City & State Smoking Bans.... (Democrats, communist, comparison, legal)

[Arizona Annie]

AksarbeN ~
Thank you. I knew you would be honest and open when answering my questions. I completely agree about public areas and I'm very glad smoking isn't allowed where non-smokers have no choice but to inhale others smoke in a confined area (such as airplanes), and where they aren't as confined but still susceptible to inhaling second hand smoke (such as bars and restaurants with smoking sections, work places, and any other places where smokers and non-smokers gather inside a building).

Originally Posted by AksarbeN

To answer another question of yours; I’m not against having separate smoking and non-smoking restaurants and bars. If the laws allow that to occur then fine, I support whatever the majority of the people vote for.

This is where you and I disagree. I don't agree it should have been put up for a vote. I believe it sets a dangerous precedent akin to mob rule and makes me fear for what might be next. I believe by passing an entire state ban, we are taking freedom of choice from restaurant/bar owners to cater to their clientele. Nobody has been able to convince me why taking this freedom away is a good thing. I hear posters stating they want to be able to go anywhere they want to go without worrying about second hand smoke and therefore they were just in supporting a ban. In my eyes, one persons desire to patronize any establishment (bar/restaurant) they choose to and be assured it will be smoke free does not trump the owners personal freedom of choice. One groups freedom of choice should never trump another groups freedom of choice of a legal activity. I think it's sad to think we have become such a "me" nation that we think it is the right of a majority to (in a sense) strong arm the minority (not the smokers, but the restaurant and bar owners) and decide what is (as you put it), "unacceptable inappropriate behavior" when referring to a legal activity. I simply believe a statewide smoking ban of all public places should exclude bars and restaurants. However, it should be included in the proposition that bars and restaurants may be smoking or non-smoking and cannot be a combination of the two.

I agree with you that our Arizona ban will never be overturned, simply because I know of no statewide ban of smoking which has ever been overturned.

I don't believe that most voters fully understood both propositions on smoking brought to a vote in Arizona. I noticed you said "most informed voters", this I will agree with. However, I don't believe most voters are fully informed. I believe it is our responsibility to be fully aware of the details of any proposition brought to a vote and I believe you and I probably agree on this point, however prior to the vote there were several media "on the street" and "on the web" polls asking the public if they felt they were fully informed about the propositions and as I remember it, the biggest majority said "No".

Congratulations on your success ending your own dependence on nicotine. I believe you when you say had you known about the dangers of smoking on others at the time you smoked, you would not have smoked in the presence of non-smokers. I also agree it would be common courtesy not to do so, which is why I believe there should be a place for both. It would also be common courtesy to allow others to make decisions for themselves, and if they do smoke, have a place to go away from non-smokers.

I know you will probably say you want to agree to disagree, but do you at least see the logic in what I am saying to you?
AA

[Arizona Annie]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

The issue is NOT smokers' rights vs. non-smokers' rights. The issue is whether the government should be allowed to dictate what legal activities can be allowed in a private establishment. By banning smoking, the government is doing just that.

Exactly Amaznjohn, neither the government nor the majority should limit or deny the rights of the minority to engage in a legal activity when it is not negatively affecting their health. Seperate bars/restaurants. Problem solved. That's all we are asking. I still don't understand why it is so hard for non-smoking pro-ban posters to understand. You are right, we are talking about private establishments, they are just open to the public. They should be able to decide if the public they serve is smoking or non-smoking.

[Petunia393]

In NY everyone was against it. But people got used to it real fast. I thought it was great. It is so nice to walk into a place and not smell cigarettes. I know everyone has rights too. I just wish they would do a ban here in NC. I can't stand it.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Petunia393

In NY everyone was against it. But people got used to it real fast. I thought it was great. It is so nice to walk into a place and not smell cigarettes. I know everyone has rights too. I just wish they would do a ban here in NC. I can't stand it.

Then, don't patronize the bars or restaurants who allow smoking. If you want to force these private establishments to go smoke-free, refuse to eat/drink there and encourage your friends and family to do the same instead of politicians. The need for profit typically motivates business owners more effectively than government intrusion. Eventually this government intrusion cancer will envelope and affect you as well, either directly or indirectly. As I posted in another thread:

Democracy - Two Wolves and a Lamb deciding what to eat for dinner.
Liberty - A well-armed Lamb allowed to challenge the vote.

The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority, in this case, small business owners.

[Castaway]

Originally Posted by Petunia393

In NY everyone was against it. But people got used to it real fast. I thought it was great. It is so nice to walk into a place and not smell cigarettes. I know everyone has rights too. I just wish they would do a ban here in NC. I can't stand it.

