Smoking Ban bill as been passed (Penn: crime, DMV, marketplace)

[Michael J. McFadden]

Fightin Phils wrote, "Smoking and nonsmoking sections are not a compromise, they're a joke. Comparable to a non-peeing section in a pool."

Not comparable at all actually FP. A swimming pool gets its water changed about once a year. A decently ventilated bar/restaurant will change its air about 50,000 times a year. I'd say that's a bit of a difference.


And... "I guess you don't get the fact that breathing is a necessity....smoking is a choice (a stupid choice at that)."

And people were doing both, quite nicely and all together, for many, many years before smoking bans disrupted things.


And I believe the Commish wrote, "As I said before, "it's a conspiracy!"

Not really. More like an unfortunate confluence of factors. See Recovery from ASDS
for a one page super-brief summary of the first fifty pages of Brains to get a better understanding of some of the personality types and drives behind smoking bans. See
The Smoker's Club, Inc. Encyclopedia 257
for the "Stiletto" that examines the major studies used to support those bans in order to see how the lies around them have been constructed.

And Katiana said, " Overweight does not affect the others around one, either. The above cannot be said about cigarette smoking."

Katiana, that point isn't as clear as you might think. Read "Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths" at
bmj.com Rapid Responses for Jamrozik, 330 (7495) 812
and tell us what you think.

[memoriesbre]

Swimming in a pool, eating in a restaurant that has a smoking section:

You can still smell the smoke in certain parts of the restaurant, it's still there no matter how many filters they use to change the air.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by memoriesbre

Swimming in a pool, eating in a restaurant that has a smoking section:

You can still smell the smoke in certain parts of the restaurant, it's still there no matter how many filters they use to change the air.

If the restaurant has decently designed ventilation designed to produce a negative air pressure from the nonsmoking section toward the smoking section, you should not be able to smell anything. Systems like that work quite well in hospitals to prevent the spread of deadly airborne diseases and they work just as well with wisps of smoke when they're designed properly.

If a restaurant has a poorly designed system and you find that even sitting a good distance from the smoking section you are still bothered, you're always free to seek out a better restaurant, or even find one (there are many) that has chosen not to allow smoking. No one would argue that owners shouldn't be free to ban smoking in their own restaurants or bars if they wish to and if their workers and customers prefer it.

[herefreeman]

Originally Posted by What!

I never get this. Why do smokers feel a non-smoker should leave more than himself? Selfish to the core!

That's a good point What! Of course turn that around, why do non-smokers feel a smoker should leave?
In a free market ample venues abound to cater to all sort of preferences.
The smoking and no smoking sections were designed by law in 1988. That is a full generation to have people identify themselves as a smoker or non-smoker. Now the anti-smokers (not all non-smokers) want it all. A free market should now be able to say they are all smoking or all non-smoking, or a combination. The law does not prevent a venue from being all non-smoking.
There are different music venues, the law should not dictate what kind of music they should all be. One could argue certain music gives them headaches or even damage their hearing,patrons and workers.
Selfish is a good term for the anti smokers position. Imagine how many mixed couples relationships could be negatively affected by theses laws. I am not aware of anyone concerned about them.
Have we all forgotten the golden rule?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

- Ronald Reagan

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by herefreeman

That's a good point What! Of course turn that around, why do non-smokers feel a smoker should leave?
In a free market ample venues abound to cater to all sort of preferences.

Sorry, but Pennsylvanians reject your "free-market" solution.

Hence the ban.

Originally Posted by herefreeman

There are different music venues, the law should not dictate what kind of music they should all be. One could argue certain music gives them headaches or even damage their hearing, patrons and workers.

The "kind" of music has nothing to do with the damage you talk about. Rather, the volume does. Most music venues play extremely loud music whether the band covers DMB or Metallica.

We can certainly regulate indoor noise levels for music venues.

Originally Posted by herefreeman

Selfish is a good term for the anti smokers position. Imagine how many mixed couples relationships could be negatively affected by theses laws. I am not aware of anyone concerned about them.
Have we all forgotten the golden rule?

Boo-hoo.

And the sanctimonious Ronald Reagan quotes are getting tiresome.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Commish wrote to herefreeman, "Sorry, but Pennsylvanians reject your "free-market" solution."

