Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bans do not prohibit people from smoking. They simply limit where they can and cannot do it. There are a lot of things you can't do in public like peeing, which is a completely natural bodily function. There is a law against littering too, although most smokers think tossing a butt full of toxins and saliva isn't litter.
To me this is not a subject I can discuss without bias, but I've never been politically motivated. If tobacco smoke didn't bother me so much, life would be a lot easier. When I voted for the ban in my state, I never associated it with a liberal philosophy. I did, however, look at it as a human rights issue, that is, the right to breathe freely.
On a personal note, when people are so inconsiderate that they believe others who don't want to get migraines, sinus headaches, have asthma attacks, or cough up phlegm all night are violating their rights, then there is no way to discuss an issue with logic & reason. It's like asking your neighbor at 3AM to turn down the stereo and, since he pays rent too, he tells you to drop dead. You're either considerate of others or you're not.
Bans do not prohibit people from smoking. They simply limit where they can and cannot do it. There are a lot of things you can't do in public like peeing, which is a completely natural bodily function. There is a law against littering too, although most smokers think tossing a butt full of toxins and saliva isn't litter.
To me this is not a subject I can discuss without bias, but I've never been politically motivated. If tobacco smoke didn't bother me so much, life would be a lot easier. When I voted for the ban in my state, I never associated it with a liberal philosophy. I did, however, look at it as a human rights issue, that is, the right to breathe freely.
On a personal note, when people are so inconsiderate that they believe others who don't want to get migraines, sinus headaches, have asthma attacks, or cough up phlegm all night are violating their rights, then there is no way to discuss an issue with logic & reason. It's like asking your neighbor at 3AM to turn down the stereo and, since he pays rent too, he tells you to drop dead. You're either considerate of others or you're not.
Mam, you have every right to chose which businesses you patronize. If that business chooses to allow smoking, then let the market determine if they are successful or not. If that business chooses to be non-smoking, then let the market decide the success of the business.
I agree 100% with you about having the freedom to sit in an outdoor arena without having to suffer the guy in front of me firing up. I lost two parents to smoking. One to heart and one to cancer, yet I paid for my college with tobacco, and it was that little patch that paid the mortgage on most of the farms in the state of Kentucky. What has happened, is the outlawing of growing tobacco so we can import it. Once again Congress has struck. Whaaaaaaazammmmmm....
The real point of this thread has little to do with smoking or tobacco, but far more to do with how 550 people decide what over 300,000,000 will do.
I agree 100% with you about having the freedom to sit in an outdoor arena without having to suffer the guy in front of me firing up. I lost two parents to smoking.
Sorry to hear that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomocox
The real point of this thread has little to do with smoking or tobacco, but far more to do with how 550 people decide what over 300,000,000 will do.
At first you didn't state your purpose. I don't care if a restaurant allows smoking as long as I'm forewarned. I think it would lose business, however. Even smokers don't enjoy sitting in smoke-filled rooms.
As I wrote before, if smoke didn't bother me so much, I would probably be a lot happier, since I need to steer clear of smokers, unless I want to suffer the consequences. I've been to parties where I was unable to enjoy myself, so it really isn't a choice.
By the way, I never thought that Congress made the final decisions for the states, since the smoking ban was on the ballot where I vote.
Last edited by justNancy; 05-09-2009 at 06:31 PM..
Bans do not prohibit people from smoking. They simply limit where they can and cannot do it. There are a lot of things you can't do in public like peeing, which is a completely natural bodily function. There is a law against littering too, although most smokers think tossing a butt full of toxins and saliva isn't litter.
To me this is not a subject I can discuss without bias, but I've never been politically motivated. If tobacco smoke didn't bother me so much, life would be a lot easier. When I voted for the ban in my state, I never associated it with a liberal philosophy. I did, however, look at it as a human rights issue, that is, the right to breathe freely.
On a personal note, when people are so inconsiderate that they believe others who don't want to get migraines, sinus headaches, have asthma attacks, or cough up phlegm all night are violating their rights, then there is no way to discuss an issue with logic & reason. It's like asking your neighbor at 3AM to turn down the stereo and, since he pays rent too, he tells you to drop dead. You're either considerate of others or you're not.
No matter what I do, or don't do, someone is going to be offended.
"I don't care what you say anymore, this is MY life, go ahead with your own life, leave me alone"--Billy Joel, "My Life"
Yes, some Republican states such as Arizona have bar smoking bans, but nearly all Democrat states have such bans. Off the top of my head I would say 90% of blue states have bar smoking bans (Wisconsin being the latest) compared to about 30% of red states.
You mentioned restaurant bans in Florida. Although there are conservative parts, overall Florida is considered a political swing state. Besides the vast majority of states, Democrat and Republican, have restaurant smoking bans. Even in states with no such laws, many restaurants choose to ban smoking because most of their customers don't want smoke floating around while they are eating. That's the way it should be, the business should decide on such matters. not big government.
Bars are a different story. Very few bars would ban smoking unless they were forced to. Nobody walks into a bar for their health. Most people drinking in a bar want to smoke. The whole idea of a smoke free bar is crazy. I am very impressed with most of the red states for not banning smoking in bar. It shows they value freedom and that they let the marketplace decide. BTW, I don't smoke. I just hate the nanny state.
You are so right! I find it so hard to believe that a landslide of American voters wanted more of this kind of government restricting our personal abilities to decide. In my opinion, the liberals I have seen in political action want to control what everyone else does but leave them alone! They want to smoke (or whatever), but not share that right. It's history folks... the perfect Marx, Shaker, New Harmony scenario's.
I understand and agree with your general argument. Still, if you voted for the politicians that passed this you don't have a right to complain. You put them into power.
I remember reading an article out of WI after the Nov elections. An anti-smoking group was certain they would finally be able to push through a bar smoking ban because more Democrats won in state senate seats. I coud probably find that article and post it. It just goes to show that if smokers as a group all voted a straight Republican ticket WI would not be getting the ban. But you say you agree with Democrats on all other issues besides smoking. OK fine, you (and other Democrat smokers) decided not to make smoking an issue when you voted..one of the ramifications is a ban you never wanted.
A smoking ban was not an issue when Doyle was up for election. And even if it was, would I seriously not vote for a governor for this one issue? That would be pretty silly if I agreed w/most other things, don't you think?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskapat528
I seem to note that the Dems can be heavy, heavy booze drinkers.....Ted Kennedy comes to mind. Refusal to conform to society for them I quess.
Do you ALSO seem to note that BOTH members of the previous Republican administration have DUIs on their resumes or do you just conveniently ignore that FACT? Refusal to obey the law I suppose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perfect Common Sense
