Good, >>Lawmakers getting pushback from smoking ban>>>

[demtenjeep]

Some lawmakers who originally voted for the statewide indoor smoking ban say they would be willing to consider tweaking it to be a bit more business-friendly.

But they say it's unlikely that could happen by the end of this year's legislative session.

Legislators say they've felt some push back against the law, especially from proprietors of south-central Kansas businesses who want a few more exceptions in place when the ban takes effect July 1.

A coalition of business owners and supporters called Kansas Right to Choose met last week to plan strategy. The group has scheduled a news conference today in Andover to make its case to the public.



Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/04/10/1263214/lawmakers-feel-push-back-over.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz0klD7GZK5

[WeDidIt]

1. The simplest answer to this debate

An establishment is either all smoking or no smoking.

No riding the fence, one or the other.

Let the market decide.

[The Northerner]

2. I think I agree. The private property owners should decide how they run their businesses

If the property owners allow smoking then those customers who are opposed should either accept it or look elsewhere.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Do you know how many laws businesses must follow.

Minimum wage.
Health and safety.
Serving alcohol.
Minimum age for employees.
Payroll taxes.
Requiring wages paid in a timely fashion.
UI
Registration with the state to operate as a business.
Licenses for professionals.

[Scout]

32. and? n/t

[rucky]

44. I've been saying that for years.

But I'll settle for patronizing bars that choose to ignore the smoking ban, and tip a little extra to help cover the fines.

[SoCalDem]

64. A total ban is the only "viable" solution

Out here, when the bans started, local businesses wanted the right to choose, but it was decided that the bars & restaurants that chose to allow smoking would "steal business" away from the ones who chose to be smoke-free, so the only option was to ban it altogether, and to issue fines from the smoking-police.

If a bar owner smokes, and all his employees smoke too...and the customers too, they all just have to quit, or do what many have done here.. They bought big screens for home & buy their own beer at the store:)

Smaller bars just closed up if they lost their customers, and the others adapted..or died.

Bars that wanted to allow smoking, did not mind that others would be smoke-free, but the converse was not true.

We are both smokers in this household, and a positive effect for us has been the fact that we no longer have to wait in line to get seated at restaurants...of course some of our favorite places have closed down.

Now if the nannies could only force cars to stop polluting my air :)

[Beaverhausen]

93. What businesses closed down after the ban?

I'm trying to figure out of your post is sarcastic or not. I don't know of any businesses in SoCal that closed because of the smoking ban.

[SoCalDem]

94. The smoking ban was not officially cited as the cause,

but more than a couple of places we used to go to for dinner closed not long after the ban went into effect.

I like not having to wait in line to be seated though:)

It used to irritate the hell out of me when people like us who wanted smoking section would have to wait forever, but people ahead of us who requested non-smoking, would somehow lose their opposition if a smoking table opened up sooner:evilgrin:

[Old Troop]

74. Do you mean individual c.lubs, bars, etc?

[Greyhound]

86. Doesn't work, the prohibitionist establishments go under, that's how this whole thing started. n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. The smoking ban is working great in Raleigh.

No drop off in business - in fact, relief in that people can actually enjoy their food with fresh air instead of the stink.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. In NYC, despite dire warnings of harm to businesses, quite the opposite occurred.

http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=210

New York City: Business is booming in New York City's bars and restaurants with tax receipts up 12% since the introduction and enactment of the city's Smoke-Free Indoor Air law in March 2003. Figures from the city's Department of Finance show $12 million paid in taxes from bars and restaurants from April through September of 2003, compared to $10.8 million in 2002. Department of Finance Commissioner, Martha E. Stark said one early economic trend was encouraging since the policy was introduced last March: "New York's bars and restaurants paid the city 12% more in business taxes in the months since the ban began than they did in the corresponding six-month period in 2002." In addition, a 2003 New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study designed to measure the ordinance's effect on employment rates in smokefree establishments, found a gain of 10,000 jobs since the implementation of the smokefree air act.12

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. The key is the whole thing of free will. Smokers are quickly addicted, so they don't have

free will any longer. They think they do....but it is the powerful addiction clouding judgment. And ruining the atmosphere around them. And killing themselves. But not by choice...by addiction.

Very sad, really.

[ladywnch]

6. this has been true everywhere

they always make the same argument about killing business and the opposite is always ends up being the reality. I honestly don't know why they keep trying.....they make out better with smoking bans.

[laughingliberal]

20. It hasn't been true, here.

But it was the arguments that were presented during the election cycle where the smoking ban was passed. The business owners here were worried about it but were told it had not hurt business in the places where it went into effect. The reality, though, is several bar and grill type establishments went under in the first 2 years seeing a huge drop off in their business due to the ban. Businesses here have the option of allowing smoking if they do not allow children. Several who chose to adopt the ban and allow children to continue frequenting their establishments went under and later stated they went the wrong way. The afternoon, family friendly crowds they chose to cater to did not make up the revenue they formerly had from the night time crowds who they lost with the ban.

[NutmegYankee]

33. The choice was the mistake.

Just ban smoking and the people will still go to bars.

