Supporters of smoking bans

[nanandjim]

I heard something on the radio the other day but haven't had time to research it. It basically stated that in some states you can be arrested for smoking in your vehicle if you have a child under the age of 18 riding with you. It went on to say the reason for this ban is that children under the age of 18 cannot and/or do not have a choice in being subjected to second hand smoke.

I don't smoke - never have - but have friends who do with children under 18.

Anyone know if this is true? And, if so, what states it applies to?

Sorry, if this post will rile some folks, but I hope that there is a law when smoking with children in a car.

I think that the government steps in, not because we no longer have a free society, but because people and businesses won't be considerate of others, otherwise.

In this particular case, it has been proven that second-hand smoke is more harmful than first-hand smoke (or at least I think that I read that). Why should children be subjected to all sorts of possible health problems because the parents can't wait to smoke in an open area?

Remember, health problems that result from exposure to cigarettes (direct or indirect) will affect all of us in some way, shape or form.

 

[nanandjim]

If us non-smokers just quit going to places that allow cigarette smoke, where would we go for fun? Don't we deserve to go out an enjoy ourselves without being exposed to possible cancer causing,lung damaging, smoke? My son has very severe asthma and smoke aggravates it horribly. I cannot go out with my kids to the bowling alley because it is so smokey that you can barely see your hands. We have very few restaurants that we can go to, because even if the sections are separated, it still floats our way. If people want to risk their health fine, but they shouldn't risk others.

Very good post. You put the details in your post that I didn't put in mine.

 

[jaxibear]

If us non-smokers just quit going to places that allow cigarette smoke, where would we go for fun? Don't we deserve to go out an enjoy ourselves without being exposed to possible cancer causing,lung damaging, smoke? My son has very severe asthma and smoke aggravates it horribly. I cannot go out with my kids to the bowling alley because it is so smokey that you can barely see your hands. We have very few restaurants that we can go to, because even if the sections are separated, it still floats our way. If people want to risk their health fine, but they shouldn't risk others.

I have not been to a bar, casino or bowling alley in 15 years because of the smoke. I make that choice, but I wish I could go out dancing once in a while.

 

[Jules]

We have very few restaurants that we can go to, because even if the sections are separated, it still floats our way.

Great post! And very true.

I heard a man once describe smoking sections in restaurants as being the same as having a peeing section in a pool I thought that was so true. No matter how hard you try to contain smoke to one area - everyone comes in contact with it.

 

[eve]

I repeat: If non-smokers have such a big market as some of you say, why can't non-smoking establishments do well without the prohibition?

I get that many people don't want to be subjected to smoke - why wouldn't a non-smoking establishment do well without the legislation? Free enterprise! Open marketplace, with room for all.

Same token: smokers could have their places, too!

There has been no vote here, BTW. It will be done without people voting as far as I know.

Eve

 

[GlitchWizard]

My daughter and I are both violently reactive to second hand smoke, to the point that the same evening we were exposed to it, we hack up blood. Since the smoking ban in restaraunts and concert halls in our area, our quality of life has been much improved.

 

[JanetElaine]

I think a lot of the discussion really isn't about whether people oppose non-smokers to have the option to be in a smoke-free environment.

The thing that sits wrong with me, and people I have spoken with over here (it's been a fairly recent discussion for us due to the new ban here in Ohio) is that the choice has now been taken away from smokers.
There are no bars in town anymore they can go to to have a few beers and a smoke. Same with restaurants, same with the bowling alley. Maybe we've had it really good here, with choices for both smokers and non-smokers, since there were bars and restaurants that were smoking or non-smoking (not just partially non smoking). Non-smokers went to smoking bars with smoker friends, and vice versa. That choice is gone.
IMO it's never good when choices are gone. That is the end of freedom.

 

[nanandjim]

...IMO it's never good when choices are gone. That is the end of freedom.

JE - I used to go to smoke-filled nightclubs, but I never enjoyed the smoking aspect of the places. Smoke makes my eyes red, nauseates me and leaves my clothes reaking with that awful smell which is very hard to remove. These were some of the drawbacks besides the second-hand smoke implications. So, put me down for being happy that smoking bans are being instituted.

 

[eve]

Sorry, if this post will rile some folks, but I hope that there is a law when smoking with children in a car.

I think that the government steps in, not because we no longer have a free society, but because people and businesses won't be considerate of others, otherwise.

