Montana isn't what it used to be.. (Victor: construction, gated)

[ElkHunter]

Wouldn't it have been more reasonable to inact a smoking ban unless: The bar was in two parts, one part for non-smoking, the second part for smoking. Same with restaurants.

I've seen it done before. And, when they did that, they also required an air handler of x number of cubic feet of air per minute in the first part, and xxx number of cubic feet of air per minute in the second part.

I, like many others, do not see a mandatory LAW to effect everyone. Smoker has just as many rights as a non-smoker. Or, they did. Now they don't.

By the way. I don't smoke.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf232

The "clean indoor air act" started on October 1'st. The liberal wackos from out of state have now made it illegal to smoke in a bar. Even though the bar owners have always had the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their own establishments..

If a person doesn't like smoking, what's so wrong with them going to the bar's that already didn't allow it?

It's interesting that the same people that are for legalizing pot are the same people that are all about outlawing tobacco. So if they legalize pot, are they going to allow pot smoke in bars, and kick people out for smoking tobacco? WTH?? The world is upside down.

What the heck is so wrong with a tavern owner making the decision on allowing smoking or not in their own businesses?

I guess the days of personal responsibility are gone, and we all need to be babysat by big government.

Goodbye Montana, hello Eastern Arctic California.

Looks to me like you'll either have to find a bar who's owner opts to allow smoking or move to the Yukon where they have Socialism

[organick]

Originally Posted by Klapton

If you go to a BAR, you can reasonably expect people to be drinking, SMOKING, and maybe even saying naughty words and oogling at the opposite sex in an unwholesome manner. This is WHY people go to a BAR. Precisely to do those things.

People who do not condone such things should not go to bars. Duuuuhhhh.

It's like going to church and being offended because someone is singing or praying. Duuuuuhhhh. Or going to a boxing match and being appalled by the violence. Duuuuuhhhh.

Bars serve alcohol, not cigarettes. drinking a beer doesn't cause the guy next to you to get drunk. Go outside to smoke.

[organick]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

Wouldn't it have been more reasonable to inact a smoking ban unless: The bar was in two parts, one part for non-smoking, the second part for smoking. Same with restaurants.

I've seen it done before. And, when they did that, they also required an air handler of x number of cubic feet of air per minute in the first part, and xxx number of cubic feet of air per minute in the second part.

I, like many others, do not see a mandatory LAW to effect everyone. Smoker has just as many rights as a non-smoker. Or, they did. Now they don't.

By the way. I don't smoke.

yes a right to smoke not a right to FORCE others to smoke. The concept of a non smoking section is assanine, ever been in the non smoking section. it still smells and half the time you have to walk through the smoking section to leave or use the bathroom.

[ElkHunter]

Yes, I have been to a non-smoking side and no, the building was built correctly and I did not smell smoke.

[susansolin]

Originally Posted by seven of nine

One question I had does this apply to business on reservations since I understand other rules do not apply there?

I'm not sure about Montana but in Wisconsin and Washington both which outlawed smoking (while I lived there) you could still smoke in all the casinos because they were all on tribal land and so not subject to the laws of the state.

I would bet businesses on the reservation will still allow smoking.

[Redraven]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

Yes, I have been to a non-smoking side and no, the building was built correctly and I did not smell smoke.

Yep, me too, many years ago. Anybody remember Shakey's Pizza Parlors? They were built two sided, with the kitchen and the bar in between. One side was the "soda pop" side, no smoking allowed. The other side was the "beer and wine" side, where smoking was allowed.
Yes, it HAS been done, yes it CAN be done.
I'm still waiting for a definitive answer to "HOW MUCH second hand smoke is harmful?" If it IS truly harmful, the amount of harm must be quantifiable.
Much has been said about "rights", OK, how about the RIGHTS of the property owner? Does he not have the RIGHT to decide how his property will be managed? Many businesses post signs stating "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE". But, do they REALLY have that right anymore? How about if a business put up a sign stating "NON-SMOKERS NOT ALLOWED". Does the business owner have the right to do that? If I am smoking on a sidewalk, and you get within 10 feet of me, do I have the right to tell you to go away? (hypothetical question, I don't smoke). I don't smoke, but my "comfort zone" is quite a bit farther from me than most people, do I have the right to tell you to get away from me, so I won't have a minor anxiety attack?
"rights" are funny things. It is impossible to grant special "rights" to one group without taking a corresponding "right" from another group. Whose "rights" have precedence?

