No Smoking in AZ Bars & Restaurants After May 1st, 2007! (Ajo: hotel, movie theaters)

[AksarbeN]

I think we need a list of good places to go to eat that you couldn’t go to before. They want to keep business and gain new customers, I’m all for helping patronize these places that I could never walk into before. So where is the Rock Bottom located?

[MotleyCrew]

There is a Rock Bottom on Bell around the mall/ 75th. What I tasted of my son's was very, very good.

Fox & Hound is another nice spot to eat. Their kabobs are very good. I could not get past the front door on some evenings it was so smokey. That is located on 83rd and Bell in the restaurant row section.

[azloafer]

Because the smoking ban goes into effect tomorrow, the talk radio shows were just wild today. Some people make the smoking ban akin to freedom of religion. Some said that they would sell their house and move! I couldn't believe the calls that they got. Sell your house and move??? I want to see that!

[Cyanna]

Its almost like an exclusive club isn't it? Places where only non-smokers are allowed, because in reality any smoker who does frequent a bar, restaurant, etc... must become a non-smoker for at least a period of time. Kind of reminds me of a time in our recent past when black people couldn't frequent the same restaurants or night clubs as white people. Only difference is that smokers have an easier time of disguising themselves for a short while so they can fit in to the new "exclusive" society. However, black people had the option to open their own bars, clubs, restaurants, churches, etc... Would it not be fair to allow business owners to operate "smokers only" businesses? Or to designate one or two nights a week as "smokers nights?" Smacks of segregation, doesn't it?

I have no problem with those who wish to dine in a smoke-free area, which can easily be provided in any restaurant, club or bar. But to expect the entire place to be smoke free just for their own benefit seems a bit inconsiderate. Was it not good enough that smokers were relegated to different areas of a restaurant, usually the most undesirable sections? It must not have been that bothersome or worrying if non-smokers continued to frequent these places and requested seating in the non-smoking section.

EVERYONE has the right to enjoy their life, just as we all have to learn to be tolerant of things we may not like or agree with. Life is about making concessions. Smokers have made concessions for many years by sitting in smoking designated areas so that non-smokers could also enjoy eating a meal without smoke. All were being allowed "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Seems to me that the more out of control some feel within their own lives the more they must try to control the lives of others. It is no longer good enough to let each have their own way in some small measure, but instead its a "My way or no way" attitude that is becoming frightenly prevalent. There is nothing more annoying or insulting than seeing that certain self-righteous, arrogant smug look on the face of someone who has managed to force their will over others. Sorry folks, but it is a look that has become quite common on the faces of the most outspoken of the anti-smoking brigade. That look that says "Doesn't matter who I've hurt or offended. What matters is that I've WON!"

[Ponderosa]

Only 7 more hours 'till I can go to a bar or take my kids bowling without leaving with a headache and smelling like an ashtray. Whoopeee!

[OREGONRAIN]

Good, now if only Oregon could get their act together and join the other westerns states that have smoking bans. There is nothing discriminatory about no smoking in restaurants. If you want to smoke go head, don't do it where people are trying to eat, and then tell us we are discriminating, that is assinine. The smoking in restaurants has made it impossible for many to go out for a meal for fear of a asthma attack.

[Cyanna]

Originally Posted by OREGONRAIN

There is nothing discriminatory about no smoking in restaurants. If you want to smoke go head, don't do it where people are trying to eat, and then tell us we are discriminating, that is assinine.

Really? According to a number of sources this ban does fall within the bounds of being discrimination:

"The denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups because of prejudice and for other arbitrary reasons." from University of Idaho, Lexicon of Appropriate Terms

"Treating people in a different, usually bad, manner because of their class, race, gender or some other category instead of who they are as individuals." from YouThink! Glossary

"Behavior that shows prejudice. Failure to treat people equally because of a bias." from the Internal Audit site

But lets put all that aside and discuss the reasons behind the smoking ban. Most cited reasons are the ill-affects of second hand smoke on others and air pollution. I can understand people being concerned for their health and wishing to have cleaner air to breathe. Air is something we all need in order to survive, so it makes sense that we should all be responsible for helping to keep our source of oxygen clean.

I have been making small steps forward in my own attempts to quit smoking. It isn't easy, but I'll do it. Consider this one of my contributions towards cleaner air for all, including my future descendants.

So, I think the anti-smoking brigade can all agree that their main concern is clean, healthy air and smokers who quit smoking will being doing their part to help insure we all have cleaner air.

But is that really enough? Will the personal sacrifice of smokers really give you the cleaner, healthier air you desire?

Just how important is cleaner air to you on a personal level? What are YOU willing to sacrifice for the benefit of all? How far would you go to prevent your own child or the children of others from having asthma attacks? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, states that the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter. They go on to state that "driving a private car is probably a typical citizen's most "polluting" daily activity."

