No Smoking in Public Places in Ohio (Lancaster: hotels, lawyers)

[LancasterNative]

Originally Posted by htlong

where does all this thought process about letting the govt make our decisions for us that we should do whats for the best of our fellow men start? it begins in the govt run schools! at a young age we are taught.... do you have enough gum for the entire class? then put it away, bingo you are off to a govt controlled politically correct civilization...

Terrific point! That's one reason I'm not a fan of public (i.e. government) schools in general. Look how well the government runs everything else it touches: passenger trains, public housing, poverty/unemployment, the post office, the tax code (today April 17 = confiscation day, woo-hoo!)...

I mean seriously, is there any faster way of screwing something up than putting the government in charge of it? Why would anyone expect schools to be different? Is health care next? Hello, Britain and Canada...

Government education means students are conditioned to see government as final arbiter, provider of daily bread, etc. If government "yooniun teechurz" stress redistribution of goods as a desirable outcome, then young skulls-full-of-mush will learn it, unless they know better from parents. They learn to trust in bureaucrats.

I guess that's what annoys me so much about this whole smoking thing. No, I don't smoke. I don't like cigarette smoke. So what do I do? Well, I opt for places that are voluntarily smoke-free. I avoid bars. But the one thing I sure as h*ll DON'T do is whine and complain to the government "they're offending me, make them stop! Waaa!"

Good grief, are we really such a society of crybabies?

[Crew Chief]

Originally Posted by LancasterNative

On a more macro level, isn't it rightfully the choice of individual business owners whether or not to allow that smoke in their environment? If patrons prefer a non-smoking place, can't they freely choose to dine and/or drink someplace where the owner's decision reflects their preference? That's freedom.

But, noooo! Now according to the Nanny-staters, we (patrons and establishment owners alike) aren't capable of making our own decisions like these. We are helpless and clueless. We MUST have government bureaucrats decide for us!

Is this not totally revolting to you, as an American?

Besides, what happens when the self appointed do-gooders decide to use the force of government to ban something you do like?

LN, as a (Mostly) Republican with a wide streak of Libertarian, I have to agree with you. And, yes, the government HAS turned into a nanny-state. And, unfortunately, has already gone after a lot of the other things I personally do like (55 mph for trucks, anti- gun laws, marijuana laws (No desire to use it but think it should be legal,...)

But there are a number of seperate discussions here. Stupid people shouldn't vote. But the people spoke here, anyway. And some people were happy some were not. But that's the way every law is; some people/groups benefit and others lose. My problem is that government is far too sympathetic to business at the expense of consumers, IMHO

[JasmineRose]

I am a non smoker and my health will not allow me to be around smoke ( I have severe chronic athsma, and even the smallest of irritants can land me in the hospital). I could not go into public places, enjoy myself and live like most other normal people do, I could not go out to dinner in most resturaunts because of the smokers who could not refrain theirselves from smoking at the table. I think there should be a few places ( like bars and private clubs ) where smokers can go,but I think they should put a big warning sign on their doors that they do allow smoking.
I do not think that a resturant should allow smoking. Do I agree that the Government should be able to tell us that we cannot smoke in public places? yes, I do because if the government didnt tell us where we could smoke then I would remain a prisoner unable to live a normal life like most others take for granted.

[htlong]

sorry about your illness but you should patronize the businesses that dont allow smoking the world doesnt stop to let you get on and off, i dont smoke , i dont like it and i try to avoid it, but the sign should read smofre not we allow smokers.
the govt shouldnt tell the owner of a private business what he can and cant do.

[akronbball]

I like having a smoking ban and don't care if it restricts my rights. Second hand smoke effects people's health. Patrons do have the option to go or not, but what about the employees of these establishments who don’t smoke and are effected by second hand smoke. They might not have any other options for work, so is it fair that their health is affected?

I remember I commercial I saw once that showed a person in a smoky bar tee up a golf ball and start his back swing aiming for the crowd around the bar. Kind of extreme, but I see it in that context. Hitting a ball is hurting someone’s health as is smoking. Most people would not be opposed to someone not letting you hit a golf ball into a bunch of people.

[Art1979]

Originally Posted by akronbball

I remember I commercial I saw once that showed a person in a smoky bar tee up a golf ball and start his back swing aiming for the crowd around the bar. Kind of extreme, but I see it in that context. Hitting a ball is hurting someone’s health as is smoking. Most people would not be opposed to someone not letting you hit a golf ball into a bunch of people.

Ahh, but I think a bar owner who allows teeing up in their establishment wouldn't have a very big clientele after a while. Therefore, said owner would voluntarily prohibit such an activity taking place in their bar. I believe this is the concern htlong, et al are articulating. They'd rather see the action taken in the private sector rather than the governmental sector.

[LancasterNative]

Originally Posted by Art1979

They'd rather see the action taken in the private sector rather than the governmental sector.

Bingo! You've completely nailed it. Voluntary action is the hallmark of a free people. Governmental fiat is the hallmark of a dictatorship.

[htlong]

Originally Posted by akronbball

I like having a smoking ban and don't care if it restricts my rights. Second hand smoke effects people's health. Patrons do have the option to go or not, but what about the employees of these establishments who don’t smoke and are effected by second hand smoke. They might not have any other options for work, so is it fair that their health is affected?

I remember I commercial I saw once that showed a person in a smoky bar tee up a golf ball and start his back swing aiming for the crowd around the bar. Kind of extreme, but I see it in that context. Hitting a ball is hurting someone’s health as is smoking. Most people would not be opposed to someone not letting you hit a golf ball into a bunch of people.

thats the problem it is statements like this, you have been trained to give up your rights for the betterment of the masses? and you cant help yourself, you've been taught since grade school.
there are as many reports that second hand smoke isn't dangerous as that say it is, whats the answer.....you think its for the govt to pass a law telling a store owner what he can do with his business??? and you think this is good??? god help us here in America, you have been taught not to offend anyone ,don't hurt their feelings? boulder dash, this is America and it used to be a free country but because of people like you wanting the govt to rule over everyones life......why not ask them for permission if you can go to fl for vacation account of to many people are dying in traffic accidents on i-75? the founding fathers (franklin i think) said those who will give up their rights in exchange for a little safety deserve neither, (or something similar) aaarrrrggghhhh!!!!!!

[Art1979]

Originally Posted by htlong

the founding fathers (franklin i think) said those who will give up their rights in exchange for a little safety deserve neither, (or something similar) aaarrrrggghhhh!!!!!!

Here's the full quote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

~ Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html

[akronbball]

Originally Posted by htlong

thats the problem it is statements like this, you have been trained to give up your rights for the betterment of the masses? and you cant help yourself, you've been taught since grade school.
there are as many reports that second hand smoke isn't dangerous as that say it is, whats the answer.....you think its for the govt to pass a law telling a store owner what he can do with his business???

I defiantly was not taught at a young to give up my rights, my mom is hard core conservative and hates smoking bans. They are trying to pass a ban on the whole state since the larger counties have already done so.

No way you can tell me second hand smoke isn’t dangerous, have had plenty of doctors tell me differently. If there is a way to limit the effects of smoke on people’s health couldn’t this end up saving money in health costs for everyone.

I believe the Minnesota Smoking Bill had some exception if you had a smoking section with proper ventilation system in place that would filter the air. I think this is a compromise that might work better. I hate going out and reeking of smoke after the night, so this could be good I guess. I don’t think the government should take away businesses rights, but if their actions affect people or the community then I don’t care that’s why I believe cities establish different ordinances.