Supporters of smoking bans

[HeartofTexas]

As long as they don't regulate how I do it in the privacy of my own home...or rather my back deck, which is my smoking area, I'm cool with it.

Bham, regulating smoking where we live is already happening. Some condos (one in Colorado, specifically) have banned smoking on the premises or in your own condo.

 

[eve]

I have a question. My neighbor has severe asthema and woodsmoke can send her into a full attack. We apparantly have several people in the neighborhood that suffer from asthema and other pulmanary related diseases. Last year they sent letters to everyone in the neighborhood requesting that we do not use our fireplaces because of their health issues and it causes everything in their house to smell like smoke.

Whose rights are being infringed on and should wood burning fireplaces be banned?

This has caused alot of arguments in neighborhoods all over the Country.

I think if someone is that sensitive physically it is incumbant upon them to find a suitable place to live, whatever that entails. People have fireplaces. This is forseeable. They have a right to use them on their own property. They should be up to code, whether indoors or out, people should obey burning ordinances and those with eggshell skulls don't get special treatment.

I guarantee, if things go far enough, there is nothing that will be sacred and immune from government intervention and the cause du jour. To those who wish to have the government protect everyone from everything- when it's your fireplace, your perfume, your choice of flora and fauna, your food, your vehicle...then you might regret the road we're traveling down.

Eve

 

[Jesstexas]

If you had two bars right next to each other, one a "smoke-free" one and one a "smoking optional" one, some people would STILL complain because . . . well, that's just what some people do. Complain, complain, complain. Everything that's wrong with them (or ever could go wrong with them) is somebody else's fault. I have a headache today, so it must be because the air quality in this building is bad. Newflash: people have been getting headaches forever. People who have never smoked get cancer. Some people who have smoked for 60 years are healthy as a horse. (And yes, I am aware that smoking causes cancer. But it is not the only cause of cancer, or of anything else.) If every single smoker in the world quit tomorrow, 50 years down the road, people would still have ailments.

I liken the smoking bans to people using cell phones while they're driving. Some can do it without being distracted at all, but others simply cannot. They are a safety hazard to everyone else around them every single time they get on the phone while they're driving. So, some states have had to outlaw it altogether. Here in Georgia, it's still legal (unless you're actually involved in an accident, in which case you get a ticket), but it drives me absolutely insane. But I know it's just a matter of time before it's outlawed altogether because it's just not safe for the majority of people on the road who are not distracted.

The smoking bans were approved by a majority of the voters, so even though it means I have to work a little harder sometimes to find a place to smoke, it's cool with me.

 

[HeartofTexas]

Here's an organization that is willing to offer you all kinds of tips for fighting smoking in condos and apartment buildings.

Yes, now that people are begining to realize that drifting tobacco smoke can cause lung cancer and heart attacks in nonsmokers, more and more of them are becoming concerned about tobacco smoke in their condos or apartment buildings.
​

http://ash.org/smoking-in-condos-and-apartments.html


What's next ... townhouses... your own home?

 

[tybee204]

If apartments and condos are up to code they have firewalls and seperate ventilation systems.

 

[IrishMist]

Boston Couple evicted for smoking:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/evicted_for_smoking_in_apartment.htm

Montana retiree evicted from retirement community:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/11/smoker_evicted_from_retirement_community/

I could have sworn there was a family in Florida, too, but darned if I can find it.

 

[jaxibear]

There are many non-smoking establishments here, although the smoking ban has not started. They are always packed. I know where they are and I give them my business. I do not go any place that allows smoking because the smell makes me ill. I have no problem with places that allow smoking, though I would love it to be required that they put "smoking (or no smoking) allowed" in big neon lights so I can make my choice without going inside.

I voted for the smoking ban for one very important reason. It prohibits smoking within 25 feet of the entry of any establishment open to the public. I want to be able to go into the public library or Safeway without having someone blow smoke in my face. The fact that the new law bans smoking in all public buildings is just gravy for me.