In this particular case, it has been proven that second-hand smoke is more harmful than first-hand smoke (or at least I think that I read that). Why should children be subjected to all sorts of possible health problems because the parents can't wait to smoke in an open area?

Remember, health problems that result from exposure to cigarettes (direct or indirect) will affect all of us in some way, shape or form.

I have no problem with the law about children in a car - I can certainly buy that.

I am talking about allowing both non-smoking and non-smoking establishments to exist for people who want them. Why isn't that considerate and fair? What is it about that option that is unacceptable? Forget smoking sections, I agree, the smoke drifts over.

A smoking place could be like a casino, dance club or strip club, I guess. Everyone wouldn't want to go there but some would. It would be for adults and no one would make you go there. I am NOT talking about smoking anywhere but in an eating/drinking/recreational establishment that allows it. You don't have to go there, you don't have to work there, you can think it's a den of iniquity, but hey, it's America.

So many people hate smoke and smokers that there would be plenty of successful non-smoking restaurants, bars and clubs.

You're right, people's rotten health habits affect us all in many ways. Obesity drives up health care costs for all of us, for example, but does that mean overweight people aren't allowed to buy Big Macs or cram their cart full of crummy food choices while they buzz around in their power chairs?

Eve

 

[nanandjim]

...I get that many people don't want to be subjected to smoke - why wouldn't a non-smoking establishment do well without the legislation? Free enterprise! Open marketplace, with room for all...

By the same thougt process, why is it that no one seized on the opportunity to start an airline where smoking was allowed when the industry put their smoking ban in place? Do you think that there would be enough smokers to keep the airline afloat?? :waitasec:

 

[nanandjim]

...You're right, people's rotten health habits affect us all in many ways. Obesity drives up health care costs for all of us, for example, but does that mean overweight people aren't allowed to buy Big Macs or cram their cart full of crummy food choices while they buzz around in their power chairs?

Eve

Well, they have passed a law in NY banning the use of transfat oils at the fast food joints. So, I guess that we are moving towards controlling peoples' food choices.

 

[eve]

By the same thougt process, why is it that no one seized on the opportunity to start an airline where smoking was allowed when the industry put their smoking ban in place? Do you think that there would be enough smokers to keep the airline afloat?? :waitasec:

No. I feel transportation is different than recreation/entertainment. There are many settings where smoking is no longer acceptable. No argument from me, there.

If smoking establishments legitimately go down for lack of business, so be it! Speaking of airlines, I didn't like the govenment bailing the airlines out either. They aren't doing any better because of it, that's for sure. I am consistent. Government should stay the H out of it.

I will ask you this: don't non-smoking advocates feel the many, many smoke-haters will keep non-smoking establishments afloat and thriving?

Eve

 

[JanetElaine]

Well, they have passed a law in NY banning the use of transfat oils at the fast food joints. So, I guess that we are moving towards controlling peoples' food choices.

No, that is not the same. There are still plenty of public places where one can eat trans fats. People can still choose to either eat trans fats or not. Granted, to eat trans fats you'd have to go to a restaurant that uses them.... but that's the same way it was with smoking: people who didn't want to smoke went to a restaurant where smoking was not allowed.

 

[JBean]

I think a lot of the discussion really isn't about whether people oppose non-smokers to have the option to be in a smoke-free environment.

The thing that sits wrong with me, and people I have spoken with over here (it's been a fairly recent discussion for us due to the new ban here in Ohio) is that the choice has now been taken away from smokers.
There are no bars in town anymore they can go to to have a few beers and a smoke. Same with restaurants, same with the bowling alley. Maybe we've had it really good here, with choices for both smokers and non-smokers, since there were bars and restaurants that were smoking or non-smoking (not just partially non smoking). Non-smokers went to smoking bars with smoker friends, and vice versa. That choice is gone.
IMO it's never good when choices are gone. That is the end of freedom.

You will be surprised how smokers and non smokers will find a way to come together and move past the smoke ban. Guaranteed. The reaction was the same as yours here in CA when smoking was banned in restaurants and bars many years ago. There was outrage and anger.But people have found a way to make it work and it does. No one even complains about it anymore, it has been accepted pretty much and it's as if smoking was never allowed. I would be intereted in hearing from some CA smokers on this.
When I had one of my boys, they had smoking and non smoking maternity rooms lol. Women and their visitors would have the newborn in the room and could smoke! Now,you cannot even smoke on the hospital grounds, outside ,anywhere near the hospital.
Point being sometimes in retrospect the smoking bans are not so bad and in more people's best interest. Looking back I can't believe it took so long to ban smoking indoors and as I say, I am neutral on smoking. 1/2 my friends smoke and 1/2 of them don't.

