Would You Be In Favor of a Statewide Public Smoking Ban? (California: house, theatres)

[KristyLiz]

I would LOVE a state-wide smoking ban!

When I moved to Vermont is 1999, that was the best surprise ever - No Smoking!!

It was heaven.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by SWB

As I said earlier though PA is one of those states that just doesn't "get it" on most social issues. We're like the red-headed stepchild or something.

Never heard that phrase! I have a redhead! She is literally a flaming liberal.

[CosmicWizard]

Pittnurse wrote:

One of the main concerns about bars and restaurants is the health of the employees.

Good point. I wasn't thinking about the employee issue when I made my post, but then again, employees have a choice about working there or not.

The idea about prohibiting smoking in a vehichle with occupants under the age of 18 is basically a good one. I hate seeing the controlling hand of Big Brother in our lives, but someone needs to step in there to protect the children from their idiot parents who would smoke in their presence in a confined space like a vehichle. We all end up footing the bill for their health care down the road.

blessings....Franco

[jonny_quest]

I've heard rumor this bill was on its way through the PA house in '07 but something occurred where they pushed it aside to '08. PA is the only state in the tri-state area that has not enacted this bill.

Welcome to Pennsyltucky - ask us about our liquor laws!

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by NewAgeRedneck

Pittnurse wrote:

One of the main concerns about bars and restaurants is the health of the employees.

Good point. I wasn't thinking about the employee issue when I made my post, but then again, employees have a choice about working there or not.

The idea about prohibiting smoking in a vehichle with occupants under the age of 18 is basically a good one. I hate seeing the controlling hand of Big Brother in our lives, but someone needs to step in there to protect the children from their idiot parents who would smoke in their presence in a confined space like a vehichle. We all end up footing the bill for their health care down the road.

blessings....Franco

True, but sometimes you need a job badly and are willing to put up with adverse conditions. It is a public health issue, IMO.

[CosmicWizard]

The keywords are: willing to put up with adverse conditions

blessings...Franco

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by NewAgeRedneck

The keywords are: willing to put up with adverse conditions

blessings...Franco

The point being if you are desperate for a job, you might be willing to put up with some work conditions that are injurious to your health. You shouldn't have to do that.

[toobusytoday]

Agreed. Many of the people that work in restaurants are not doing so because it's their life's ambition, they are diong it because they need paycheck and may not have the education for another job. It's a real skill to be able to wait tables but you don't have to have a degree to do it. I think it's adding insult to injury making the whole waitstaff suck in polluted air.

[CosmicWizard]

Don't get me wrong. I am a NON-SMOKER myself, and I can't stand being around tobacco smoke. It's nasty stuff, and a proven carcinogen. I'm also a believer in Thoreaus pronouncement, That government is best which governs least. I'm in favor of Big Brother staying out of our personal lives as much as possible. IMO, If a business owner wants to open an establishment catering to smokers that's the business owners perogative. As for the wait staff having to breathe the nasty second hand smoke...again, I say they don't have to work in a restaurant that caters to smokers. There are enough non-smoking establishments providing opportunities for wait-staff personnel.

I think of myself as a compassionate human being, though I have been unsuccessful in extending my compassion to a smoker who gets sick becasue of their stupidity. In an earlier post, I stated that their health insurance premiums should be 3 or 4 times more expensive than a non-smokers, but I'd like to amend that to completely dis-qualify a smoker from health insurance. Let it be known out front that by choosing to smoke a person will be totally responsible for their health care..100% paid out of pocket. If they don't have the money to pay for their health care, let it be known that they will likely suffer and die.

blessings....Franco

[TERMINOLOGY]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not the Insurance Premiums for smokers already 3-4 times higher than for non-smokers.

We already have health and safety laws imposed by "big brother", such as not lifting certain amounts, wearing hernia belts, goggles in the warehouse, hard hats, safety shoes, cellular phone limitations, Seatbelts, OSHA, ATF, FDA, etc. Second hand smoking has been proven to be a health issue. HELLO!!! – SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A KILLER. Why not regulate it. We have to accept some big brother; otherwise, would we have a choice to opt out of the Federal Reserve System? If you have a rule, you have government. I favor the individual, but accept the rule. It prevents anarchy, BUT SO DOES A SHOT GUN.

Someone had a post about ignorance and lack of education; this is it in a nutshell. Drive through town and just observe. Intelligence needs to fight through levels of intelligence just to establish a higher level of intelligence.

Does the possibility exist where by the City, and the State would be held responsible for the level of intelligence that it condones, even though that level of intelligence harms people? Phillip Morris, which is larger than most governments, was held liable. Something nobody ever thought possible.

On the lighter side, why not promote a Tap Out Program. If someone in a public establishment is tapped on the shoulder, than they would have to relinquish the air to the free breathers. If trouble ensues, than the liable party is the Tapped Out Party. Witnesses’ may be necessary. Please note that the Tap Out Program should also apply to the County Jail cell.