Commish, do you honestly believe that a majority of Pennsylvanians would want to deny me, a smoker, from opening a smoking-allowed restaurant next year that would be worked in and patronized only by smokers and their friends? On what grounds would you justify such a denial?

[What!]

Originally Posted by herefreeman

That's a good point What! Of course turn that around, why do non-smokers feel a smoker should leave?
In a free market ample venues abound to cater to all sort of preferences.
The smoking and no smoking sections were designed by law in 1988. That is a full generation to have people identify themselves as a smoker or non-smoker. Now the anti-smokers (not all non-smokers) want it all. A free market should now be able to say they are all smoking or all non-smoking, or a combination. The law does not prevent a venue from being all non-smoking.
There are different music venues, the law should not dictate what kind of music they should all be. One could argue certain music gives them headaches or even damage their hearing,patrons and workers.
Selfish is a good term for the anti smokers position. Imagine how many mixed couples relationships could be negatively affected by theses laws. I am not aware of anyone concerned about them.
Have we all forgotten the golden rule?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

- Ronald Reagan

To the bolded part: Because non-smokers are not emitting toxins into the air. The guy who is causing the most health problems into the room should leave. If you were sitting in a restaurant and a guy started farting next to you, who would you think should leave first, the guy or you?

[What!]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

You first make a comment about smokers being selfish then come off with comment like that? Have you considered the substantial investment of time and funds a proprietor of such a business has invested to make it successful?

Why should I care? I'm not the owner of the store, nor have I really gone to any of those bars. Like I said, there are a lot of bars in Minnesota. If those bars closed down I wouldn't even notice.

Also I'd like to point out two things: 1. Some of those bars are shiesty. A few of those bars were under scrunity (sp?) for allowing guys w/o I.D. to drink in their bar. The bar owners let those guys drink in their bar because those were regular customers who patronize the bar. But those "regulars" had been known for drunk driving. Even still, the bar owners were okay with letting them in. A friend of mine worked as a bouncer at one of these bars and felt uncomfortable with letting these regulars w/o I.D. inside. The owner wouldn't listen to him and my friend had to leave for fear of prosecution. I don't feel sorry for jerks like that. Business owners, small and big, can be real jerkoffs.

2. Businesses open and close all the time for various reasons. It happens. Many times over the years businesses have problems because of new regulations (government has banned prostitution in bars, gambling, marijuana, and a whole lot of other stuff), and, guess what, bars are still around. Bars will continue to be around. Everybody is making a big deal out of it now. I recently watched an old vid showing people being interviewed about their thoughts about making certain speed limits for highways. People had the same arguments: "we'll lose our freedom, America will turn into a fascist country, sports cars will be obsolete because they are known for going fast, and I have the right to drive as fast as I want, if people think I'm going too fast then they should get outta my way". Today we're hearing something similar: "we'll lose our freedom, America is turning fascist, bars will become a thing of the past because you can't smoke in them, and I have the right to smoke as much as I want, if anybody thinks I shouldn't smoke in a bar then they should just leave the restaurant". *yawn* Pretty soon smoking in bars will be the norm and people will go back on with their lives. Personally, I think smoking in bars is as smart as running your car in a closed garage.

Sorry to be so long-winded. But I think you pro-smokers and libertarians are overreacting. Life will go on as usual, America will still be America, and all that jazz.

[What!]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Commish wrote to herefreeman, "Sorry, but Pennsylvanians reject your "free-market" solution."

Commish, do you honestly believe that a majority of Pennsylvanians would want to deny me, a smoker, from opening a smoking-allowed restaurant next year that would be worked in and patronized only by smokers and their friends? On what grounds would you justify such a denial?

Are you actually gonna open a bar just to fight this law? It is not that serious, guy.

[ScranBarre]

So the main paradox here seems to be:

-Should smokers vacate to cater to non-smokers?
-Should non-smokers vacate to cater to smokers?

Obviously you can't have both. I've been to many restaurants in our area that have "partitioned" seating for smokers and non-smokers, yet I can still smell the unpleasant odor of cigarettes. If majority rules, then obviously the former will override the latter, will it not?