U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2009, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 2,810,112 times
Reputation: 672

Advertisements

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.

 
Old 10-03-2009, 10:37 PM
 
2,087 posts, read 1,409,729 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
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.

Its called second hand smoke affects other people, whats the big deal about going outside to smoke your tobacco? Just because you like to smoke doesn't mean your neighbor should suffer from it. It's unhealthy, no possible way to argue that. If a tavern owner would choose to allow 12 year olds to drink should that make it ok??? Its a public health issue, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything that directly hurts an innocent person.
 
Old 10-03-2009, 10:37 PM
GLS
 
1,985 posts, read 4,836,301 times
Reputation: 2408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
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.
Your lament for Montana, although well justified, is too narrowly focused.
Consider the following: "According to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, as of April 2009 70.2% of the U.S. population lives under a ban on smoking in "workplaces, and/or restaurants, and/or bars, by either a state, commonwealth, or local law," though only 39.6% live under bans in all workplaces and restaurants and bars. Of the 60 most populated cities in the United States, a smoking ban (either state, county, or local) has been enacted covering all bars and restaurants in all except these 19: Arlington, Atlanta, Detroit, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Memphis, Miami, Las Vegas, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, St. Louis, Tampa, Tulsa, Virginia Beach, and Wichita."

My point is simple. It isn't just Montana that is losing some freedom of choice, and it isn't just California this time that is championing insanity. Federal, State, county, and city governments almost everywhere are busy removing our ability to exercise personal responsibility.

In summary, I agree completely with your frustration. I just wanted to make the point that the problem is far more insidious than being limited to Montana, and the theft of freedom of choice extends far beyond the issue of smoking.
 
Old 10-03-2009, 10:58 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,540 posts, read 12,567,152 times
Reputation: 2952
I don't think smoking should be allowed in public or shared space, because it impacts people who don't want to breathe it and have an equal right to be there. This applies to stores as well, since smoke residue lingers (particularly in clothing and furniture), affecting later customers. And as someone once put it, "having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool."

However... smoking in bars impacts only people who willingly go into that bar at that time, and generally doesn't affect people who are being dragged along willy-nilly (like kids being taken to a restaurant, usually with no choice in the matter). And I do think the owner should have the right to set the rules in the case of businesses that are essentially optional, ie. no one will starve or go naked if they can't go into 'em.

Our private club (exempt from CA's own no-smoking law) decided to disallow smoking in the buildings a few years back. The reason was twofold: 1) We have far more members who are allergic to smoke than we have smokers, and more important if we wanted to stay solvent 2) it reduced our property insurance by almost a thousand bucks per year. (One member threw a fit and quit, but everyone else was happy.)

I expect the insurance savings to a bar might be as much as several thousand dollars a year, and property maintenance costs go down too. That's plenty of incentive. But when it only impacts individuals who willingly enter the establishment, let the owner decide. If the nonsmoking bar next door does more business, attracts a "cleaner" crowd, and has lower expenses, I'm sure the smoking bar's owner can figure it out.

And you're right about the liberal wackos' hypocrisy!! They only want to restrict rights that they disapprove of. It's worse than just bars... in a couple states there's now some law that if there are kids in the car, no adult in that car can smoke. Sucks to be smokers' kids, and it probably does negatively impact the kids' health, but at some point you've got to stop being the nanny and let people experience natural selection, or you wind up with a nation of perpetual infants.

As someone's slashdot tagline goes, "Trying to child-proof the world makes us neglect the more important task of world-proofing the child.
 
Old 10-03-2009, 11:59 PM
 
Location: NW Montana
6,258 posts, read 12,885,246 times
Reputation: 3429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
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.
You know until I lived in these rual Montana areas I might have agreed with this no smoking in public areas. Now I understand the culture of Montana more and these old cowboys and their social spots. These bars are often the only spot for folks from even more remote areas to gather. I would wonder if there is even any liability/fire insurance coverage on some. Building maintenance is minimal. That said most have been smokefree for a year or so getting ready. One question I had does this apply to business on reservations since I understand other rules do not apply there?
I agree, I do not patronize because I do not care to be in a smoky room so there are other places I can go. No sweat.
 
Old 10-04-2009, 04:43 AM
 
305 posts, read 777,507 times
Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by organick View Post
Its a public health issue, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything that directly hurts an innocent person.
But where does it stop? Maybe we should set all speed limits at 35 because that certainly would drastically reduce accidents... ? Outlaw bathtubs... I'm sure people (kids) drown in them...
 
Old 10-04-2009, 05:22 AM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 2,810,112 times
Reputation: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by organick View Post
Its called second hand smoke affects other people, whats the big deal about going outside to smoke your tobacco? Just because you like to smoke doesn't mean your neighbor should suffer from it. It's unhealthy, no possible way to argue that. If a tavern owner would choose to allow 12 year olds to drink should that make it ok??? Its a public health issue, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything that directly hurts an innocent person.

The point is, there are bars that already choose to be non-smoking, people who don't like smoke can go to those establishments. So why not let people who smoke have a place they can go socially if they choose?

Smoking isn't illegal and your comparison to allowing kids to drink has no merit, as you have to be 18 to smoke, 21 to drink.

The point isn't about whether or not smoking is healthy, it's about personal freedom that is getting squashed by big government.
 
Old 10-04-2009, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 2,810,112 times
Reputation: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post

As someone's slashdot tagline goes, "Trying to child-proof the world makes us neglect the more important task of world-proofing the child.
Great line!
 
Old 10-04-2009, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Southern New England
378 posts, read 1,182,985 times
Reputation: 237
Why not stop griping and make your gov't work for you -thankfully we have that freedom. - be creative and open a smoking lounge for instance- my two cents for the day.
 
Old 10-04-2009, 06:37 AM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,522 posts, read 7,774,947 times
Reputation: 13254
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrasurf View Post
Why not stop griping and make your gov't work for you -thankfully we have that freedom. - be creative and open a smoking lounge for instance- my two cents for the day.
A "smoking lounge"... Neat idea, but illegal, if you allow the public free entry. To put it bluntly, you no longer have the FREEDOM to open such an establishment!
"Second hand smoke"... Just how much exposure is dangerous? How about the guy back East who just retired after SEVENTY SIX YEARS as a bartender; HOW did he survive all that second hand smoke?

When THE VOTERS of the State of Montana passed the $1 per pack cigarette tax (no, I did NOT vote for it) to fund the children's health insurance program, I quit smoking. It has been almost 30 years since I sat in a bar or tavern, except to have a meal. No, I haven't quit drinking, I just do it at home. My point is, the ban has no effect on me at all. I simply don't care what they do about smoking or drinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top