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.
Thank you. I notice you live in the Southwest. Arizona has a statewide smoking ban, right? I believe, just like in Florida, this was on the ballot for voters to decide.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Arizona a Republican state?
well washington, oregon, british columbia canada all have smoking bans
but idaho is red and still allows smoking in bars...
what's your point???
I'm not buying the attempts to stereotype
Thank you. I notice you live in the Southwest. Arizona has a statewide smoking ban, right? I believe, just like in Florida, this was on the ballot for voters to decide.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Arizona a Republican state?
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.
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.
Maybe you think it's a crazy idea to have smoke-free bars, but in California, my impression is that most people are very happy to have them. The smoking ban was enacted back in 1998, and it's worked out very well.
No, I do have a right to complain. If I didn't vote ever, THEN I would have no right to complain. They actually called for a public meeting on this issue w/only 24 hours notice. 24 hours! How many people do you think actually showed up for that? I knew this smoking ban was going to pass so I'm not surprised. What bothers me is that I think it should be left up to the bar owner. There's many places that have opened up here that are strictly non-smoking. Fine, no problem I just won't go there. Just like non-smokers can choose not to go to a smoking establishment. Just like employees can choose not to start working at a smoking establishment. That seems to me the fair way to go about things.
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.
Maybe you think it's a crazy idea to have smoke-free bars, but in California, my impression is that most people are very happy to have them. The smoking ban was enacted back in 1998, and it's worked out very well.
If most people are truly happy with it they could end the ban today, they wouldn't even need it. Because the ban is so popular all the bars would want to stay smoke-free. Those bars that would start to allow smoking would have so few customers they would either have to go back to no smoking or go out of business.
First of all, I won't speak for any other state, but there was NEVER a ballot for any non-smoking laws anywhere in Kentucky. Every instance that I know of was by legislative action, whether by city, county or state-wide action.
Secondly, I am not attempting in any manner to stereotype anyone. I am simply attempting to point out how a government's invasion into the free market is dangerous for everyone. Oh, you say why does this become a free market issue. Simply, if I wish to ban smoking in my restaurant (I don't own or operate one, just an example), so as to attract those who don't smoke, including employees, then I should have that right. Likewise if I wish to allow smoking so as to attract those who choose to smoke, then its an American choice.
The hypocrisy of this is illustrated in the non-smoking legal logic for tobacco doesn't meet with the ability to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. A huge majority of all brain injuries from motorcycle accidents become the financial wards of the states' Medicaid departments.
No law, I repeat no law can ever be non-arbitrary. Someone gets hurt, someone wins in every legislated matter, especially when morality is legislated. I assure you that under the current federal situation, all one needs to do is to look to see which businesses and people who own those businesses win, while which ones lose. Maybe, just maybe, the business's customers should decide the fate of a business. Ever loved a business that was put out of business because of legislation rather than customer demand?
Nope, no head in the sand here....I don't support either party, but it is a bit disgusting how the Dems want to put down the Repubs and in all reality, they are all the same,,,,,,so better get your head out of the sand.
So you're saying that the Dem's put down Rep's but the Rep's don't do the same to the Dem's? You're right you don't have your head in the sand,yours is buried in the snow.
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.
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.
