Smokin' in the boys room!

[Farmwithjunk]

You're may be right in this particular case, but it may also be an erroneous assumption. You'll find many laws that are passed, not because the "majority" of the people want them, but because the most "vocal" people and/or the lobbyists want them. And the lobbyists with the most money to distribute get the laws they want.

One of the factors in the recent no smoking laws passing, particularly in Louisville, is the fact that these laws are currently "trendy". I know a couple of the city councilmen that voted YES for the new law who are SMOKERS themselves. I seriously believe they just got caught up in the hype and went along with what they saw as a "popular law".

It's a given that the majority doesn't smoke. (about a 7 out of 10 ratio here) Out of those 7, MAYBE 3 are openly opposed to smoking. The rest are nuetral. Put up for a public vote, it's anyones guess how things would shake out.

For the record, I'm one of those "nuetrals". I couldn't care less if the city is smokeless or not. This city is amongst some of the worst in the nation for industrial pollution. Seems very hypocritical to ban cigarettes and allow companies to continue dumping lethal chemicals into the air and water. I'll probably enjoy the smoking ban as much as anyone, not being a smoker, but I sincerly believe the efforts to pass and enforce this law would have been better spent in another direction.

 

[Bandybear]

I have disagreed with these types of laws because they are taking away property rights, right now from business owners, but eventually from all individuals. I believe there was a county in Virginia which several years ago was trying to ban smoking anywhere in that county, even in a private residence.

And while right now these intrusive laws impact smokers, once the politicians gain success in controlling our lives there, they will keep on going. Look at how they are targeting fast food and trans-fats.

About the only requirement the government should have is the business owner post if the establishment is smoking or non-smoking. That way, people are free to chose which establishment they wish to frequent.


So shvl73, did you ever rent to those people that threw their butts on your driveway?

 

[Volfandt]

I quit smoking 23 yrs ago and haven't missed 'em since. I do however chew on a wood tipped cigar every evening but the thought of lighting it up would ruin the experince.

Theres been times when we've accepted to eat "1st serve" inorder to get seated faster and once seated in a smoking section get up and wait on a non smoking seat or just leave. I just don't see how one can enjoy a meal in a smoking section.

I don't know the rank but I knew of alot of folks that made their Christmas money by raising tobacco. Most would spend their Thanksgiving holiday harvesting it. Tobacco used to be TN's #1 cash crop but now I think that distinction goes to pot which is unfortunately untaxed but thats for another topic.

I do have a problem w/ BIg Bro constantly passing laws and reg's that effect peoples personal lives. I can see restricting smoking inside public bld's but I have a problem with restrictions on smoking outside as well as in private clubs/restaurants. Seems they're going to far IMHO.

I've seen very close loved ones die from all osrts of complications directly related to smoking tobacco and I really can't understand how folks think that they won't ultimately be effected by it. With that said I also believe in individual freedomes as long as they don't aversely effect others and if one want's to slowy kill one self then mo-power to 'em, I don't think we should be legislateing against smoking in outdorrs and private places.
It's a personal rights thang

 

[Robert_in_NY]

The idea with banning smoking in places of business is to protect the non-smoking workers and customers. How many places would choose to be 100% non-smoking? Very few owners would want to turn away customers by banning smokers even if they don't care for it. And what about the waitress who is trying to pay her way thru school but doesn't smoke? They need a job and don't always have the luxury of finding a non-smoking place to work. The law is not about peoples rights, it is about the health of the public as second hand smoke is just as bad if not worse (depending on where you look up the info) than first hand smoke.

People can still smoke if they want, just go outside. New York has banned smoking inside public buildings so the people go outside to smoke or they go to their cars. They just can't smoke where it will affect the right for non-smokers to breath smoke free air. This is all this law is about.

 

[dmartin88]

I think the concern over workers in restaurants and bars is serious enough to support the no smoking laws and I do think that a majority of people support these types of laws, there are some pretty powerful lobbies opposing them yet unable to get them stopped?

I smoked for about 20 years but stopped about 15 years ago.

News article I saw today on second hand smoke- not to say everything you read is true but there seem to be a lot of studies that seem to come to this same conclusion?

Just one night in smoky bar can be toxic - Addictions - MSNBC.com

 

[Bandybear]

The idea with banning smoking in places of business is to protect the non-smoking workers and customers. How many places would choose to be 100% non-smoking? Very few owners would want to turn away customers by banning smokers even if they don't care for it. And what about the waitress who is trying to pay her way thru school but doesn't smoke? They need a job and don't always have the luxury of finding a non-smoking place to work. The law is not about peoples rights, it is about the health of the public as second hand smoke is just as bad if not worse (depending on where you look up the info) than first hand smoke.

