I don't have a temper tantrum when I don't get my way. Grow the fuck up.

[f-bush]

34. I'm not say if YoOU smoke you're a repuke

what I am saying is that the tobacco companies overwhelmingly give to repuke candiadtes., If the market for their product is dimnished, then there's less political cash to dole out to the repukes!

[RDU Socialist]

92. yeah because Republicans will have "so much" trouble

finding other industries to give them cash. It's not like the Republican Party is seen as the party of deregulation or anything :eyes: Those businesses like the oil industry, automotive industry, logging industry, etc. are so overwhelmingly Democratic in their donations...

By the way, companies like Phillip Morris do more than just tobacco.

[f-bush]

96. My thought is...

we're not going to eliminate all sources or repuke funding, so we have to do it one at a time. Anytime there is a chance of nailing an industry specially one like the tobacco companies..I say go for it! IMHO

[RDU Socialist]

97. the fact of the matter is most tobacco companies do a lot more than

simply tobacco. They do food sources like Phillip Morris. RJ Reynolds does a lot with sports. Most of them don't need tobacco and the horrible press coming from lunatics like truth.org or whatever their name is doesn't help their cause. However, people acting as though people who smoke are somehow endangering their lives more than obese people who continue to eat at McDonald's doesn't help the anti-smoking cause. A terribly unhealthy looking person like Rob Reiner is less likely to convince people about something being bad for them.

[XOKCowboy]

101. LOL Rob Reiner

I got an immediate flashback to the South Park episode with Rob Reiner. Too funny and too true.

[IsItJustMe]

22. Happiness

[orleans]

50. (are you high?) n/t

[name not needed]

94. Passive-aggressive shithead

[niyad]

29. I voted NO--and I have been an allergic non-smoker all my life. it annoys

the hell out of me that smoking is considered far more a health hazard than the crap we have to breathe in many areas called air. a friend of mine refers to the anti-smoking campaingers as "born-again breathers" which about covers it for many.
yes, I know some people have serious health problems, but they can simply avoid establishments that permit smoking. the absurd attempts to ban smoking in one's home, for example, are BS. I have smoking friends, and they are all considerate enough to step outside, so I don't see that as a problem.

given the current corrupt bunch in office, I have to wonder just WHO is going to benefit from any success of the anti-smoking campaigns.

[mykpart]

39. I'm with you.

I voted no, and I am someone who quit smoking 4 years ago because of a heart attack. I can avoid smoking establishments, but I can't avoid breathing the air outside that is so polluted, and I'm sure that air is much worse for my health than second hand smoke.

[niyad]

35. as long as tobacco growers get subsidies, I think the gov'ts anti-smoking

posture is so much BS--WHY aren't these groups seriously going after the subsidies?

anyone remember prohibition?

[SeattleGirl]

38. I wasn't alive during prohibition, but I know a lot about it

AndI am freaking sick and tired of non smokers who thinks, well, we'll just ban smoking and everything will be okay. And I am TOTALLY sick and tired of non-cigarette smokers who smoke pot and think there's nothing wrong with it, making cigarette smokers wrong. Makes me want to throw things.

[Peter Frank]

43. It's exactly like the Radio/TV dial...

If you don't like the program -- go somewhere else (change the channel).

[Harald Ragnarsson]

54. After Katrina, why would you believe the government cares about you?

In any way? Especially if they make oodles and oodles of tax money off of it?

I do not share the sentiment that the big old government wants to insert itself into one more aspect of my life out of concern for my own well being. They don't are two hoops in hell if I live or die and Katrina should have proven that to everyone else too. Not for one second do I believe this anti-smoking drive is being done out of concerns for public health or well being.

No matter what scheme they come up with they always have some enablers though.

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. HELL NO! n/t

[Beelzebud]

56. Why bother calling it a privately owned establishment if you can't?

The anti-smoking crusaders are eroding our freedoms.

They are in teh same ballpark as the Planned Parenthood protestors.

[XOKCowboy]

57. One just got shot down here in Colorado...

Big money and influence from the casinos and racetracks and one noble congressman who got bars with less than 20% of their income coming from food, put so many exemptions in that the crusaders won't approve it in its current form.

I'm like others in this thread. Who's making the money from the anti-smoking crusade? Someone is.

[XOKCowboy]

64. Is This Really DU? 84% to 16%? Personal liberty?

This brings out what I somehow thought to be true but is totally against the stereotype of liberals. Gosh I'm kind of proud of everyone. Maybe I ought to try a poll on gun control.

[AndyA]

70. Some smokers need to be more considerate of others

I understand they have a right to smoke. They hopefully realize that it is bad for them, as is their second hand smoke to non-smokers.

