Smokin' in the boys room!

[tallyho8]

I smoked for 20 years and quit in 1985. I don't mind if people smoke around me as long as I do not have to breath the smoke. I don't believe that smoking ought to be outlawed in bars and many other public places but I DO believe that smoke ought to be outlawed. I have been in many places with smokers around me and have not even smelled the smoke because the establishment has such good ventilation and air purifying equipment. It is expensive to well ventilate an area and constantly conditioning fresh air but it should be up to the establishment to decide if they want to go to this expense to permit smoking in their place. Rooms that are practically sealed air tight in order to save money on air conditioning are death traps to smoke in.

 

[tallyho8]

I'm a smoker...so no doubt a bit biased.
Personally, as far as public buildings...can't say I really care one way or the other. However, I've a real problem with these laws when it comes to private establishments. In those cases, it should be left to the owners of the bar, resturant, what have you. They can determine which customers they want to alienate...the smokers or the non-smokers.
To me, these laws are just another unnecessary intrusion in our lives.

The problem isn't so much the customers as it is the employees. The gov't wants all employers to insure that their employees have a safe working environment and are not subjected to excessive air pollution. Many employees will suffer with polluted workplaces rather than risk quitting and not being able to find a job elsewhere.

 

[hazmat]

The problem isn't so much the customers as it is the employees. The gov't wants all employers to insure that their employees have a safe working environment and are not subjected to excessive air pollution. Many employees will suffer with polluted workplaces rather than risk quitting and not being able to find a job elsewhere.

That is the crux of the issue - the customers can choose where to patronize, the employees can only choose where to work to some extent, depending on the local economy.

MA & NY have been smoke free for a couple years now. NH "Live free or die" just passed a similar law - though it took them a couple tries.

As a non-smoker I'm certainly in favor of the bans - makes my drinking much more enjoyable - to each thier own poison...

 

[texbaylea]

We live close to Bryan & College Station TX. Both went non smoking about 3 years ago. The area is home to a very large state university but the smoking ban has held up. My wife and I don't smoke so we enjoy meals out (When the university is out). I didn't pay much attention to the law but apparently smoking outside was permitted.

I must say that when we go to Houston that the resturants there have done something right as we aren't aware of tobacco smoke when we eat out.

Vernon

 

[PhilNH5]

NH "Live free or die" just passed a similar law - though it took them a couple tries.

I live in NH and am a non-smoker. I have always patronized restaurants that were/are non-smoking. I used to laugh at the chain Applebee type restaurants. Bar in the center - dining around the perimeter. Bar is smoking, dining is non-smoking. Bar and dining areas seperated by a half-wall. Of course the smoke knew it was supposed to stay at the bar and not waif over to me. Actually the smoke did come over. So I don't go to that style restaurant.

And that is the way it should be. They are free to have smoking or not I and I can choose to eat there or not. In the "Live Free or Die" state I don't need the gov't being my mommie. I can make these decisions myself. It was a sore day for NH when this law got passed.

Oh well - At least we don't have a seat belt law.

Phil

 

[Bird]

My beliefs and opinions on the matter are real simple. We have far too many laws anyway, and as long as it's legal to sell tobacco, it should be entirely up to the property owner as to whether smoking is allowed on his/her property. The government should stay out of it. If a restaurant allowed smoking and the non-smokers don't want to smell second hand smoke, they could take their business elsewhere. I have no sympathy for them.

Yes, I smoked for about 47 years and the 11th of next month will be one year since I quit. I didn't quit for health reasons because I don't for a minute believe the nonsense and lies the medical profession has heaped upon us. But I quit because: (1) it costs too much, (2) smoking restrictions are going to contine to get tighter, and (3) the house and car stay cleaner without the smoke.

My wife continued to smoke, but quit smoking in the house when I quit smoking. So now she's finally "trying to quit". Today is her fourth day without any cigarettes.

 

[Tdog]

Louisiana did something right - - starting last year, smoking was banned in all restaurants. Don't know about bars or casinos - - haven't been to one in a while[dang, I'm getting old].
I like it this way. Having a smoking area in a restaurant was like having a peeing area in a swimming pool.
I smoked till I was a little over 30 & quit cold turkey - - just got tired of cigarettes controlling my life. I did continue to have an occasional cigar, however, till a couple of years ago. I still enjoyed them but began to notice they really got me flushed & my heart racing, so I quit them too.
My wife smoked for 40 years till she ended up in the hospital after a seizure & developed pneumonia. She got past all that OK & hasn't smoked in 4 years.

Jack

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Any time a law prohibits some sort of activity, there's going to be a reaction. Smoking laws are no different. It's more than obvious to MOST the dangers of smoking. The medical profession MAY (or may not) have overstated their position, but no doubt, ingesting cigarette smoke is poisoning folks, slowly but surely. Turning a blind eye to them won't make those dangers go away. Smokers have their rights. As I was taught in High School Civics class, with rights come responsibilities. We have a RIGHT to smoke if we so desire. We have a responsibility to not endanger others with our choice. Smokers who really want to keep what rights they still have need to look at improving their "public image" rather than demanding their right to continue with thinking that is obviously NOT held in high favor by the majority. Failure to do so may at some date spell the end to smoking altogether.

And then my wife (the smoker) will turn into Godzilla.

 

[MikePA]

To me, these laws are just another unnecessary intrusion in our lives.

Agreed.

These laws are built on the phony foundation that second hand smoke causes health problems and the government has to protect the employees.

 

[shvl73]

I live in NH and am a non-smoker. I have always patronized restaurants that were/are non-smoking. I used to laugh at the chain Applebee type restaurants. Bar in the center - dining around the perimeter. Bar is smoking, dining is non-smoking. Bar and dining areas seperated by a half-wall. Of course the smoke knew it was supposed to stay at the bar and not waif over to me. Actually the smoke did come over. So I don't go to that style restaurant.

And that is the way it should be. They are free to have smoking or not I and I can choose to eat there or not. In the "Live Free or Die" state I don't need the gov't being my mommie. I can make these decisions myself. It was a sore day for NH when this law got passed.

Oh well - At least we don't have a seat belt law.

Phil

Phil,
I agree with your statement.
Don't think a seatbelt law isn't coming, cause it's inevitable, along with helmet laws.
I wonder if health care might be related to this issue. If people want a larger entity (government) to take care of their their health care (management, payment and dispursal), rather than themselves, they shouldn't be too suprised when that same entity starts to ever increasingly dictate dimensions of their lives.