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.
Few points... first, this is plain silly. City councils, like any other elected officials, are in place so that they 'represent' those that voted them into power. BTW, we do not have a democracy - its called a republic [and fwiw, there is a major difference ]. If don't like what that an elected member did or didn't do, vote 'em out - part of our system's checks and balances.
How would that(voting them out) help after the fact? If they had open meetings, they would have a better chance of really doing what their constituents wanted. The fact they didn't, makes me wonder why.
Quote:
Secondly, as there are quite a bit more nonsmokers than those that do smoke, and basing the following on the shaky premise that such a vote by the citizens would follow their smoking habits, I would imagine that smoking ban would indeed be passed by the voters.
It very well may have, so why not put it up for a vote? In my state, the ban didn't pass overwhelmingly, so I wouldn't say it would be a sure thing. Many non-smokers are against smoking bans. All you have to do is read this thread to recognize that as fact.
Quote:
Lastly, why do you think that the city council members would vote for a ban if they don't think that the constituents would be in favour of such too?
Because not all city councils do what their constituents want. When they don't ask and even hold close door meetings, it's a pretty good indication they have no interest in what they would hear. The city council members in my city have passed mandates against our wishes, and usually the same way. Close door sessions and then a vote.
I decide that it's dangerous when I get unwanted smoke in my lungs. All of the fine examples you gave doesn't involve anybody knowingly doing something harmful to you so that's the difference.
You’ve made my point Stockholmaren…you’ve revealed the illogical conclusions of your own argument. On one hand you say that you are in control and that you are the arbiter of what is dangerous to you and your lungs, but then on the other hand you blame the consequences of your choice on someone else. If you’ve decided that smoke is dangerous and that you don’t want it in your lungs…then why in God’s name would you go into a smoking bar? If you’ve decided that smoke is dangerous, and armed with that knowledge you go into a smoking bar instead of a non-smoking bar, then how is it that you can possibly come to the conclusion that it is the smokers who are knowingly doing harm to you? Your agenda is transparent to anyone that reads your words. Your opinion is based on ideology and not reason or fact. You, and many others like you, are of the mind that you are the supreme judge of how others should behave and that it is others that should restrict their behavior to protect you. Where you fear choking on second hand smoke, I fear having my liberties being choked out of existence by overreaching legislators, dictatorial government executives, and progressive judges. Be careful what you ask of your government in lieu of practicing self-governance and personal responsibility for in the end you may have no choice at all.
One thing that is also killing of cigarette smoking that anymore; it is essentially a 'lower class' habit-------unlike 50 years where it was equated with being sophisticated, etc.
As smokers become fewer and fewer: more and more the places where they can smoke will be legislated out of existence.
Litigation is always an issue here in the US unfortunately, but warning labels are there to warn you. I don't think it's my responsibility to ensure that I get safe food when at a restaurant.
Are you kidding me? You honestly believe that you have no responsibility to ensure your own safety? We come from two completely different worlds. When I read the warning in the menu that the restaurant is not responsible for meat cooked at a degree of doneness below a certain designation I immediately think of how a very small number of people have screwed up this world by not “manning-up” and taking responsibility for their own well being. Those kinds of warnings are in menus, and all around us quite frankly, not to protect anyone but the backside of the restaurant owners. I’m sure you’re a good person, and I‘m sorry that my reaction seems so combative, but I am honestly totally and completely bewildered by how anyone can go through life thinking that they are to be held harmless and that everyone else is responsible for their well being. It’s that kind of thinking that is prompting school districts into banning peanut butter on school property. Peanut butter! Presumably because there might be someone who has a peanut allergy who by some bizarre set of infinitesimally small possibilities of sequences of events might accidently consume a morsel of peanut in the lunchroom. How ridiculous is that? Don’t make the person with the allergy or their parents responsible for ensuring that the child has a dose of epinephrine available to them in case of anaphylactic shock…oh no…make the entire school a NO PEANUT ZONE so that it’s everyone else’s responsibility. How does that help the child once off school property? How does treating the child as though they’re harmless as they walk through life prepare the child to make the responsibility for their own well being their own responsibility? We’re turning into a nation of victims…weak and pathetic and dangerously reliant on the government to protect us.