Now that so many places require smokers to go outside, you have to run the maze to get through them to get in and out of buildings, parking garages, and every other place they gather. Heaven forbit they move their fat asses out of the way to make room for others. I've had people blow smoke right on me as I walk by. They do not have a right to do that.

I know all smokers do not do this, and that many are very courteous of others. But just like everything else, the few bad ones give the rest a bad name.

Some day, I'm going to be in a bad mood, and when someone blows smoke on me I'm gonna take their lit cigarette and shove it up their nose, lit end first. Then we'll see how they like that! :rofl:

[XOKCowboy]

83. I agree with that...

I'm always amazed when I was in Madrid last year and a guy was at the airline ticket counter smoking. I certainly agree tnat some smokers should be more considerate. That's not what this post is about. It's about personal freedom and whether your viewpoint is more valid than mine. IMHO the anti-smoking crusaders are of the same mindset as the fundies a lot of the time.

[seg4527]

71. oh man, the things i have to say on this

First of all, I go to the University of Minnesota, the 2nd largest campus in the US.

They have "laws" or whatever, completely unenforcable, that not only can't you smoke inside, but you need to be 25 feet away from any building when you smoke. Basically, this means you have to stand in the middle of the mall (or road, if you prefer) and just stand there smoking. Sometimes these people get a little crazy.

Nobody pays attention to the rules, obviously. But one day I was smoking out in front of the library, and this lady completely freaks out at me, and tells me how teh smoke gets inside the building, so I better get 25 feet away (because 24 isn't good enough!)

Not only that, put where are all the cigarette butt trays? Right in front of the doors, of course!

That's all I got for now. I voted no, by the way.

I wrote my most recent paper in my cultural studies class about smoking (mostly from an advertising aspect), so i'm a little worn out on the subject. I'll just say I smoke about 15 cigarettes a day, that a long with a pot or two of coffee is all that keeps me going. I'm nice enough to smoke in my bathroom in my apartment, rather than go outside where i might bother people's nose for a few seconds (the same people who get drunk as hell and party till all hours every weekend, yeah, that's respectful!). so i really wish they would lay off the self-righteous crap. at my campus, they have posters all over teh place about the evils of smoking. that's right, us 18-25 year olds are only smoking because we haven't learned about how awful it is for you yet!

to me, the irony is that it's banned in bars. where the short-terms risks are huge. in the past year, 2 of my will-be inlaws have had drunk driving accidents. guess how many driving under the influence of nicotine caused accidents they've had?

anyway, this is easily the most scatted brained post i've ever made on du. excuse me, a hectic week at school as fried my brain.

after reading that terrible english, you must all be frightened to learn i am now going on to study for my latin exam tomorrow. after i light one up, of course. nothing to get the cravings going like a debate about smoking.

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. That was post #666 for you!

:yoiks:

[seg4527]

73. i noticed that

thanks for providing me with the opportunity to kick it up one. :smoke:

[iconoclastNYC]

76. Nice hypothetical.

How about we put up signs at the cities edge that says: "THIS IS A NON SMOKING CITY. YOU MAY NOT SMOKE IN PUBLIC. IF THIS OFFENDS YOU DO NOT ENTER."

[cushla_machree]

79. HAHAHA

Good one.

I said YES.

If you are open to the public, then rules are rules. I think it is digusting to smoke in your own house, but if smokers want to give their children cancer, go for it.

If you own a place, where the public goes, then if you want to allow smoking, create your own fun smoking room, complete with zero ventilation, yellow stained walls and whatnot.

Did you hear that? Listen. Thats me singing a sad sad song for all those smokers being 'discriminated' against.

[benEzra]

88. I think the question referred to laws that would outlaw what you suggest..

If you own a place, where the public goes, then if you want to allow smoking, create your own fun smoking room, complete with zero ventilation, yellow stained walls and whatnot.

I think the laws being referenced make it illegal to do that. That's why I disagree. I think smokers should be allowed to run bars and restaurants where smokers are welcome and accomodated.

I don't smoke and can't stand the smell of it, but I don't see the legitimacy in requiring smokers to live like me just because *I* don't practice their habit.

[cushla_machree]

98. Well you know

Maybe we should have resturants where only clients who smoke crack are allowed to go, alcohol drinkers only. This could be fun.

SMOKING IS NOT A RIGHT.

If someone wants to inhale smoke from a breathing tube, go ahead. But once you start to dirty the air around you that others breathe, INSIDE, there is a big difference. Put on a patch or go outside.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

105. Please stop driving your car immediately

The exhaust from your car causes cancer and while you may need to use a car to get to work and back, your right to transportation ends at my nose. You have no right to pollute my air with your car exhaust.

Thanks!