Again, our smoking ban passed by a big majority. I don't believe the government should unilateraly decide such an issue, it should go before the voters in all cases. There may be cases I have not heard of, but I have yet to read about a smoking ban that has been defeated by the voters. IMHO, most people support smoking bans.

 

[eve]

There are many non-smoking establishments here, although the smoking ban has not started. They are always packed. I know where they are and I give them my business. I do not go any place that allows smoking because the smell makes me ill. I have no problem with places that allow smoking, though I would love it to be required that they put "smoking (or no smoking) allowed" in big neon lights so I can make my choice without going inside.

I voted for the smoking ban for one very important reason. It prohibits smoking within 25 feet of the entry of any establishment open to the public. I want to be able to go into the public library or Safeway without having someone blow smoke in my face. The fact that the new law bans smoking in all public buildings is just gravy for me.

Again, our smoking ban passed by a big majority. I don't believe the government should unilateraly decide such an issue, it should go before the voters in all cases. There may be cases I have not heard of, but I have yet to read about a smoking ban that has been defeated by the voters. IMHO, most people support smoking bans.

Well, it's nice you got to vote. I have heard of no vote here, just that it will be signed by the governor. If it really got a chance to go before the voters here, I guess I couldn't complain.

But you said it yourself, non-smoking places are packed. Smoking places would have their customers, too. I do not think the existence of one precludes the other. People can mind their own business and use common sense.

Trust the marketplace!

Eve

 

[Details]

Sure - I can choose not to go to a smoking bar. Too bad the workers can't chose not to inhale. There are only so many jobs, and in no other area do we allow a job to harm it's workers like this.

When a bunch of people go out somewhere, one smoker destroys the atmosphere - why should everyone else have to breathe this poison just because one person wants to smoke? Yeah, a bar or restaurant can declare itself non-smoking - but for them to do so means they give a competitive advantage to other bars, where if you set a ban on everyone, as every bar and restaurant owner has discovered where the smoking ban occurs, the field is level.

We have a problem. A huge number of people are addicted to spewing a poison into the air around them. The government is being paid by the companies producing this poison, and many of those addicted don't want to have to stop, those producing the poison don't want to admit what it is, don't want to lose their jobs. And, of course, it's a low-level posion, and takes awhile to harm people, and doesn't harm everyone exposed to it - but it's still a poison. We've learned to live with this poison over time, but now we're finding out what a cost you pay - people like reb with long term lung problems from working in bars and restaurants, children of smokers with a ton of health problems. Things need to change, the times are changing, as we've learned more, and finally are accepting what is true.

 

[JanetElaine]

janetelaine-- your choice is not gone. you have the choice to smoke away to your heart's contect-- but you should NOT be allowed to do it around my or my lungs... in a public place of business. in the old days, we non-smokers did NOT have a choice of being able to go into a restraurant, bar or club, and breathe clean air, or go home not reeking down to our bones of nasty smoke. our only choice was "well, you can just NOT GO (or, NOT WORK THERE)-- if you don't like the smoke". why the hell should WE have to make that choice, because of your addiction??
so you DO have a choice now-- first of all, the choice to even smoke in the first place. then you also have the choice to smoke outside, in your car, or in your home-- OR come inside the establishment and enjoy yourself without harming other peoples' lungs.

I guess you didn't catch the part where I said I'm a non-smoker and have never smoked in my life?