You’ve made my point Stockholmaren…you’ve revealed the illogical conclusions of your own argument. On one hand you say that you are in control and that you are the arbiter of what is dangerous to you and your lungs, but then on the other hand you blame the consequences of your choice on someone else. If you’ve decided that smoke is dangerous and that you don’t want it in your lungs…then why in God’s name would you go into a smoking bar? If you’ve decided that smoke is dangerous, and armed with that knowledge you go into a smoking bar instead of a non-smoking bar, then how is it that you can possibly come to the conclusion that it is the smokers who are knowingly doing harm to you? Your agenda is transparent to anyone that reads your words. Your opinion is based on ideology and not reason or fact. You, and many others like you, are of the mind that you are the supreme judge of how others should behave and that it is others that should restrict their behavior to protect you. Where you fear choking on second hand smoke, I fear having my liberties being choked out of existence by overreaching legislators, dictatorial government executives, and progressive judges. Be careful what you ask of your government in lieu of practicing self-governance and personal responsibility for in the end you may have no choice at all.
Wow, that is a way of twisting the words Of course I don't go into a place where smoking is allowed, but the whole point is that it's not always that clear-cut. Many people still may not know all of the dangers so they may be harmed without knowing it, so a ban would protect those people. It would also enable everybody to visit any place of their choice without having to worry about if they'll obtain cancer with that meal. I think my health is many more times important that someone having the right to harm me. A person who smokes can smoke in their own house where it doesn't harm anybody else.
Are you kidding me? You honestly believe that you have no responsibility to ensure your own safety? We come from two completely different worlds. When I read the warning in the menu that the restaurant is not responsible for meat cooked at a degree of doneness below a certain designation I immediately think of how a very small number of people have screwed up this world by not “manning-up” and taking responsibility for their own well being. Those kinds of warnings are in menus, and all around us quite frankly, not to protect anyone but the backside of the restaurant owners. I’m sure you’re a good person, and I‘m sorry that my reaction seems so combative, but I am honestly totally and completely bewildered by how anyone can go through life thinking that they are to be held harmless and that everyone else is responsible for their well being. It’s that kind of thinking that is prompting school districts into banning peanut butter on school property. Peanut butter! Presumably because there might be someone who has a peanut allergy who by some bizarre set of infinitesimally small possibilities of sequences of events might accidently consume a morsel of peanut in the lunchroom. How ridiculous is that? Don’t make the person with the allergy or their parents responsible for ensuring that the child has a dose of epinephrine available to them in case of anaphylactic shock…oh no…make the entire school a NO PEANUT ZONE so that it’s everyone else’s responsibility. How does that help the child once off school property? How does treating the child as though they’re harmless as they walk through life prepare the child to make the responsibility for their own well being their own responsibility? We’re turning into a nation of victims…weak and pathetic and dangerously reliant on the government to protect us.
Yes, we definitely have different viewpoints on this issue. There is a reason we have regulation in place. Would you want to go and eat at a place that hadn't been inspected for health safety? If a business does harm a person either knowingly or negligently they should be held responsible. I agree that people should take common sense precautions as you mentioned in your example with peanut butter, but this doesn't mean that businesses should be off the hook and take NO responsibility in the products they offer.