[laughingliberal]

34. Not here they won't

And I think those who operate the businesses in the individual states should get to decide. There are some businesses here who went with the smoking ban. It worked for their particular demographics and was the right choice for them. Adults have a choice what businesses they patronize. Making our laws to protect children who don't have a choice was the right thing for our state and should provide all adults with enough choices to go where they are comfortable.

[NutmegYankee]

71. If every bar in a state forbids smoking, you will. (Proven)

I go to bars here in Connecticut all the time. They are packed and the smokers go out onto the back patio or porch to smoke and come back in, or sit out there and chat. Business is rather brisk.

[laughingliberal]

82. Well, our citizens voted as they saw fit for our state

I'm glad your state laws are favorable to you just as ours are to us. I think that worked well. We live here and we decided what we wanted.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

92. I'm enjoying it.

As are a number of wait staff I've asked about it. It's nice to go back to The Point for the yummy shrimp grits and not have to inhale cigarette smoke!

[apocalypsehow]

7. Note how quickly "progressives" turn into BOTH die-hard capitalists AND moralistic Baptists

when the subject of smoking/smoking bans is raised:

1. It's great for business! Profits abound!

2. Smoking is evil - those who do it are addicted, have no free will, and are in Satan's grasp!!!

I find the cognitive dissonance hilarious every time I encounter it.

Full disclosure: I am a lifelong non-smoker.

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. Wrong on both counts. It's nice to enjoy a meal without that crap in the air.

And it is not evil, it is a tragedy because it is an addiction and people are dying because they have no control over it. Not moralistic or capitalistic. Just plain sad.

So as a lifelong non-smoker, riddle me this....where do smokers think that their multitude of butts tossed out windows or crushed out on sidewalks end up?

Horrible, horrible, disgusting habit.

[apocalypsehow]

11. Right on both counts. One's pet obsession does not a "correction" make. Please try again. n/t.

[NRaleighLiberal]

15. Nope. You are wrong again.

[sabrina 1]

13. Do you drink? I know a lot of people who drink

and as someone who doesn't, am aware of the 'stink' of alcohol, not to mention the damage they are doing to themselves if they drink to excess and to their families. It never fails to amuse me when some of them become all righteous about smokers.

Let's get rid of all evil habits. Shut down bars as a start, that would certainly please many who have been victimized by that habit. At least a smoker doesn't leave a restaurant, get in a car and become a threat to others s/he encounters on the ride home.

A case can be made for banning anything. If only we could make the world perfect for our precious selves. So long as our own bad habits are left alone.

Let's make a list of all the bad habits people engage in, (driving cars that spew toxins into the air should be on that list, imho, I really don't like breathing in all those emissions from exhaust pipes) and ban all of them. Video games that make people violent, porn that degrades women, and there is all that revenue to our prison system to be had.

Making the world perfect. It's the hypocrisy of going after one thing, while ignoring so many others that gets to me. Personally I don't care one way or the other about smoking. I grew up around smokers, all of them healthy so far btw. It's the question of 'what next'. That question WAS asked when they illegalized drugs. And it was so successful :sarcasm:, well for the law and order industry anyhow. I guess we have the answer.

[NRaleighLiberal]

14. You don't get it either.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Is smoking being "banned"? NO. It's being relocated.

As in, go outside to light up.

The comparisons to the "war on drugs" are ludicrous. Go tell a pot smoker in prison that his or her experience is exactly the same as someone who had to step out to sidewalk from the bar or restaurant before lighting a Marlboro.

[jmowreader]

26. Are you sure?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/national/19smoke.html

The smoking ban passed in 2006 in Calabasas, CA, prohibits smoking in all public places, indoors or out, where someone might be exposed to secondhand smoke. Among the places it's illegal to smoke in are:

indoor cafes and bars
outdoor cafes
bus stops
soccer fields
condominium pool decks
parks
sidewalks
your car, if the windows are open and someone nearby might be affected

Repeat offenses carry a $500 fine and misdemeanor charges. (First offenses receive a "gentle warning" and a breath mint.)

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I think all of those may have some legitimacy except maybe sidewalks and your car.

Nevertheless, the majority of this debate has to do with banning smoking in indoor, public spaces. I don't think asking people to go outside the bar or restaurant to light up is that onerous. That's my opinion, and it's not going to change.

[jmowreader]

103. That's not onerous at all

But I've heard of more than just a couple places that prohibit smoking within x number of feet of a door, on the sidewalk, whatever.

[laughingliberal]

21. +1000 nt

[Taitertots]

22. Does alcohol smell kill you?

So it isn't about smell and all about not want to be killed. How much do I have to drink for it to effect your liver?

No one advocates running car engines in restraunts. Cars are also highly regulated reflecting this danger.
Video games dont' MAKE people do anything. No one got cancer from Madden 2008.
I have yet to hear of anyone being killed by second hand masterbation.

[sabrina 1]

25. Alcolhol killed someone very close to me. But no, it hasn't killed

me, nor has second hand smoke, or anyone else that I know of. And of course I didn't say anyone was killed by second hand masturbation, although there have been reports of men dying of heart attacks while in the middle of illicit sex. Rockefeller comes to mind off the top of my head. What I said was that porn demeans women in the opinion of many people, and I'm sure they would like to see an end to it. And while no one may have gotten cancer from Madden 2008, there certainly have been reports of people going on rampages who were pretty addicted to violent video games. Another area in which a case could be made for banning.

