Smoking Ban bill as been passed (York, Williamsport: casinos, living, restaurant)

[MaspethMatt]

i don't smoke, but i support peoples rights. any way the gov't runs peoples lives is wrong in my book. somone doesn't like smoke, don't patronize the place. talk to the owner. take your money elsewhere. many changing the rules to govern the few, isn't that communism or is it socialism??? i know it's not american.

[sues1]

I do have to say that all my friends who smoke, my kids smoke, they all think it's ok to throw their cigarettes wherever they want to. I see smokers doing it all the time, they just throw their butts wherever and it's littering and disgusting.

[thecoalman]

sues1, I agree but its a littering problem we have here in Pennsylvania that smokers are a part of. Just like many smokers think nothing of throwing a butt on the ground the non-smoker standing next to him thinks nothing of throwing his gum wrapper on the ground, his plastic soda bottle or whatever it may be. If you want to address this issue you need to change the overall attitude of people who think littering is normal.

People see a bunch of butts, soda cans and all kinds of garbage and have the attitude of what's one more going to do, it feeds on itself.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by MaspethMatt

. many changing the rules to govern the few, isn't that communism or is it socialism???

NO...its called democracy. Majority rules....that's why we have elections, we elect the people that best represent our interests. If you don't like the job your representatives are doing, then vote them out. But majority rules, that's the American way. If we had the minority ruling the majority, that's a totalitarian regime.

[Grasonville]

Originally Posted by MaspethMatt

i don't smoke, but i support peoples rights. any way the gov't runs peoples lives is wrong in my book. somone doesn't like smoke, don't patronize the place. talk to the owner. take your money elsewhere. many changing the rules to govern the few, isn't that communism or is it socialism??? i know it's not american.

All laws "run people's lives" - people have to understand the difference between "previously accepted practices" and RIGHTS.

There is no RIGHT to smoke - there is also no RIGHT to a smoke free world.

But we elect people who supposedly listen to the people who put them in office and then propose new laws and regulations that suit the majority. Since smokers are now the minority - their "previously accepted practices" of smoking in bars and resturants and other public settings are now going to be restricted - because of the wishes of the majority.

I am old enough to remember "smoking areas" on AIRPLANES - the smoking section was in the back of the plane and we exhaled FORWARD to the "supposedly" non-smoking section up front. And it wasn't like the non-smokers could open a window to get some fresh air

[driftwoodpoint]

That's a breath of fresh air to hear that. My dad lives in PA and we both hate it when you sit even near the smoking section and you can smell it on your clothes when you drive home.
Way to go PA!!!!

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by Grasonville

All laws "run people's lives" - people have to understand the difference between "previously accepted practices" and RIGHTS.

There is no RIGHT to smoke - there is also no RIGHT to a smoke free world.

But we elect people who supposedly listen to the people who put them in office and then propose new laws and regulations that suit the majority. Since smokers are now the minority - their "previously accepted practices" of smoking in bars and resturants and other public settings are now going to be restricted - because of the wishes of the majority.

Exactly!

And to further clarify, only constitutional rights are subject to protection from majority impulses.* So, for example, a majority cannot pass laws restricting speech or freedom of religion if they conflict with the first amendment. By contrast, since there is absolutely no constitutional right to smoke (or be smoke-free), the state has full power to regulate in this area.

This is basic civics that sadly many people understand too poorly.

*Granted, a majority can certainly change the constitution, but this process is extremely difficult (on purpose).

[thecoalman]

The Economic Impact of the New York State Smoking Ban on New York’s Bars

Prepared for the
New York Nightlife Association
Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association

This document was prepared on
May 12, 2004
by
REA

About REA and its Founder, Brian O’Connor, Ph.D.
Brian O’Connor, formerly IBM's director of U.S. economics, is credited with creating a database combining elements of macroeconomics, industry and regional forecasting to gauge the impact of the economy on the company's business. He established an internal consulting practice to serve the planning needs of IBM U.S. and many of its key clients. Brian's doctorate, at the University of Maryland, was in input/output analysis and
econometric modeling. He served as technical consultant to the Federal Trade Commission in the late 1960's, where he designed a quantitative system to support the agency's enforcement mission.......

In summary, the enactment of the New York State smoking ban has had a dramatic negative impact on the bar and tavern business and related businesses. The total economic impact is:
• 2650 jobs
• $50 million in worker earnings
• $71.5 million in gross state product (output)

http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com...eport_2004.pdf


Now here is someone I can agree with:

....Can someone cite one instance where a smoker forced a non-smoker into an establishment that allows (excuse me, allowed) smoking? Maybe it's just me, but if there is something about a place I don't like, I don't go there. What is so difficult about this concept? A cigar bar? Why then Mr. and Ms. Non-smoker, don't go there if it offends you. But rather the attitude of these people seems to be "change the world to suit me". After all, isn't it "all about me"?.....

Daily Herald | Look at other side of smoking ban

[Katiana]

OK, I said I'd never, ever in my life, get involved with another smoking thread, because they all end up so nasty, but of course, I just can't let some of this go.

Originally Posted by sues1

I don't smoke and it bothers me when i'm around it, but i'm pretty sick of tired of being told what we can and can't do, like the seat belts, if an adult doesn't want to wear one that's his business. Yes, children should be in car seats and seat belts, but i resent being forced to wear one. They are taking away our rights one by one and i've had enough of it. They don't want smoking, then ban the damn things all together, but no we won't do that, they are a billion dollar industry. Please already!!

Well, the issue we are discussing is smoking, not seat belts. And although health insurance isn't cheaper for non-smokers, life inusrance usually is.

Originally Posted by sues1

Nobody can answer this question. If cigarettes are so dangerous, which they are, what aren't they illegal? Like i said before, they are a multi million $$$$$ industry. It's simple, make them illegal and then we won't have the problem of smoking in public, problem solved, but no, that will never happen. So while they are legal, then smokers have rights. End of story.

Smokers may have rights, such as the right to purchase cigarettes IF over age 18, and the right to smoke them in their own homes, but they don't have an unfettered right to light up everywhere and whenever they feel like it. No one has an unfettered right to do much of anything.

Originally Posted by MrKrabs

NO...its called democracy. Majority rules....that's why we have elections, we elect the people that best represent our interests. If you don't like the job your representatives are doing, then vote them out. But majority rules, that's the American way. If we had the minority ruling the majority, that's a totalitarian regime.

I actually see the smoking thing as a public health issue, not a "majority rules" issue. The legislature is supposed to be bright enough to understand that exposure to second-hand smoke is a health hazard, particularly for employees. I don't agree that someone should just go and get another job if they don't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke. In many little towns in Pennsylvania and all over the country, there are only 1-2 restaurants around to work at.

[memoriesbre]

Originally Posted by MaspethMatt

i don't smoke, but i support peoples rights. any way the gov't runs peoples lives is wrong in my book. somone doesn't like smoke, don't patronize the place. talk to the owner. take your money elsewhere. many changing the rules to govern the few, isn't that communism or is it socialism??? i know it's not american.

Nobody is stopping them if they want to light up. Just go outside and do it there. Non-smokers shouldn't have to deal with someone's cigarette smoke blowing in their face while trying to enjoy breakfast, lunch or dinner. Why should we have to not patronize a restaurant because of smokers? The smokers should be able to have a meal without having to light up a cigarette. If they need to smoke then like I said, go outside and do it.