Will Idaho/or the city of Boise enact a smoking ban?

[boiseguy]

Originally Posted by sedgemouse

I completely understand and agree with smoking bans because the smoke drifts around; drinking every day is bad for you as well but it doesn't damage the liver of the people around the drinker; second-hand smoke does damage the lungs of those around smokers. And it stinks up the clothes of non-smokers, and irritates the eyes, etc. As for not going to a bar if you don't like the smoke, how about the flip side? The bar is non-smoking and if you want to smoke don't go there. I smoked for years and one of the best things I have or will ever do was to stop.

I'm looking at it from a business perspective... if you find that most of your patrons are smokers.. and you want to allow smoking.. then you should be able to... its your private property... and if you don't want smoking.. then don't... I use to live in seattle and they enacted a smoking ban in bars and night clubs.. and it had a HUGE impact on their business... I don't like smoke as much as the next person.. but I believe in options and freedom... and choice... Some people don't like strong perfumes and it actually makes them sick... we can't start ticketing people for wearing perfume as well.... where do you draw the line? I think its safe to say.. draw the line at personal choice... if there's smoke there.. don't go.. if there isn't smoke and you want to smoke.. don't go...why is that so threatening?

[jojotomtom]

Until there is a scientific case that shows a considerate amount of people are getting lung cancer by passing and/or seeing people smoke as you enter buildings, all of these smoking bans must be motivated by personal preference. Media that says, "MAY be harmful or contains harmful substances doesn't resolve the issue". Words like MAY and COULD and CONTAIN only get eaten up by biased people who have no regard to hard facts. If second hand smoke outside was so health damaging a science case would be in place providing such facts (like 80% of cancer patients who are non-smokers got their cancer by passing by smokers on the way to work) HOWEVER THERE ISN'T ONE. With the loads of money and research on the subject in the last 10yrs, there will never be such a FACT unless it is warped twisted and completely falsified. THIS IS NOT A DEEP THOUGHT process. We all know passing by smokers is not going to cause us to go gabbling to our knees 5yrs later in dying pain.

Your case of smokers are killing us has no weight, thus it seems you are taking away rights of other people based on your own personal preferences..... And yes, it represents a Hitler movement where prosecution was done in result of prejutism.

[stingraynm]

I actually was never bothered by second-hand smoke (I grew up with a lot of family who smoked indoors at reunions) until I quit after smoking for several years myself. I was always a "stopper" like most but eventually was forced to quit due to aggravation of chronic respiratory conditions and signs of developing acute ones. Ever since then, it can make me nauseous to the point of puking, and poorly ventilated places down in Vegas where I live now will have me seeing stars and stumbling. If I can smoke a cigar, the nausea will often subside, but the rest is likely a result of growing up around it and doing it in excess myself (I smoked 2 packs/day at peak when I was delivering pizzas before college). I also think in many ways it's my body's recognition that these toxins should not be welcome, a recognition that sadly is ignored when we hack uncontrollably on that first-ever drag.

I'm very libertarian to the point that conservatives and liberals alike will raise a brow to many of my assertions; but this is one of those arenas wherein common courtesy and decency has failed to regulate behavior, and in those arenas I have to concede to those who want the government to regulate otherwise personal decisions. Just as with banks, my concession is extremely reluctant, and the people I hate most are the inconsiderate jerks who make heavy-handed regulation necessary with their own disregard for decency.

After all, consideration and decency are fundamental requirements for a liberty to be justifiably maintained.

All that being said, I still think it should be the business's choice. Fighting that goes into threatening much more valuable precedents, and keeping eminent domain at bay was a great one for a prior poster to point out in that category, even if it would've drifted off topic to explore in depth.

[jufrbo]

Why smoke? Pop a dip.

[Deena160]

Originally Posted by stingraynm

I'm very libertarian to the point that conservatives and liberals alike will raise a brow to many of my assertions; but this is one of those arenas wherein common courtesy and decency has failed to regulate behavior, and in those arenas I have to concede to those who want the government to regulate otherwise personal decisions. Just as with banks, my concession is extremely reluctant, and the people I hate most are the inconsiderate jerks who make heavy-handed regulation necessary with their own disregard for decency.

After all, consideration and decency are fundamental requirements for a liberty to be justifiably maintained.

I've said it once and I'll say it again...it's just like I tell my kids, we have stupid rules because stupid people do stupid stuff. :~) D