 

[JanetElaine]

What I resent the most is the hypocritical way the gov't (whether local or federal or state) handles the smoking issue. If smoking is as bad as they say it is, then ban the damned things. Make them illegal. Instead, the various governments ban them in places owned by private citizens (restaurants, clubs, etc.) but then tax the heck out of them and enjoy spending the profits however they want. Texas went up $1.00 a pack on taxes on January 1, 2007. If cigarettes are so bad that they deserve a dollar a pack tax increase, then they should make smoking them illegal. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the government has no intention of losing their precious smoking taxes because it's one of their largest sources of income. Colorado has one of the highest taxes on cigarettes in the nation (not the highest, but one of the highest), and their statewide smoking increased almost 10% last year. So banning smoking from public places has not stopped, nor deterred smoking. Instead, it's increasing. But, the same health problems continue for smokers (costing the gov't countless dollars to treat annually) and yet you don't see the gov't banning cigarettes, do you? No way. They would lose their precious smoking taxes. Hypocritical, IMO. So, either smoking is totally toxic and the gov't should make it illegal, or the gov't should stay out of the way of people who own restaurants and bars and let them make their own rules for who can enter their establishments. As someone above said, if you don't want to be around smokers, then stay out.

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

 

[JanetElaine]

Alabama has had a non smoking indoors policy for years, never bothered me. Now Louisiana has new laws and I'm sure people are griping. But they've made it so certain places will still be smoking if they choose.

There ya go. Choice. :clap: for Louisiana!

 

[Details]

Well, it's nice you got to vote. I have heard of no vote here, just that it will be signed by the governor. If it really got a chance to go before the voters here, I guess I couldn't complain.

But you said it yourself, non-smoking places are packed. Smoking places would have their customers, too. I do not think the existence of one precludes the other. People can mind their own business and use common sense.

Trust the marketplace!

Eve

No trusting the marketplace from me. We'll buy from a company that uses slave labor, if they're not in our face about it, and they have the lowest prices. We'll buy the cheaper product, and companies know it. So, if they can be good to their employees and have a safe workplace versus being not as good, and having an unsafe workplace, and being able to lower their prices - guess which gets chosen? And it's not that all companies are run by evil people - but the ones that are, when we let them be evil under the law - win! That's why we have laws about workplace safety. And that's one of the major reasons for non-smoking laws.

I don't know about the ones in your state, but in California, the law is clear - you can have a smoking bar, no problem. The owner(s) must be the only ones working there, but if you start your own business, you can choose to risk your own health, and people who come to your bar can choose to risk their own. You can't hire an employee to expose themselves to that poison though.

If this were consumer choice - a bar with red paint versus one with blue paint, a bar that allows perfume and cologne versus one that doesn't - that'd be a whole different point, and the marketplace could decide. This is about a choice involving something poisonous versus not.

 

[reb]

and eve,, therein lies one of the fundamental flaws in your way of thinking... 'trust the marketplace'...?? NO WAY do i trust the marketplace!! big corporations have WAY too much power. 'the marketplace' cannot be trusted- and it does NOT always act in the best interests of the people as a whole. i trust what the people ultimately want, and what many years of scientific investigations, autopsies, and health studies have shown to be true-- not what big corporations push on 'the little people' or brainwash us with! many tyrannical CEOs out there are getting shamefully rich off your way of thinking, with no regard to the consequences of their greedy, selfish actions.

details.. great post. and i agree-- times and peoples' attitudes ARE changing.. (about time!!) we are finally realizing that we ARE more powerful than those who lobby for the cigarette companies. we are finally realizing we really DO have a choice.. and a say in things. everyone used to just begrudgingly accept it because that's the way it was... smokers ruled and that was that. but now,, it doesn't have to be that way. this is all thanks to groups like the american lung association, and americans for nonsmoker's rights.. and all the people who fought hard against it and NEVER gave up.

 

[JanetElaine]

This is what surprises me Bhamama. I would think more people would look at it like this. If for no other reason, smoking can just be impolite. Amost every smoker I know has your same attitude. They don't want to invade my space with their smoke and the reality is I don't even care that much.
I think your outlook is the right one and benefits us all.

I totally agree. However, Bhamama's and the likes of hers option to be polite has been taken away since they would now be offenders for smoking in a bar. Instead of having the choice to display good manners, people now think they don't smoke because they're afraid of penalties and fines. Now it doesn't matter what others think.... but did America really get this unruly that the government now has to tell people where they can or cannot smoke?