I of course didn't say I would support any of those bannings, just pointing out that if I really wanted to, I could make a case for them. And if I had millions to spend on promoting the idea, I could even get experts to provide research proving my point.

Freedom has always had to be hard fought for, most of the time people have to die for it. And it's so easy to dispose of. I doubt eg, anyone in Afghanistan has the luxury of worrying about second hand smoke, not from cigarettes anyhow.

[Taitertots]

29. The case in not analogous

None of those things directly hurt other people.

If you want to hurt yourself, smell bad, and die young I have no problem with that.
If people want to DIRECTLY hurt other people, I can't accept that.

Concern that other people are releasing poison gas in your face is not a luxury. Damaging all the people are you is not freedom.

[sabrina 1]

30. Well, you have bought into the false claims that

second hand smoke has ever killed anyone. There is no direct evidence of that. And don't bother with the studie, I can provide other studies proving them wrong. When you have competing 'studies' you have to depend on your own knowledge, limitied though it might be. I know people who have been killed by alcohol, quite a few actually, but of all the people I have known who have been exposed to second smoke, not one is dead or even sick from it.

As for none of those things hurting people, you are protecting your own interests. Porn hurts women. Alcohol kills people. Car emissions are helping to destroy the planet. And video games have been found to have played a role in murder. So, if it's because you're worried about hurting people, you would be as outraged by the porn industry (ever talk to a woman who was victimized by it?} or the alcohol industry as you are by smoking.

In a way, you prove my point about the hypocrisy of those who single out one thing that bothers them, and ignore all the other ways that people are hurt. Eg, do you know how many people the Automobile industry kills each year?

Which is why I said, 'let's ban everything'. We'd have a safer, but not a very free world.

[laughingliberal]

35. I was happy to see the story about the community that is banning perfume

If we're going to ban substances based on causing airway reactions (one of the points always brought up about second hand smoke) we need to be consistent. I have seen some very impressive airway reactions from colognes and perfumes. Sooner or later, we'll get around to goring everyone's ox and there will be an outcry for personal freedom. Sadly, it will be too late. People tend not to care about an issue until it affects them.

[sabrina 1]

45. Yes, that's my point. One of my girlfriends is extremely

allergic to perfume but I haven't heard her ask that no on! e be allowed to wear it. As you say, eventually everyone who is affected by something could and may one day, become as militant about the substance they feel threatened by. And yes, at that point, the entire contingency of militants would then begin demanding freeeeedommm. I noticed no one answered my question about drinking! Lol!

[Taitertots]

37. You don't think second hand smoke is dangerous?

A short list of people who disagree with you starts with:
WHO
American Heart Association
American Medical Association
American Red Cross
American Cancer society
Karmanos Cancer Center

Well have fun smelling bad, wasting money, and killing yourself. Just have fun doing outside where you can't hurt the rest of us.

[sabrina 1]

48. Well, there you go, making assumptions. I never said that I smoked.

The issue isn't smoking for me, it's the militancy of the anti-smoking crowd that bothers me.

As for your question, no I do not think second hand smoke is dangerous. As for your list, I've read their anti-smoking materials, but I have yet to see a single documented case of a person whose death was scientifically proven to be the result of second hand smoke. I've seen lawsuits and claims, but still nothing convincing enough to eliminate other factors. And even if one or two of them are proven, that % is so low as to make the threat so minor, it simply doesn't warrant the outrage and fear-mongering. I just don't 'get it' as someone else said.

I don't smoke pot either, but I am against the anti marijuana laws also. It is possible to have an interest in a subject even when it doesn't affect one personally. Smoking and marijuana laws do not affect me personally, but they do raise a bigger issue than one's personal interests.

It's a 'first they came for the druggies' kind of thing for me and the irrational focus on one thing when there are so many dangers in this world. We simply cannot control everything or everyone just to make our lives more comfortable. Compromises need to be made to protect societies over all freedoms.

[Taitertots]

53. I'll take their word over your word

You can't pretend blowing toxic chemicals in people's face is freedom. I don't want to ban smoking totally, just protect workers from being exposed to a toxic environment. Smoke in your house if you want to.
I think pot should be legal too. I don't think it should be legal to clam bake McDonald's with blunt smoke anymore than I believe it should be legal to fog it out with cigarette smoke.
I think alcohol should remain legal. I don't think it should be legal to drink and drive or give alcohol to children.

You can't pretend that any restriction on activities which hurt other people is blocking your freedom.

[sabrina 1]

61. So, now I see the difference between you and me.

You take someone's 'word' for it. I prefer irrefutable evidence of something like this. And I don't know where you hang out, but I have never had anyone 'blow toxic chemicals' in my face. This is what loses the anti-smoking crowd credibility, their hyperbolic rantings that have zero basis in fact. Your attempt to draw a picture of smokers deliberately blowing smoke in people's faces, others attempts to characterize people who smoke as 'filthy' etc. See, those characterizations do not correspond with the people I know who smoke.