What other choice did they have but to get use to it? I am sorry that in NC that no one has thought to open a non-smoking bar/restaurant . It might be a gold mine. As I said on a previous post, my town had both and without a ban. Everyone was happy.

[AksarbeN]

The owner’s rights?

Is there a difference between the smoking ban laws and the laws that require a (open to the public) privately owned bar / restaurant to comply with the disabilities law? Each law requires the owner to comply with what has been determined a need for the general public. The disabilities law obviously requires accessibilities into the building, to restrooms, parking, etc. for those who have special needs and these individuals cannot be denied access or service. That’s the law. Are the “owners” of a bar/restaurant having their rights denied under the law if they don’t want to serve people of disabilities?

In comparison the nonsmoking ban laws are also imposed on the owners of restaurants/ bars. These laws require the owners to restrict smoking within their place of business that is open to the public. Why are the owner’s rights being denied with this law but not the other disabilities law? The government has required something of the owner by law in each of these examples. The owner has rights being denied under both laws?


Please! I’m not attempting to be disrespectful of those with disabilities; I’m merely making a comparison for the discussion of “owners rights” under the two different laws. And my intent is to stay on the topic of smoking bans from the owner’s point of view and his rights under the law.

[Crew Chief]

I voted for Ohio's smoking ban and I now regret it. I'm a non-smoker and I voted "yes" because I thought of the few a**bag smokers I've encountered over the years and the %$#@! idiots that throw their lit butts out the vehicle window. But, in reality, I wish that I'd either have voted "NO" or for the more reasonable ban that has exemptions for bars, restaurants and private clubs. In all fairness, smoking in restaurants really hadn't been a problem, even with my sensitive nose. And my wife and I rarely frequent bars and bowling alleys. (A lot of good people do; we just stay too busy with other things...)

After having listened to our local WLW 700 talk radio, I've come to the conclusion that some real Ohioans have been hurt by this legislation. Folks that sunk their life savings into bars and cigar bars. Business for beverage providers has fallen off. And many others. On top of all that, we in SW ohio are right on the border of two states that allow smoking (KY and IN) So what do you think Cincy's smokers will do? Drive the extra mile into KY and smoke to their heart's content in Covington & Newport. (They've already beat Cincy to the punch on building a better waterfront...)

I now hope that the law is overturned or exemptions added.

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by Crew Chief

I voted for Ohio's smoking ban and I now regret it. I'm a non-smoker and I voted "yes" because I thought of the few a**bag smokers I've encountered over the years and the %$#@! idiots that throw their lit butts out the vehicle window. But, in reality, I wish that I'd either have voted "NO" or for the more reasonable ban that has exemptions for bars, restaurants and private clubs. In all fairness, smoking in restaurants really hadn't been a problem, even with my sensitive nose. And my wife and I rarely frequent bars and bowling alleys. (A lot of good people do; we just stay too busy with other things...)

After having listened to our local WLW 700 talk radio, I've come to the conclusion that some real Ohioans have been hurt by this legislation. Folks that sunk their life savings into bars and cigar bars. Business for beverage providers has fallen off. And many others. On top of all that, we in SW ohio are right on the border of two states that allow smoking (KY and IN) So what do you think Cincy's smokers will do? Drive the extra mile into KY and smoke to their heart's content in Covington & Newport. (They've already beat Cincy to the punch on building a better waterfront...)

I now hope that the law is overturned or exemptions added.

Or that Indiana and Kentucky add similar smoking bans. Problem solved.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by AksarbeN

The owner’s rights?

Is there a difference between the smoking ban laws and the laws that require a (open to the public) privately owned bar / restaurant to comply with the disabilities law? Each law requires the owner to comply with what has been determined a need for the general public. The disabilities law obviously requires accessibilities into the building, to restrooms, parking, etc. for those who have special needs and these individuals cannot be denied access or service. That’s the law. Are the “owners” of a bar/restaurant having their rights denied under the law if they don’t want to serve people of disabilities?

In comparison the nonsmoking ban laws are also imposed on the owners of restaurants/ bars. These laws require the owners to restrict smoking within their place of business that is open to the public. Why are the owner’s rights being denied with this law but not the other disabilities law? The government has required something of the owner by law in each of these examples. The owner has rights being denied under both laws?


Please! I’m not attempting to be disrespectful of those with disabilities; I’m merely making a comparison for the discussion of “owners rights” under the two different laws. And my intent is to stay on the topic of smoking bans from the owner’s point of view and his rights under the law.

No difference, IMO.

[Amaznjohn]

Allow me to expand on my last post a bit. Noone has a "right" to enter my place of business. I "invite" the public in. If they don't like who I allow in, who I hire, what legal activities I allow, then go to my competitor's business.