Smoking Ban bill as been passed (Republic, Lincoln: invest, business, adult)

[memoriesbre]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Memories wrote, "I can't believe all the bickering on here about this subject. It was passed and that's that."

Heh... I always find it funny the way Antismokers "bickered" constantly, for years on end, when their bans were defeated time after time after time after time.... but as soon as a ban gets passed they say, "Well, that's it. Pointless to have any further discussion. Game over." Two weeks ago the Senate defeated the smoking ban. Within hours the antismoking faction was calling for a "do-over" vote on the same bill! Has anyone here *ever* heard of the law being twisted in that way for any other issue?

It's almost as funny as the way they'll push for a uniform state law while waving the "level playing field" flag and decrying "a mess of patchwork laws," but as soon as state law is passed that they consider too weak they'll suddenly support "the rights of communities" to pass their own little patchwork laws.

Consistency has never been their forte despite their cranial volume.

I am an X-Smoker. My Aunt said to smoke outside when we visited her house. She had trouble breathing.. I have had friends die of lung cancer because they didn't stop smoking. It is not healthy.
If a smoker wants to smoke then go outside. We did it back in the day when my Aunt asked us with no problems. Why should smokers subject other people to their bad habit??

Now there are alot of bad habits that people take up.. if those habits do not affect other people, then so be it.
There are laws for drinking and driving.. You drink and drive and get caught you get arrested. I think the laws should be even harder on drunk drivers. If you are drinking at a bar then they should figure out a way to keep that person off the road somehow. Too many people drink and drive.
The smoking ban is a good thing for many people. Nobody can stop a person from smoking if they choose to. They will have to do it where permitted in public places.

I don't agree on the seatbelt law... I do wear mine which is my choice. If a person is in their own car they should have the choice to wear it or not. That law is a controversy. Yes, wearing a seatbelt can save a person's life, but if a person doesn't want to wear it, why should the government get involved?? I am not all for what the government decides, believe me. But smoking affects too many people that choose not to breath in smoke that can be detrimental to their health.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Katiana wrote, "The owners didn't ban smoking as long as it was legal, for whatever reason."

Well, since you didn't supply a reason, I'll try to supply one. Most owners didn't ban smoking because most of their customers either smoked or didn't mind the occasional wisp of smoke while they were enjoying themselves with their friends. Those who *DID* mind the smoke that much sought out restaurants and bars with either better ventilation, better non-smoking sections, or that had decided, on their own as Americans, to ban smoking in their establishments before inviting people in.

Nothing at all to do with advertising or campaign contributions or "junk science" (Are you referring to things like the Helena study by Glantz et al?), just free choice in a free country.... something abhorred by controlling personalities worldwide.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by memoriesbre

Why should smokers subject other people to their bad habit??

At the risk of being redundant, and I'm only asking this because I have yet to hear anyone answer it... Who has held a gun to your head forcing you to patronize an establishment that allowed smoking?

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

At the risk of being redundant, and I'm only asking this because I have yet to hear anyone answer it... Who has held a gun to your head forcing you to patronize an establishment that allowed smoking?

No one. The fact that until these bans came along, there were no establishments that prohibited smoking. From the responses on this thread, and many others, I'd say that a lot of people mind smoking in restaurnats, but tolerate because they want to go out to eat.

Those who *DID* mind the smoke that much sought out restaurants and bars with either better ventilation, better non-smoking sections, or that had decided, on their own as Americans, to ban smoking in their establishments before inviting people in.

As I said before, until the bans came along, there were no "non-smoking" restaurants. Not even McDonald's.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Katiana wrote, "As I said before, until the bans came along, there were no "non-smoking" restaurants. Not even McDonald's."

Now that *is* strange. Back in 1994 nine state attorney generals ganged up and threatened McD's with a massive lawsuit that might have bankrupted them unless they banned smoking. As a result they *did* ban smoking nationwide except in privately owned franchises or somesuch.

Katiana, where are you located? Even in Philadelphia, where the restaurant association fought very hard against a ban, there were many nonsmoking restaurants before the government stepped in and forced all to be nonsmoking.

(btw... does anyone know of any other political issue where the attorney generals have grouped together like a protection racket to force a corporation to kowtow to their wishes? Somehow it seems vaguely unconstitutional... that whole "compacts between the states" being forbidden and all.)

[Katiana]

I'm in Colorado. I know of no restaurants in any city in this state that prohibited smoking in before the bans. Maybe there was no smoking in McD's after 1994. But there sure as hell was plenty of smoking in every other restaurant around until the bans came along. Indiana, where my DD went to college was even worse, as there are a lot more smokers in Ind than here.

[Michael J. McFadden]

{{Edited once I discovered the link doesn't work at this time. The original link comes from tobacco.org at Smokefree Dining Resources which is about as likely a "Big Tobacco Front" as GASP.}}

Hmm... Katiana, I believe Colorado's ban came into being in 2006, yet seven years before that, the antismoking group GASP would have strongly disagreed with your argument. Were they just making this up? Do you believe they are part of the tobacco lobby? See:



This one: 6/1/99 Smokefree Dining Online Building a state-by-state database of 100% smokefree restaurants. Mostly Colorago right now.

• This database lists more than 4,000 restaurants, cafes, bars, and other Colorado eating places that are 100% smoke-free. This is published by GASP (Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution) of Colorado.

[Katiana]

I'm sure they were lying. Either that, or I'm either crazy or lying myself. Unfortunately "the page cannot be found". There were several cities that had smoking bans before the statewide ban. One was Boulder, early on. I think Denver, too, but we hardly ever eat out there.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

At the risk of being redundant, and I'm only asking this because I have yet to hear anyone answer it... Who has held a gun to your head forcing you to patronize an establishment that allowed smoking?

Laws aren't justified only if someone "holds a gun to your head."

Pennsylvanians just want to go out to restaurants and some bars without breathing second-hand smoke. Who's "holding a gun to their head" and saying they can't pass a law to make sure that happens?

[thecoalman]

You have no one to blame but yourself if you patronize such an establishment and find it offensive. As an adult you have made a conscious decision to walk into a smoking establishment. If you think it's so harmful and find it offensive why would you be there to begin with. Most normal people avoid things the feel are dangerous or disagreeable, I avoid situations like that instead of placing myself in the position to be effected by it. Someone commented in the other thread that her children will finally be able to eat at a restaurant without all the smoke, my question is what the hell kind of parent to allow there children to be exposed to it if they feel it's so harmful.

Pennsylvanians just want to go out to restaurants and some bars without breathing second-hand smoke

Sorry but you know as well as I do this is not the end of it, give it year and it will be completely banned. Having said that since there is such a demand for non-smoking establishments and a lack of them why haven't you or any of the other non-smokers gone out and started your own restaurant instead of whining about it? Having been in business for many years I can tell you this, if there is market for something people are going to buy it.

Where 's all the non-smoking restaurants then? Surely if 75% of the population doesn't smoke 75% of restaurant owners must be non-smokers and would be agreeable to banning smoking in their restaurant? There not and the reason why is simple, they are independent minded self reliant people like myself who rather suffer through the smoke than have people like you tell them what to do.

If you want a no smoking establishment so bad and there is such a demand invest your time and your money in it and you can make all the rules you want.