And then, I say to myself. Someone who would make up stuff like that, must have a very weak case. Otherwise why not let their case rest on its merits without adding the lies and hyperbole? And myself decides that without the hyperbole, there is nothing but hot air.

As I said, neither you nor anyone else has ever provided a shred of actual scientific evidence that a single person has died of second hand smoke. And I'll take science over your hyperbolic rantings any day.

Btw, did you know that long before anyone ever heard of second hand smoke, some very smart people predicted that the anti-smoking lobby, unable to get support for their cause since smokers were only harming themselves, would one day make the exact claims you are making?

Some things are so predictable, and some people are so very suggestible.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Have you been paying attention to the way the laws have been going?

I don't think the "anti smoking crowd" is "losing credibility". There may be some states where you can still smoke inside bars & restaurants, but they're getting fewer in number.

[Occulus]

95. Yeah, that's only step one.

Step two is "any public place", and IIRC, some areas in California have already gone straight to Step Three, and banned smoking inside one's home if it shares a common wall.

That's the end goal: a total ban on tobacco smoking. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, but the antismoking militants aren't honest enough to admit it.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. When someone actually proposes that, I'll be right there with you saying it's a dumb fucking idea.

Inside people's houses, inside cars, outside in public (I'm not talking about plopping down in the middle of a 10 acre park, right next to the one play structure covered with 3 year olds, none of which are theirs-- and choosing that exact spot to light up.... which I've seen some idiots do)

I don't agree with those bans, I think they go to far. That's where I draw the line.

Most people agree that the line needs to be somewhere- I mean, are there 'pro-smoking militants' who don't understand why they can't smoke in the ICU, or in a preschool, or at a gas station? Maybe a few, maybe about as many as the wild-eyed 'militants' you seem to think are secretly plotting to outlaw cigarettes entirely. But most people see that the line needs to be somewhere, that there is a balance between smokers' rights and the right of other people not to have to breathe it.

I put that line squarely on, if you are in an indoor, public establishment, like a bar or restaurant, it is not an onerous infringement on your freedom to go outside to light up.

Hey- I watched my dad die of lung cancer. If anyone should be gung ho to 'totally ban tobacco smoking', it should be me. But guess what? I don't give a shit. I think we should end the drug war, not expand it. Your body, your business --- My body, my business. I don't care if you smoke- really, really, really, REALLY I don't.

But go outside to do it. That is all.

[Taitertots]

70. So, where is this irrefutable evidence?

I've given you the recommendation of several highly respected medical associations. You have produced nothing.

According to the CDC, there were 3400 lung cancer deaths a year caused by second hand smoke.
"The Californian Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) estimates that SHS causes 3000 deaths each year due to lung cancer in non-smokers."
The EPA estimates the second hand smoke kills over 3,000 people a year. http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

So the EPA, the CDC, the AMA, and the WHO all disagree with you.

[sabrina 1]

87. That was MY question ~

The reports you cite, I have already said I have read them and I have read very credible challenges to them. I saw no conclusive evidence in those reports that directly ties SHS to the deaths of anyone, which I already stated.

I have seen scientific evidence tying smoking, first hand smoking to lung cancer, but nothing like that tying SHS to deaths.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. And when we start spending millions of dollars putting cigarette smokers in prison

I will accept that there is any sort of valid comparison between cigarette smoking and the drug war.

Most potheads I know would be ecstatic if their product was legal, regulated, taxed, available for consenting adults at places like 7-11, and they could smoke it in most outdoor spaces, even if they had to suffer the indignity of being forced to step outside of the IHOP to light a joint instead of lighting up next to someone trying to eat their flapjacks.

That same situation, however, causes smokers to blow a fucking gasket. :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

88. The drug war didn't start untl Ronald Reagan

came along. It started much the same way as the Cigarette War is going. First you have to scare people enough to get them to go along with laws such as the drug laws. It was easier to do that with drugs as people on drugs are not exactly fun to be around not to mention the number of people who were dying of overdoses. But with cigarettes, it wasn't that easy. Yes, people knew about lung cancer, but that was a personal choice, not harmful to others. The only way to start a war on cigarettes was to come up with a way to claim that it WAS harmful to others.

I might agree that if you don't smoke, or have some kind of respiratory problem it is not pleasant to be around smoke, any kind of smoke, but as far as the sudden claims that it was killing people, from everything I've read, and according to many scientists, there simply is no basis for that claim.

You'd be better off just claiming that it is unpleasant to be around. You'd get more agreement for that.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. What planet are you living on? Ever heard of the Rockefeller laws in NY?

The drug war started before Reagan, well before- actually, it started in the early 20th century with cocaine, and in the 1930s with marijuana. And there is NO parallel- it's not like people were smoking weed in bars and restaurants, and then the drug war "started" with pot smokers having to go outside.

That's what we're talking about, smokers having to go outside to smoke. Jesus. Get a grip.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. You can't read porn or masturbate in most restaurants, either.

The point is, there is a difference- a big one- between BANNING something, and restricting where people cen enjoy it.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. You get points for bringing up porn and video games, though.

All I need is Olive Garden, breastfeeding, and PETA, and I have Bingo.