Years ago, I voted FOR gambling in Montana, because I enjoy playing slot machines, pull tabs, and punch boards, and I wanted the RIGHT to play them. When the jState refused to authorize them, was that a violation of my RIGHTS? (not that I care, I don't go to casinos these days anyway. Probably because they don't have slot machines, punch boards, or pull tabs)

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by organick

I find the "cultural" argument weak as well, not everyone in rural montana smokes. Do not thoose who dont have the same right to go to a bar and not have to smoke if they dont want to.

No you don't. You absolutely do not have a right to go to a bar. Everyone knows bars are smoky (or used to be), if you don't want to be in that environment - DON'T GO. You aren't forced to go to a bar and breath second hand smoke, go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking - there are bars that were smoke free.

Should the nanny state ban loud music at rock concerts too? Afterall, all that loud noise will damage your hearing causing tinnitus and eventually deafness if exposed long enough. Why should everyone who goes to a rock concert be subjected to loud music? Sounds absurd doesn't it.

And no, I don't smoke and would much rather go to a non-smoking establishment than one that allows smoking but I also believe that the business owner should be the one to decide how his/her place is run.

[cedar_bluff_tree_farm]

I'm a Montana native (though not currently a Montana resident) and think it is a great policy and a long time coming.

Breathing second hand smoke causes lung cancer. Non-smokers who live or work with smokers develop lung cancer. People who are not exposed to cigarette smoke do not develop lung cancer.

I had a grandmother who died of lung cancer. She didn't smoke but worked in a smoked-filled workpalce for 20 years. She died at age 65.

I don't normally like government intrusion of private property rights. I don't support additional nanny laws. However, I like this one because I really hate the smell of cigarette smoke and don't want to die from lung cancer when I'm 65.

[GLS]

Originally Posted by cedar_bluff_tree_farm

I'm a Montana native (though not currently a Montana resident) and think it is a great policy and a long time coming.

Breathing second hand smoke causes lung cancer. Non-smokers who live or work with smokers develop lung cancer. People who are not exposed to cigarette smoke do not develop lung cancer.

I had a grandmother who died of lung cancer. She didn't smoke but worked in a smoked-filled workpalce for 20 years. She died at age 65.

I don't normally like government intrusion of private property rights. I don't support additional nanny laws. However, I like this one because I really hate the smell of cigarette smoke and don't want to die from lung cancer when I'm 65.

Sincere condolences to you for your grandmothers demise associated with passive smoking. The data from MedicineNet.com states that Non-smokers who reside with a smoker have a 24% increase in risk for developing lung cancer when compared with other non-smokers. Each year, up to 3,000 lung cancer deaths are estimated to occur in the U.S. that are attributable to passive smoking.

However, please do not make unfactual statements to support an emotional argument. Your statement(bolded above for emphasis) "People who are not exposed to cigarette smoke do not develop lung cancer." is nonsense. In truth, of the approximately 170,000 Americans who develop lung cancer annually, approximately ten per cent of lung cancers, or 17,000 cases, occur in non-smokers. Although not every non-smoker suffering from lung cancer will have an identifiable risk factor for development of the disease, a number of conditions and circumstances have been identified that will increase a non-smoker's chance of developing lung cancer. As one example, exposure to Radon gas,a naturally-occurring gas that forms when uranium decays, is another known cause of lung cancer. An estimated 12% of total lung cancer deaths in both smokers and non-smokers, or 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer-related deaths annually in the U.S, are believed to be at least partially related to radon gas exposure.

Therefore your chances of dying from lung cancer, depending upon your environmental exposure are 5 to 6 times greater from radon gas than from passive smoking.

As for your statement on your personal dislike of the smell of cigarette smoke, it further corroborates the originally intended focus of this thread.
I detest the smell of cigarette smoke too, but I also hate the smell of perfume and cologne. Fortunately I am not an activist with the ability to pass laws to restrict everyone else from wearing whatever fragrance they like.