So, are you willing to give up driving your automobile now that you know it is THE greatest sources of AIR pollution? Once I quit smoking I am going to want to enjoy cleaner air, too, but it seems that your cars will have a detrimental impact on the quality of the air that I breathe. After all, cars also emit several pollutants classified as toxics, which cause as many as 1,500 cases of cancer in the country each year, according to the EPA. Looks like automobile drivers are just as guilty of causing cancer as smokers are.

Motor vehicles generate three major pollutants: hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide.

Hydrocarbons react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and elevated temperatures to form ground-level ozone. It can cause eye irritation, coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath and can lead to permanent lung damage.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) also contribute to the formation of ozone and contribute to the formation of acid rain and to water quality problems.

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, deadly gas. It reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and can impair mental functions and visual perception. In urban areas, motor vehicles are responsible for as much as 90 percent of carbon monoxide in the air.

Motor vehicles also emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, which has potential to trap the Earth's heat and cause global warning.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you are truly so concerned about the quality of the air we all breathe you should have no probelm with sacrificing your car, the single greatest air polluter. I'm willing to give up smoking as my sacrifice towards cleaner and healthier air. I think it only fair that the non-smokers out there also sacrifice for the good of all. Or is that not an acceptable option due to the inconvenience and discomfort it would cause you? Is it okay to pollute the air when its for your own needs, like needing to get to the mall more quickly to satisfy your shopping addiciton, or make a quick drive to Burger King to satisfy a food addiciton?

This is the point in history when we weed out the hypocrites from those who are truly concerned about air quality and health.

By the way, here's an interesting article on the old "second hand smoke causes cancer" argument...
http://www.joebobbriggs.com/specialr.../20020816.html

[sfw1979]

This is so great! I respect people who smoke but I am thrilled that this is really happening. It will be so great to go to a club/ bar and hangout with friends and not have to come home and wash the smoke smell out of your hair. People who are smokers tend to smoke more when they drink so clubs are just full of smoke YUCK ! I don't want to breath that in. Like I said, I respect people who want to smoke but am so happy they will have to do it outside! At least your are in Arizona and not Minnesota.. people in MN go outside in the freezing winter to have a smoke...

[AOYAS]

Wow, this debate is a little crazy...

I used to be a smoker. Smoked for close to a decade. Three years ago, I quit, and haven't touched a smoke since. I've been on both sides of the fence, so I think I have a unique perspective on the subject of smokers' rights vs. non-smokers' rights, and who is being infringed upon. I understand both sides, but I have to say that non-smokers win hands down. They just do. Smoking affects everyone's health...including non-smokers who are in direct proximity to cigarette smoke, like they would be in bars and restaurants, regardless of the designation of “smoking” and non-smoking” sections. Anyone who tries to dispute this fact, by providing ridiculous statements regarding the fact that non-smokers get lung cancer, too, is just fooling themselves. Of course non-smokers get lung cancer, too. Lung cancer can be caused by many things. That’s not in dispute. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of lung cancer and emphysema are/were smokers. If you don't think cigarette smoke causes health problems, in and of itself, you are sadly, SADLY mistaken.

When I quit smoking, I had insomnia for a month because I was going through a worse withdrawal than heroin addicts go through when they try to quit. I literally felt like I was going crazy from the shakes and lack of sleep...not to mention the incredibly violent dreams, which I later found out are quite common among those trying to quit, due to the nicotine and other toxins being tossed about inside your body. I had excruciating headaches that would last hours and days, when I had never really been a "headache person" before that. For the first few days, I coughed up black mucous and other gobs of grossness, and then I developed a terrible bronchial infection that lasted a couple weeks after that, due to my body purging all the shi* that had been in my system for so long, while being a smoker. This isn't even the beginning of all the crap I went through to purge the sick, disgusting crap from my body that cigarettes put there. For anyone who tries to tell me that cigarettes don't cause health problems, aren't bad for you, aren't hurting anyone, haven't been proven to cause health problems, etc, I say this...bullshi*. I've seen it, lived it, first hand, and I'll say it again - you're SADLY mistaken if you think that you are not hurting anyone (ie those around you, including non-smokers who breathe your second-hand smoke) by smoking.

Now, I'm not saying that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke in the privacy of their homes or automobiles. Free country, yadda yadda. But, I fully agree with the majority of voters in Arizona deciding to ban this unhealthy, disgusting, smelly, awful habit in places where the general public patronizes, and should be able to do so without fearing for their health (legitimately so), as well as come home smelling like an ashtray, having burning eyes and asthma act up, etc.

So far on this thread, I have not read a single valid, intelligent, legitimate, or logical argument regarding “smokers' rights.” Just sounds like a bunch of whiners who can’t deal with the fact that they have lost this battle, and they should move on.