 

[JanetElaine]

The reaction was the same as yours here in CA when smoking was banned in restaurants and bars many years ago. But people have found a way to make it work and it does. No one even complains about it anymore, it has been accepted pretty much and it's as if smoking was never allowed.

In the end you have to accept it and find a way to make it work. You don't have a choice. What about the bars and restaurants that went out of business near the PA stateline, because Ohio smokers now choose to go to PA instead (i'm sure it's the same near the other Ohio state lines).

We're in Ohio here btw.... it's 10 degrees out.... that's different than CA....

 

[Jules]

You will be surprised how smokers and non smokers will find a way to come together and move past the smoke ban. Guaranteed. The reaction was the same as yours here in CA when smoking was banned in restaurants and bars many years ago. But people have found a way to make it work and it does. No one even complains about it anymore, it has been accepted pretty much and it's as if smoking was never allowed.

I agree, JB. It's the same way here. Many restaurants here have an outside courtyard-type area where people can smoke. However, most restaurants do not allow smoking inside at all. None have appeared to suffer any. They are always packed.

We do go to one little Mexican restaurant where you can still smoke. They have it separated into two areas. The area allowed for smokers has a HUGE thing in the celing that pulls the smoke up and out. I have never smelled smoke in there. I'm not sure what exactly the thing is - but it works.

My hubby plays pool on a pool league and the bar he plays out of is a smoking establishment. I used to enjoy going with him years ago, but the older I get the more the smoke bothers me. As Nan said, my eyes get red, I get headaches, etc. And my clothes and hair STINK when I get home. When I do go with him, I have to come home and take a shower to get the smell out of my hair. :silenced:

 

[JanetElaine]

I am talking about allowing both non-smoking and non-smoking establishments to exist for people who want them. Why isn't that considerate and fair? What is it about that option that is unacceptable? Forget smoking sections, I agree, the smoke drifts over.

A smoking place could be like a casino, dance club or strip club, I guess. Everyone wouldn't want to go there but some would. It would be for adults and no one would make you go there. I am NOT talking about smoking anywhere but in an eating/drinking/recreational establishment that allows it. You don't have to go there, you don't have to work there, you can think it's a den of iniquity, but hey, it's America.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Jules]

A smoking place could be like a casino, dance club or strip club, I guess. Everyone wouldn't want to go there but some would. It would be for adults and no one would make you go there. I am NOT talking about smoking anywhere but in an eating/drinking/recreational establishment that allows it. You don't have to go there, you don't have to work there, you can think it's a den of iniquity, but hey, it's America.

By making casinos, dance clubs or strip clubs smoking establishments, then you are limiting those who don't smoke that like to frequent those sorts of places unable to do so.

As I said, I don't smoke, but I can see both sides of it. Being married to someone who smokes a bit, it has never bothered him to go to a non-smoking establishment. He's never even commented on it.

 

[JBean]

In the end you have to accept it and find a way to make it work. You don't have a choice. What about the bars and restaurants that went out of business near the PA stateline, because Ohio smokers now choose to go to PA instead (i'm sure it's the same near the other Ohio state lines).

We're in Ohio here btw.... it's 10 degrees out.... that's different than CA....

I am well aware of the weather differnces and have referenced that earlier. I am from Chicago.
I will be curious to see how you feel about this in 5 or 10 years. I have been in cold weather areas where smoking is also banned and it still works. My only point is that you will see, after time, that it does work. As I say, I didn't care one way or another at the time, but it is only now I am seeing how well it worked out.
We don't have choices about lots of things. We have laws for driving not to take your freedoms away but for theoretically a greater good.

 

[HeartofTexas]

Maybe there should be laws enacted that affect whether people can drive gas-guzzling SUV's, or those that emit those powerful fumes that also pollute the air that everyone breathes. Why just stop with smokers? As someone above said, let's go after the obese, too. And perhaps we should really start cracking down on drinkers. Let's make sure nobody does anything that violates our senses. Let's take away every right to make personal choices we've ever had.