Are you kidding me? You honestly believe that you have no responsibility to ensure your own safety? We come from two completely different worlds. When I read the warning in the menu that the restaurant is not responsible for meat cooked at a degree of doneness below a certain designation I immediately think of how a very small number of people have screwed up this world by not “manning-up” and taking responsibility for their own well being. Those kinds of warnings are in menus, and all around us quite frankly, not to protect anyone but the backside of the restaurant owners. I’m sure you’re a good person, and I‘m sorry that my reaction seems so combative, but I am honestly totally and completely bewildered by how anyone can go through life thinking that they are to be held harmless and that everyone else is responsible for their well being. It’s that kind of thinking that is prompting school districts into banning peanut butter on school property. Peanut butter! Presumably because there might be someone who has a peanut allergy who by some bizarre set of infinitesimally small possibilities of sequences of events might accidently consume a morsel of peanut in the lunchroom. How ridiculous is that? Don’t make the person with the allergy or their parents responsible for ensuring that the child has a dose of epinephrine available to them in case of anaphylactic shock…oh no…make the entire school a NO PEANUT ZONE so that it’s everyone else’s responsibility. How does that help the child once off school property? How does treating the child as though they’re harmless as they walk through life prepare the child to make the responsibility for their own well being their own responsibility? We’re turning into a nation of victims…weak and pathetic and dangerously reliant on the government to protect us.
Oh Man, do I wish I could give you another rep point right now! Sorry Stockholmaren, but he makes some very valid points, and I agree we should take responsibility for our own safety.
But when I walk down a street with my asthmatic son, I should not have to put up with someone else's smoke.
It'd be like me walking down the street casually tossing a gun around. I have a right to bear arms, but not to the extent it puts you in harms way.
I see both sides of the argument as valid. I don't understand why there can't be a compromise on the issue. If I were you, I certainly wouldn't want to be subjected to second hand smoke. Of course, there are many things in the air which are just as dangerous. For example, why aren't there more pollution regulations, etc. Isn't that just as bad? But anyway, I agree with you that you should be able to choose not to inhale second hand cigarette smoke if you don't want to.
On the other hand, I have 2 arguments against the total ban of public smoking.
1. Smoking is one of many vices that people enjoy. Some may just be addicted, want to quit but find it difficult because of life stresses, etc. I don't want to hear that they should just grow a spine and quit because unless you can walk in these people's shoes you won't necessarily understand what's going on in their heads. Others really do enjoy smoking. Why should people be forced to give up something they enjoy in absolutely every public place? I understand offices, grocery stores, restaurants, etc where most people frequent, but why all bars? Many people who smoke *really* enjoy smoking while hanging out (ie: drinking) in bars. I'm a bit of a night owl, and yes, I do currently smoke, so I like to hang out with friends over some brewskis, and until recently, many of us smoked while hanging out inside. Right now, we can go outside and hang out on a patio, if the bar has one, but during the summer, it's usually too hot. My solution would be to give the choice to the bar owners whether they want it to include smoking or not. I do have friends who don't smoke and they still went to the smoke filled bars to have fun with friends, never complaining about it. Most of the places we've hung out have proper ventilation, so the room actually wouldn't be filled with smoke anyway.
And, I also question how many people who want smoking bans actually frequent the types of places where many people used to smoke (bars, etc)...but that's kind of beside the point.
I just think that there should have been a middle ground so that it's not about removing privileges of many people to protect the wishes of many others.
2. Smoking is a luxury, but so is drinking. We have a lot of DUIs in Arizona. Are we going to bring back the prohibition? We already know that didn't work, and actually created more of a problem with alcohol use and the black market. For those who say it's about protecting the health of those who smoke as well, then the government should make sure everyone has affordable healthcare first. Isn't that the most imminent health benefit? No, it's about protecting those who choose not to smoke, which I agree with, but I think that any law which limits people's freedoms should be more moderate and make sure that everyone gets something in their favor.
So anyway, I'm never in favor of "all or nothing" legislation because that inevitably angers one group or the other, and I like the idea of everyone getting something they want.
I read that NYC has an increase of revenue because 3-4 more nonsmokers where now going to bars and restaurants then before the smoking ban. Sounds like a moneymaker to me, it might work in other locations around the country if bars could attract the customers. Seems the general public (majority nonsmokers) for so many years just don’t want to visit a bar that has been like a stinky smelly ashtray. In time they will come but they have to learn that bars are no longer a smelly place to drink.