People can still smoke if they want, just go outside. New York has banned smoking inside public buildings so the people go outside to smoke or they go to their cars. They just can't smoke where it will affect the right for non-smokers to breath smoke free air. This is all this law is about.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you are using the government to force business owners to change how they conduct business to accomodate your wants. If the owner wishes to employ you or have you as a customer, they will make the necessary accomodations on their own. But if the prospective employee applies for employment at the establishment knowing that smoking is allowed, it should not be incumbent upon the employer to suddenly change for that individual. What if all of the other employees are smokers? Should they be required to now go outside to enjoy their vice for a long term temporary worker (waitress working her way through school)?

Even before I took up smoking cigars last September, I was against these intrusions on property rights. I believe the free market CAN make these accomdodations for both smokers and non-smokers, we do not need more government and more laws on the books.

 

[Bird]

second hand smoke is just as bad if not worse (depending on where you look up the info) than first hand smoke

I don't believe that at all. You may not like the smell of the smoke, but to say it's a health hazard is another matter.

I've seen very close loved ones die from all osrts of complications directly related to smoking tobacco

I am certainly not saying that smoking is good for your health, and everyone says that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to prove anything. I won't disagree with that, but what do you think the medical profession used to reach their conclusions?

My paternal grandfather lived to be 80; never smoked a day in his life; had Alzheimer's the last 5 years or so.

My dad lived to be 80; smoked from the time he was 22; had Alzheimer's the last 5 years or so. (But the death certificate asks the doctor whether the death was smoking related or not; yes, no, or probably. He marked probably.)

My paternal grandmother was adamantly against smoking; never smoked at all and didn't allow anyone (except my dad) to smoke in her home. She died a terrible death from lung cancer at the age of 73.

Dad's youngest sister only smoked a couple of years as a young woman before quitting for good. She died of cancer at the age of 64.

Second hand smoke? My mother never smoked (said she tried it once and liked it, but didn't want to spend the money). But her dad smoked all his life, her husband (my dad) smoked all his life, her five kids smoked, and Mother lived to be 85; only person in the family to ever live to be that old.

So, in my family, all the evidence indicates that if you want a long and healthy life, you need to smoke, or at the very least, live with second hand smoke. And yes, I know that's ridiculous; almost as ridiculous as the doctors who try to blame all human ailments on smoking.

You know there's another human trait that we don't really think about much and that is that everyone has a need to feel that he/she is better than someone else; that there's someone he/she can look down on. And I'm afraid some non-smokers would have no reason to feel superior to anyone if they couldn't look down on the smokers.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you are using the government to force business owners to change how they conduct business to accomodate your wants. If the owner wishes to employ you or have you as a customer, they will make the necessary accomodations on their own. But if the prospective employee applies for employment at the establishment knowing that smoking is allowed, it should not be incumbent upon the employer to suddenly change for that individual. What if all of the other employees are smokers? Should they be required to now go outside to enjoy their vice for a long term temporary worker (waitress working her way through school)?

Even before I took up smoking cigars last September, I was against these intrusions on property rights. I believe the free market CAN make these accomdodations for both smokers and non-smokers, we do not need more government and more laws on the books.

Before New York but the ban on smoking in public buildings I can not recall one single diner or restaurant around here that was smoke free. Yes, there were smoking and "non-smoking" sections at restaurants but they were a joke. Non-smokers did not have any choice if they wanted to take the family out for a nice dinner in a smoke free enviroment.

To say it is up to the business owners to do this is a joke. Most owners will not turn away a paying customer. By this being a law it keeps everything equal for all the owners.

 

[BillyP]

This is old news but it's how Oklahoma dealt with restaurant smoking. Which by the way is my only gripe about smokers. I don't want to sit down to eat and breath or smell cigarette smoke. Any other place doesn't bother me in the least.

Oklahoma Restaurant Smoking Ban in Effect

 

[Bird]

I don't want to sit down to eat and breath or smell cigarette smoke.

Billy, I'm not sure what makes the difference, but about 40 years ago, I quit smoking for just a couple of weeks, and during that time, I was like you; didn't like the smell of cigarette smoke while I was eating. But since my wife never quit, I went back to smoking, too. However, since I quit last July, other people's smoke doesn't bother me even when I'm eating.