[XOKCowboy]

82. That's easy. I drive right through and spend my money elsewhere

Not because of the smoking, just the attitude. Same reason I usually try to drive right through Utah.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconoclastNYC]

80. This poll payed for by Phillip Morris.

[TahitiNut]

87. The above post brought to you by Hooked on Phonics

:rofl: :rofl:

[pauliedangerously]

86. I'm Pro-Choice all the way nt

[Tesha]

89. If you are a bar, the ban should apply. If you are a "smoking club", no.

NPR did a story on this. One of the big time cigarette pushers
(RJR?) has started a series of "smoking clubs" in some big
cities; I think the story discussed San Francisco.

By setting itself up as a smoking club and not a bar or cafe,
they could avoid the local smoking ban. The only gotcha is
that they had to do a larger business in tobacco products
than food and drink, so they handle it much like a micro-
brewery, offering special tobacco blends and on-site cancer
stick manufacturing.

It's apparently quite a hopping place for tobacco addicts.
They even had one non-smoker who saidhe just comes in to
buy a soda or coffee and use the free onsite wireless
internet connection.

Tesha

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RDU Socialist]

95. because anyone who supports a person's right to smoke tobacco

must be some tobacco lobbyist's pet. Maybe... just maybe... they aren't a bunch of social authoritarians. It blows me away how people who should be social libertarians when it comes to issues such as this are completely indistinguishable from totalitarians. I DON'T LIKE YOUR HABIT, SO YOU HAVE TO STOP. Guess what, if you buy Kraft foods, you're making the largest tobacco company RICH RICH RICH.

Banning smoking is about as good an idea for liberals to take up as banning pornography.

[XOKCowboy]

99. Or banning guns...

Or banning anything because it doesn't suit OUR sensibilities. Like you said it makes the zeaots undistinguishable from totalitarians. We need the Big Tent. We are the party of the average person. Well guess what, the average person doesn't want all of these government mandated restrictions shoved down their throats.

[mdmc]

91. I voted YES

I can't work at your bar if I am allergic to smoke. I should be able to work where ever I can find employment. If it is illegal to smoke in public, then you are practicing illegal hiring.

If you post a sign "no blacks allowed", you will still need to follow anti-descrimination laws. You r sign does not protect you from illegal activity.

I am a good, progressive, liberal. I cherish the right to persue happiness. That being said, I hate to smell like smoke.

My buddy owns a local bar. "Pot smoking only." If you smoke a cigerrette inside, you and the owner get fined. If you smoke herb, you get a fine, the owner (as long as he calls the cops) receives no fine).

[XOKCowboy]

100. No blacks allowed? Illegal hiring?

I think you're stretching it here. Discrimination in hiring? If smoking bans are enacted then 90+% of bars/restaurants will be non-smoking so there will be plenty of places for you to work where there will be no smoking. Why would you even want to work in a place where someone might ask for an ashtray? This argument is so silly I won't even go into the "No Blacks" analogy.

The main thing I noticed in your post was "I am a good, progressive, liberal. I cherish the right to persue happiness. That being said, I hate to smell like smoke". What you are saying and with your Yes vote is that you think that because you don't like it, it should be outlawed. How is that different than what the fundies try to get legislated all the time? My little bar wouldn't affect you in the least. You could walk by it and just not walk in like everyone else that doesn't like smoking. How is this different from the fundies trying to censor TV programs or movies or books? I say just change the channel or walk to the next pub.

[mdmc]

106. yes, but if your bar is the only one on my block

I should be able to work there and you should have to follow the law (if the law says no smoking in public, then you can't smoke in pubic). If there is no "no smoking in public" law, then make your bar a smoking bar. In NY, smoking is banned, due to employee health concerns.

NY is now smoke free. I always tell my friends that I'm all for people "following their bliss". I think that pot should be legal. I think that the drinking age should be 18. That being said, I LOVE THE FACT THAT I CAN GET A DRINK WHERE EVER I WANT without stinking like a fuckin ashtray. Prior to the smoking ban, I would never go to an indoor bar.

My buddy that runs a bar has a "speakeasy" in the back, where people can go to smoke (cigs, herb..whatever). It is outside, but he heats it in the winter.

No one that owns a bar likes the smoking ban. Most neighbors of bars hate the ban. Most smokers hate the ban. I have no idea how it ever passed, except the fact that employees should be able to work without additional risk of cancer from someone else's smoke.

[DanCa]

103. A Blues bar without smoke is so terribly wrong.

In all seriousness I hate smoking but I have no right to try to enforce my beliefs onto others. I am not the religious right after all.

[buddysmellgood]

107. I think you could do that so long as you had detectors that showed the

amount of smoke in the air was under the federal limit. It would be no different than requiring employees to work around other hazarous fumes. If you did not protect your workers from the smoke, you'd get your ass sued.