[The Straight Story]

27. So? Go to a place that does not allow smoking. I am pro-choice, not just one issue like others (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

41. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I think there should be abortions inside bars & restaurants.

I'm pro choice- I think it should be legal for consenting adults to smoke tobacco. In the privacy of their own homes, in outdoor spaces where it is permitted, etc.

Restricting where people can smoke is not the same thing as outlawing it. Again (this friggin debate never goes anywhere) I'd suspect you, too, acknowledge that there are legitimate places where smoking can be restricted- the ICU, the gas station, inside nursery schools... right? Maybe?

Assuming you do accept that some restrictions on where people can smoke are legitimate, then it's not a question of whether people are "free" to smoke, it's a question of where they can and can't do it.

[smalll]

99. Oooh! "enjoy a meal without 'that crap' in ther air" ---

Stop being (I guess, but it's a well-educated guess) an overweight, crypto-diabetic, nasal-voiced, nerdy, overpaid, self-regarding anal-retentive "foodie" with no fashion sense, and then maybe (maybe) your opinions will be worthy of consideration.

Sayin'! :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

17. The endless bleating and whining on this is ridiculous. Jesus. Just go outside to light up.

That is not "fascism", that is not "totalitarianism", that is not "the war on drugs", it's none of those things.

It's saying "smoke outside, not inside". That's ALL.

[sabrina 1]

24. It's saying that business owners do not have a right to

to run a business that caters to people doing something, that as YOU say, is not illegal, yet!

If a bar owner wants to allow smoking, those who don't like it could go to one that doesn't allow it, and quit bleating about not being able to go to a few places that others enjoy.

I would be happy if there were no bars, but I do realize that others enjoy them, so too bad for me.

[MattBaggins]

31. Fomer smoker who had a heart attack before he woke up chiming in

1. Even smokers hate smoking sections. Only a few multi-packs a day addicts actually want a cigarette near them when they eat. I knew my fair share of smokers and not a one of them wanted smoke as they were eating. Hell not a one of us could handle sticking around the breakroom longer than to have a smoke when we had smoking breakrooms.

2. Employee rights to clean air. My old employer had to meet air qualities standards for employees and provide masks if requested when using certain compounds. The masks were voluntary for many cleaning agents but the company couldn't refuse masks and fire employees who wanted them. How do you suggest handling employees who demand not to be exposed to known deadly compounds as they work?

[laughingliberal]

38. Allowing them to request masks sounds good to me.

I have no problem with that.

[sabrina 1]

43. Well, what do we do about the foul air we are breathing every day

that is not coming from cigarettes? How about people who work in beauty salons who are breathing in all those fumes from hair spray. I know someone who died of lung cancer who never smoked but did work in a beauty salon.

As for employees working in bars, if there are bars that do not allow smoking they can work there. Those who don't have a problem with being around smoke, can work in those that do allow it.

Frankly it really isn't a big issue for me. It's the militancy of the anti-smoking crowd that bothers me. I am always concerned by militants no matter what their cause is.

And I'm sorry about your heart attack. People would be better off if they never smoked, including pot, drank, or did anything that could be harmful to their health. But human beings are risk takers. Should we ban dangerous sports eg? It's a dangerous world, all I'm saying is there are more dangerous things that I am worried about, like getting on an airplane, or driving a car, than I am about being around smokers. The militant anti-smokers just seem a little off the wall to me considering that even if there was never another cigarette in the world, they would still be threatened by a myriad of other things. No doubt they would move on to the next 'cause'.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. I'm not militant. I'm perfectly happy with the way the laws are where I live.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to smoke, they just need to step outside to do it.

[sabrina 1]

51. And I'm perfectly happy if they want to smoke in a bar or a

restaurant where I happen to be and where there is a non-smoking area for those who are not. People are always happy when the laws favor their POV, that doesn't mean we should try to legislate everything to satisfy the fears of everyone, does it?

[Warren DeMontague]

54. This argument is like explaining to my kids why they can't have dessert before dinner.

Really, what it boils down to is, "I'm really sorry you're so unhappy with the situation, but that's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to stay" :hi:

[sabrina 1]

90. Lol, well I could say the same thing to

people who are against the drug laws, eg. ~ 'that's the way it is'. A lot of people once thought the drug laws were great also, but over time, all the arguments that seemed so logical, don't seem that way anymore to a lot of people. New information has revealed that these laws have done more harm than good. Of course there people who warned against them at the time. I'm sure they were told to just suck it up also. But as more and more of our civil liberties have been eroded, with not much pay-off in terms of results, many of the less far-sighted who needed to actually see the results for themselves, have changed their minds.

'An over-lawed society is a failed society'.

Drugs, alcohol and smoking are harmful to people's health and do affect those around them. A far better way to deal with such problems would be education.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Again, you can't read porn, masturbate, or get abortions in most bars & restaurants, either.

I don't think you should be able to.

Does that mean I think they should be outlawed? Because you can't do them everywhere?