It looks like this Hampton Roads area is the perfect spot for both smokers and nonsmokers. People can have it both ways, yet it sounds like there continues to be a problem for one reason or another.
City Council members were voted into office and the city charter allowed under law to provide a smoking ban. If I were a city council member who had to vote one way or the other I guess my vote would be “what the majority of the people” in the district need and do. If the majority of the community are nonsmokers I guess I’d vote their interests. If the majority were smokers I’d vote for against a smoking ban.
Seems like a silly point of view for the moment but there is a very large number of school kids who smoke yet we don’t allow smoking in school – I wonder why? Kids have rights!
Yet another indicator of the future, I’ve also learned that new cars don’t have ashtray, I guess that was another item that the manufactures dropped from the line of cars due to the majority of buyers don’t smoke.
I again point out that I always see smokers in a car with the window opened a little to allow the smoke to exit the car! Why? They are the smokers they should enjoy the 2nd hand smoke for themselves. Then the window comes down and the butt goes out, guess it’s a new enough car and doesn’t have an ashtray. Why not buy one to put in the cup holder?
All things funneled down, it comes to the rights of the smokers, but not the nonsmoker – so the city council enacts a law for the majority and it’s not right for the smokers for one reason or another. The area is both smoking and nonsmoking where people can drive to another location and that’s not good enough for the smoker because he has some problem with that. It’s a problem for the smoker if he has to go outside to smoke, it’s a problem for the nonsmoker if he has to eat outside –guess the restaurant needs to serve their food outdoors. Smoking is a controlled habit and can be done in areas where it doesn’t effect others, eating and drinking for others is expected to be done in the location that is provided for them ~ inside!
(in my personal opinion) This topic has will never be resolved until smokers learn to give up the habit one way or the other. The majority of the country has determined [right or wrong] that smoking isn’t the thing that they chose to be doing or be around. The cities and governments are picking up on this and the laws are going into effect. It will continue. Anything else is a moot point.
I am one of the smokers that is considerate of others. I don't smoke in my home either, I step out on the deck. I never smoked in a restaurant even if we sat in a smoking section. However, if I want to go with friends and have a drink in a bar, I want to smoke. Any person working in a bar knows most of the patrons smoke, so please, don't call a no smoking ban a clean air act like Independece MO did! ( They did that so the ban would pass) Half the people on our bowling league left because they could no longer smoke in the bowling alley. I step out in between games to smoke. Bad thing is we can't take our beer outside to drink, so while we are out our beer gets warm.
Personally I think it looks very tacky driving by places where tons of people are standing outside in large groups smoking. We crack up driving by a hospital seeing all the nurses outside smoking.
That is exactly how it is in Phoenix now, with our smoking bans...a bunch of people huddled outside smoking while their beers are getting warm, and there's nothing more unpleasant than warm beer, unless it's supposed to be warm
The irony is that even with the 20 foot rule (you have to be 20 feet away from the door to smoke), non-smokers (if there are any) entering the bar still have to walk through a cloud of smoke because of how many people are standing outside the bar. But like a lot of people are saying, what's next? They'll make us stand 100 feet away, then a mile, etc. Maybe they'll just create a little roped off smoking section on the other end of the parking lot where the smokers will have to squish together to fit inside...meanwhile the sexual harassment suits increase while the bar remains almost empty because almost everyone is outside smoking.
(before someone flames me for being ridiculous, I tell you that I kid because a total ban actually seems to be ridiculous to me).
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.
]. If don't like what that an elected member did or didn't do, vote 'em out - part of our system's checks and balances.
Of course I don't go into a place where smoking is allowed, but the whole point is that it's not always that clear-cut. Many people still may not know all of the dangers so they may be harmed without knowing it, so a ban would protect those people. It would also enable everybody to visit any place of their choice without having to worry about if they'll obtain cancer with that meal. I think my health is many more times important that someone having the right to harm me. A person who smokes can smoke in their own house where it doesn't harm anybody else.
Give me a cigarette this is killing me!