I've read comparisons between smoking being banned and farting in public...grilling meat in an outdoor grill or in a restaurant kitchen...racism/ethnic segregation...the fact that smoking is a "legal" habit, and people shoul be allowed to smoke in bars as long as the owners agree with it...offices/businesses/bars/restaurants being privately-owned establishments and not public locations...non-smokers "choosing" to patronize bars, so it's their choice to be in a smoking environment...etc etc.

Smoking truly and actually impairs the health of those around the smoker...farting does not. It has much less to do with odor (although that is a legitimate argument, as well), and more to do with the overall health and well-being of the general public being protected. Like someone mentioned before, humans weren't born with a need to smoke. Humans have to fart, and doing so doesn’t cause a true and actual health risk for those around them. Smokers are fully capable of smoking outside or in non-public venues. Yes, it might be a little inconvenient, but such is life. Non-smokers are not capable of guaranteeing that no smoke will enter their personal breathing space, if those around them are smoking in a public establishment. Non-smokers win this argument.

You can basically use the same argument above for the smell of cooking meat (most creative, if not the most ridiculous "argument" I've heard in a while). The smell of cooking meat does not affect the overall health and well-being of the general public, like someone smoking in the next booth over while you're trying to eat your burger will. Duh.

Comparing a smoking ban in restaurants to racial segregation? Are you kidding me?? Wow...I take back my "most ridiculous argument I've heard" designation. This is such an asinine notion, that it's really not even worth disputing. It's just plain silly.

Yes, smoking, in and of itself, is a legal act in which anyone may partake. So is sex. Should people be allowed to have sex on tables in restaurants or bars (or the office, for that matter), as long as the restaurant owner agrees with it? According to your logic, they should. Guns are legal (for most people). Should people be allowed to wave their gun around in bars, as long as the bar owner agrees that it is the patrons' constitutional right to do so. Of course not. While people are allowed to have sex in the privacy of their homes (or cars, or hotels, or whatnot), and people are allowed to own guns, certain acts (such as having sex in bars, or being able to wave guns around in businesses) are not allowed, because they are believed to directly affect the overall well-being, health, and/or safety of the general public. Claiming that smoking is a legal habit is true. Claiming that it should be allowed in places that directly affect the health and well-being of the general public because it is legal for a smoker to choose to infect his body is absurd.

Yes, businesses, office buildings, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, malls, etc, are privately owned buildings. That's beside the point. They are places where the general population works and patronizes. They are not private, in the sense that one's home or auto is private. They are open to the general public, and therefore, are considered public places. People (including non-smokers) should be able to patronize these establishments as well, without fearing that their health is being put at risk. This is quite obvious, and it's difficult for me to understand how anyone can choose to argue against this fact.

Lastly, yes, non-smokers who frequent smoking establishments are on some level choosing to be immersed in smoke. The same can be said for smokers who frequent non-smoking establishments. No one is forcing smokers to go to restaurants or bars that do not allow smoking, if they want to smoke. They can smoke outside, or in their car, or in their homes. Until now, non-smokers rarely had another option, besides staying home altogether, and not being able to enjoy a smoke-free night out at a bar or restaurant. Smokers can easily walk outside to enjoy a smoke.

Like I said, I smoked for close to a decade, and I went to college (ie BARS) in a place where some establishments did not allow smoking. It wasn't a problem. I just went outside, or I (God forbid!) went without a smoke for a little while. Smokers can frequent non-smoking venues, and still engage in their habit outdoors, or hold off for a while. However, non-smokers have been (until now) forced to choose between going out and having a meal/drink and having to breathe second-hand smoke, or not going out at all. The fair compromise is for everyone to be able to enjoy the restaurants/bars, and smokers can still engage in their habit...only outside instead of inside. Everyone wins, in my opinion. Yes, it's a little bit of an inconvenience for smokers, but it's better to inconvenience smokers a bit, than to give non-smokers the "choice" between being totally excluded from being able to patronize smoking bars/restaurants or having to put up with an obvious hazard to their health.

Smokers just need to give it up, plain and simple. Everyone gets it. You're upset. You want to impose your disgusting, unhealthy habit in everyone’s faces, so that you won't be inconvenienced. Well, the voters have won. Despite what other posters have said, that is the BEST thing about our democratic system...majority rules. Awesome. Have a good one....

[Cyanna]

Wow! I notice how you nicely ignored this fact that I posted...

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, states that the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter. They go on to state that "driving a private car is probably a typical citizen's most "polluting" daily activity."

So, are we going to demand that people stop driving their vehicles because it is polluting the air of those who wish to sit outside? If you all truly want cleaner and healthier air you're going to have to do a bit more than stop people from smoking. It will entail personal sacrifice, on everyone's part, just as you are all expecting personal sacrifice by smokers.

Whether or not any comments I have made are asinine is a matter of opinion. I find it asinine that non-smokers conveniently ignore the fact that their driving is also contributing to rising cancer rates and air pollution.