The drug war is idiotic. Yes. Let's end the drug war. Let's let, say, pot smokers buy a legal, regulated, and taxed product, and enjoy it in places, like the privacy of their own homes, or even in open public spaces. Most of the pot smokers I've known would be ecstatic if they could buy pot at the 7-11, and smoke it at home or outside on the sidewalk. Yet present the exact same situation to cigarette smokers, they act like they're being shipped off to Dachau. :eyes:

It's ridiculous. No one is telling you you can't buy and smoke the stuff (much less putting you in jail for it) they are regulating where you can do it. Not the same thing, not by a long shot.

As for "not much pay off in results"-- again, I have no idea how old you are. I am old enough to remember the way things used to be, when you couldn't go out for dinner (much less to a bar) or on an airplane without having to be stuck in choking clouds of smoke. No pay off in results? Bullshit. The laws make eminent good sense.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I don't know how old you are. I'm old enough to remember when bars AND restaurants could "choose".

There was no such thing as a "non smoking" restaurant. You sucked it up. Eventually they tried the "non-smoking section" like the smoke stays in one part of the joint (or the airplane) ...oh, yeah. That worked GREAT.

Back in those days, you couldn't go ANYWHERE and breathe.

Anyway, you're not going to change my mind on this. I grew up in a house full of smoke, where we had to roll the windows down on -20 degree days on the way to school just to be able to breathe in the car. I watched my dad die of lung cancer. Historically, you're on the losing side of this issue, and if you need to smoke in places like, say, California, you will need to go outside to do it. If you want to pretend that is 'fascism', or 'totalitarianism', that having to go outside before lighting up your fully legal product makes you a poor, persecuted minority (yes, that's the plan... we're coming to take your smokes away... Just like we're coming for the gun owners' guns, MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :eyes:) then by all means, nail yourself up to that cross.

You're not changing my mind, and more importantly, the laws aren't going away.

[laughingliberal]

47. "Just like we're coming for the gun owners' guns, .."

Did you miss the article on the community that is now trying to ban perfume? And I think it's only fair. I've seen some hellish airway reactions from colognes and perfumes in my time as a nurse. I'm OK with the laws in my state that don't allow smoking anywhere children might be present. Businesses who want to allow smoking have to option of closing their establishments to children.

But, acting as if this is the end of the push to limit individual choices is a tad short sighted.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the laws work. Forgive me if I don't cower before the dreaded

'slippery slope' argument.

Someone wants to outlaw cigarettes? I will be all over that thread saying it's an idiotic idea. Someone wants to throw cigarette smokers in prison the way they do potheads? I will be the first to admit that "drug war" comparisons are legitimate.

However, since (as you acknowledge) the debate isn't over whether there should be a line between where smoking is okay and it isn't, but where that line is, I will remain committed to my belief that it is fully legitimate for states and municipalities to ban smoking in indoor, public establishments. And if people want to smoke, they can go outside- or pick another state/municipality to eat/drink in, if it bothers them that much.

[laughingliberal]

52. I do believe it is a slippery slope

There are now communities that ban smoking outdoors and some who are now suggesting banning it in private homes if anyone outside that home can smell it. I would, also, point to my example of the city proposing a ban on perfumes and colognes.

I like my state. Businesses that don't allow children can permit smoking. There are enough that allow smoking for those who want to smoke while they have a drink to find a place and more than enough for non-smokers to have a drink without smelling smoke. But there are those who still whine that it's allowed anywhere.

Fortunately, the gaming industry here is likely to keep us from ever having an outright ban in all businesses. Every non-smoking casino that has ever tried to open in this area has failed in less than a year. Many of the restaurants within those casinos still allow children and so no smoking in the restaurants but several have made the entire establishment adults only. I prefer those because smoking or not, I really don't like a bunch of screaming kids around while I'm trying to eat.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I went to Reno with my then-pregnant wife to Swing State canvass for Kerry in 2004.

And it was fucking awful, trying to eat with all the smoke. Like a time warp back to my childhood in the Midwest, decades ago.

I'm glad you like it. Good for you. I find it vile.

[laughingliberal]

59. I think that was before they passed the current law

Now, any restaurant that allows children does not allow smoking. So, there would be places you could go. And there are places I can go. See, how nicely that works? People get to choose. Almost like a free society, huh?

[Warren DeMontague]

60. And in most other states, there are places you can go to smoke, too. Like outside.

See how nicely that works?

[laughingliberal]

65. I like it I can find places to smoke indoors when it's snowing here

and those who would be offended by it are blissfully down the street at a non-smoking establishment enjoying themselves. See? Everybody has a choice and no one has to be snowed or rained on.

[kwassa]

66. this is a reason I hate Vegas: the casinos reek.

They have some very high-powered air conditioning, and still the lingering stench of cigarettes.

I hated wheeling my infant daughter through the lobby just to get to the smoke-free hotel room.

Smoking bans haven't hurt business anywhere. That is the myth.

[laughingliberal]

67. It is not a myth here. There has never been a smoke free casino that survived for even a year in

our area. And there have been quite a few who tried. There were people here when the smoking ban was on the ballot who kept pushing that 'smoking bans don't hurt business' meme on the business owners in our area. As I already said, quite a few did go out of business. What the hell is wrong with people having a choice?

There are hotels in Vegas that are not attached to casinos, btw. I just did a search for non casino hotels in Vegas and it returned over 9 pages. I noticed several that are chains known to me to be entire non smoking hotels. There are also casinos here where the path from the registration desk to the hotel elevators does not not require walking through the casino area.

I like the way our state did their law. It seems to work for us. I'm glad your state's laws are working for you.

[kwassa]

80. If all casinos were smoke free, all casinos would do just fine.

That is the real answer.

You know it, too.

It works everyplace else.

[laughingliberal]

81. I'm not buying that and it would be far too late once it's proven wrong to rescue our state

We decided on a solution here which we thought worked well for the citizens and businesses of our state. I'm pretty sure our gaming industry in this state is astute enough that if they thought revenue would increase by going 'smoke free' they would do it.

'Everyplace else' is not a state that would see their entire economy destroyed if the gaming industry failed. I'll be glad to provide you with my search that returned 9 pages of non casino hotels in the Vegas area and the names of all the hotels here in the north that have separate entrances for hotel registration and no need to walk through the gaming areas to the elevators. Otherwise, it sounds as if the laws of your state are working well for you and that's as it should be. Ours are working well for us, too.

edited typo

[Warren DeMontague]

83. I actually agree with you about Nevada, etc.

I wouldn't want Vegas to be the rest of the country any more than I would want the rest of the country to be Vegas.

I think it makes a certain amount of sense to have things be the way they are where you are. The rest of us have good reasons for doing it differently.

[laughingliberal]

85. Thank you for acknowledging that

This is a particular place which relies on a particular industry to support the state. The last thing we need is more of a hit to gaming. The gaming industry is well aware that they make most of their money off compulsive personality types. Throw out the smokers and they may have customers but the revenue would tank. I guarantee you if the gaming industry thought for one minute they could make more money or even the same money if they banned smoking, they would do it. The last thing they want is a customer sitting at a slot deciding to quit cause they have to go outside and have a smoke.

Outside of gaming and certain bars, the laws here are pretty much the same as everywhere else. People have to go outside to smoke and we have the same non smoking chains of hotels found in every city. People who don't gamble or frequent certain bars never have to encounter smoke at all in public places. I think it's the right balance for us.

[TransitJohn]

101. That's the deal with non-smokers.

They'll never be happy that they have more than enough choices for places to go that are smoke free. They want ALL the places, even if they'll never go there.

[apocalypsehow]

75. 1. No one is forcing you to participate on this DISCUSSION BOARD. 2. I don't smoke.

"That is not "fascism", that is not "totalitarianism", that is not "the war on drugs", it's none of those things"

The post you replied to made none of those assertions. Please quit making stuff up because you are intellectually unable to respond like a decent human being to an opinion you don't like. Thanks.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Yes, I think smokers should step outside before lighting up, so I must be an idiot.

I stand by what I said-- in these threads, which average a slew of identical ones about every 3-4 months or so, we have the EXACT SAME "arguments", about how smoking bans are fascism, the exact same thing as the drug war, the exact same thing as outlawing abortion or birth control, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

And what it boils down to is, yes, whining about having to go outside to light up. I don't really give a shit whether you personally smoke, or not, judging by what you did write in your post you seem to have internalized these idiotic arguments made by anti-smoking ban people who are convinced that we're all 'out to get them'.... to snatch their ciggies away, (MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA!) probably because we're jealous of how sexy and cool they make them look.

It doesn't make any sense, but you're right, no one is forcing me to wade through iteration #4,982 of this identical fucking argument, exactly the same as all the previous threads on the issue--- and the bottom line is that no amount of pissing and moaning is going to make the bans on smoking inside restaurants and bars go away, so you have a point- sort of- why bother.

'Nite!

[Odin2005]

19. Yes, it's so moralistic of me to want to go to a bar and be able to BREATHE.

:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

73. Yes, it's quite moralistic of you to want to go into a bar where the owner has decided she wants to

allow smoking, and have you make the business decision for her thanks to your own personal quibbles.

It's akin, in my opinion, to Pat Robertson wandering into a Gentleman's Club and then whining to high heaven about the nudity he was "forced" to endure...

Don't like bars where smoking is allowed? Don't walk into one. Problem solved.

[Odin2005]

76. Pretty much all bars will allow smoking without a ban.

That is because without a ban people that don't ban smoking will always get better business than those that do. If there were enough places for us to go that were non-smoking no ban would be necessary.

[apocalypsehow]

78. Not in my experience - I'm a lifelong non-smoker, and when I would go back home to OP in the 90's

I quickly made my favorite bar an establishment that went non-smoking inside, and had a nice patio outside for smokers. This was before any smoking laws were passed.

I found another such nightclub in Joplin, MO, when I lived there.

My point has nothing to do with any of that, though: I had to go into a ton of different bars/clubs and endure the billows of smoke when I was with friends.

But it was my choice to make - just as it was the owner of those place's choice to allow smoking.

"That is because without a ban people that don't ban smoking will always get better business than those that do"

And...so what? That still doesn't mean anyone is forcing you to go anywhere you don't like: I say again, don't like bar where smoking is allowed? Don't go into one.

[laughingliberal]

79. I'm not sure that's true. Hasn't been true here.

Here, it was left to those who wanted to allow smoking would have to ban children. Those who chose to allow children on the premises (like sports bars/restaurants) could not allow smoking. Most here did go with allowing children and banning smoking. Some did go out of business and I think they misread their demographics but many survived and there are more who ban smoking than there are that allow it. And they all seem to be doing fine and people here have a choice. :)

[smalll]

97. Nicely put.

I'm a smoker, but I can appreciate your triangulation. :)

[BR_Parkway]

102. You left out anti-environmentalists = I've yet to see a pro-smoking ban

person also argue against dumping internal combustion engines. So now that they can drive their vehicle to the non-smoking bar/restaurant, there's never any thought or voice to the amount of air pollution they're contributing, only how they no longer need to be impacted by tobacco smoke.

[lazarus]

10. it is about choice

this is the same as workplace safety laws. Customers can choose where to go, but employees have a lot less choice.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. Exactly.

The employees suffer a lot.

Here in LA, after the smoking ban went into effect, the employees of affected restaurants and bars were overjoyed, and many who'd had health problems reported those problems had largely disappeared.

:hi:

[Odin2005]

18. I LOVE the smoking ban here in Fargo.

I am very sensitive to tobacco smoke and I would not be able to go to the bar or many small restaurants without the ban.

Selfish smokers can kiss my rear end. My right to breathe trumps their nasty habit.

[laughingliberal]

23. In our state businesses who do not allow children are allowed to permit smoking if they choose

Several restaurant/bar type businesses of the sports bar variety in town went under after the ban went into affect after choosing to cater to the family oriented crowd they got in the afternoons. Seems their night time business tanked so badly they could not make it. The ones who chose to ban children in favor of allowing smoking seem to be making it just fine.

[4lbs]

28. Smoke-free indoors for more than a decade here in California, and loving it!

Once the marijuana legalization law passes this fall, I might end up taking a few 'smoke' breaks outside myself. :D

EDIT: However, I am against those that want to extend this ban to the beaches. There was a reason to ban smoking indoors, as most A/C systems are closed circulation systems, but the beach is... outside.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. I agree about the beach. There is plenty of room on the beach to get away from smoke. nt

[4lbs]

62. Plus the main reason that proponents have of banning it at the beach isn't secondhand exposure.

It's because they find cigarette butts on the beach sand.

So, it's a littering problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. I'm still not clear on why they can't make them biodegradable.

I mean, shit, I find them on my lawn occasionally. I have no idea who the hell is smoking them, it's no one in my house. They seem to be indestructible.

[Lucian]

46. The smoking ban here in MN is the best thing that's ever happened.

I can go to a bar or a restaurant and actually enjoy it now without having all that stink polluting the air.

[supernova]

58. No, it's silly

It helps the people who have to work in these places most of all and us patrons secondly.

I can tell you for a fact that I go out MORE now than before the ban because I don't have to worry about sitting with smoke all evening. I'm not the only one.

Now if you want to set up a private club that allows smoking, go for it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

68. What about E-Cigs?

In IL, we have no smoking indoors statewide, but E-cigs are allowed. I've seen a few people smoke them and there is no second hand smoke. Seems like a good solution.

[laughingliberal]

69. My husband and I have started to use those some

Haven't quite replaced analogs for us but has cut down the number of analogs we smoke by quite a bit. We started out using them to cut down on expense after the last tax hit. Now we also find we can use them when we are on job sites where the homeowners are already living in the house. We can go out for a break and use our E-cigs and come back in without having the homeowner smell smoke on us. They are working great for a lot of people both to replace cigarettes and to give them an alternative when they are in smoke free environments. Of course, the FDA is making noises about banning them. No tax revenue and no pharmaceutical companies profiting from them? We can't have that, now can we?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

72. IL is putting up a stink about them too.

I don't think they should be able to claim they are "healthy" if they aren't, but I do not think that means they should be banned. If the risks are properly explained, then it's none of my (or anyone's) business if someone wants to use them as there isn't any secondhand smoke, smoke residue, risk of fire etc.

[laughingliberal]

77. It's the same old, same old with the good old FDA

I don't think they should be able to claim they are healthy, either. However, the FDA did some testing of some of the smoke juices on the market and found one with a trace of Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines which is a known carcinogen. So, they are raising the roof about that. Now, the fact is they are trying to compare the safety of that substance to using nothing and, of course, it does not come out well against using 'nothing.' But the comparison needs to be between that substance and cigarette smoke. I think it would be obvious that there are likely about 600 less chemicals in the smoke juices than there is in cigarette smoke. To top that off, TSN's are found only in American cigarettes. They are the substance recently found to be responsible for a type of lung cancer found only in American smokers. This substance is not found in cigarettes in other countries and that type of lung cancer is not found there, either. I would think if they were that concerned about TSN's they would ban them in American tobacco, too. After all, it's an additive which could just be left out.

At any rate people enjoying a substance that neither the government or the pharmaceutical companies are not getting a cut from just won't fly with our FDA.

[SpartanDem]

98. So you're in favor voluntary health standards?

Why should the gumbermint be telling someone if their business is clean enough? The customers have eyes they know if it's safe. Seriosuly, the GOP would be proud of some of the anti-regulation arguments flying around in this thread.