 

[reb]

OK janetelaine... yes i saw that you don't smoke, and that is great!-- and i also understand why you say it's strictly a freedom of choice issue for you. but when i say 'you' smoking, it's a figure of speech,, i mean 'you' the smoker.. as in 'he or she who smokes' (hypothetically). i am putting you in the place of the smoker since you are putting yourself in their place (in theory).

 

[JanetElaine]

i am putting you in the place of the smoker since you are putting yourself in their place (in theory).

I understand what you mean, but actually I am not putting myself in the place of a smoker. I feel this law affects me. Because to me this isn't about smoking, but about choice (I think y'all get that by now ). But I gotcha. Glad you got me.

 

[JBean]

I totally agree. However, Bhamama's and the likes of hers option to be polite has been taken away since they would now be offenders for smoking in a bar. Instead of having the choice to display good manners, people now think they don't smoke because they're afraid of penalties and fines. Now it doesn't matter what others think.... but did America really get this unruly that the government now has to tell people where they can or cannot smoke?

If everyone was exercising their option to be polite,we wouldn"t be having this conversation because no one would smoke in the bar in the first place and there would be nothing to create a law about.
Look, don't get me wrong, I really don't care one way or the other. My initial point was that there is hope, it actually has worked quite well out here over the last 8 or so years and maybe it's not as bad as many think.
I think the govt isn't so off the wall when they ban something that is delcared unhealthful. I have to show that my car does not stink up and pollute the air when I register it, or I can't register it. Inconvenient? you bet. But I get it and why there are laws about it.It's not just about me, it's about all of us.

 

[Details]

I totally agree. However, Bhamama's and the likes of hers option to be polite has been taken away since they would now be offenders for smoking in a bar. Instead of having the choice to display good manners, people now think they don't smoke because they're afraid of penalties and fines. Now it doesn't matter what others think.... but did America really get this unruly that the government now has to tell people where they can or cannot smoke?

In a word, "Yes".

Go to any smoking bar or anywhere smoking is allowed, and you can see in a minute that polite smokers are not the majority of smokers. But is there really a problem with writing into law what a polite smoker would do in any case? Polite smokers will need to make no changes. Impolite ones will be the only ones inconvenienced.

A lot of people who smoke like to deny or disbelieve that what they are doing is harmful - and they don't know how foul it smells to a nonsmoker, so they also don't see the polite things to do. It's a common human thing - we eat too much, denying to ourselves the health risks, we drink too much and deny that there will be a problem with that - people do this stuff all the time, little self-destructive choices. But smoking is different - it's not only self-destructive - it hurts everyone around.

 

[Taximom]

Well, here in Minnesota our Republican governor is promising to sign a statewide smoking ban bill. 15 states now have similar legislation and more are sure to follow.

My question is this: why (oh why), if there are so many non-smokers who don't want to be in a smoking establishment, why can't business owners establish non-smoking establishments on their own, knowing that they will prosper? Or, to put it another way, why can't owners who want to establish smoking establishments do so, since smoking is a legal activity for adults? Why does the government have to get into this? What is next? Does anyone care how this erodes the concept of personal freedom/property rights/free enterprise we in this country purport to stand for?

On a personal note: I have often spoken against smoking bans and have felt this way both as a smoker and a non-smoker (I have been both).

I am NOT referring to business offices, government buildings, schools, etc. I am only talking about bars and restaurants.

If you don't want the smoke, don't patronize the establishment! If so many people don't want it, non-smoking establishment will prosper!

Eve

We enjoyed our first totally non-smoking meal at Denny's the other day. It was really nice.

I hate that the gov't makes these kinds of laws (get busy on the sexual predators, gov't!!!), but sure would appreciate it if the bigger restaurants like Denny's and Bob Evans etc would have enclosed sections for the smokers/non-smokers. (Even though that still lets wafts of smoke out when the door is opened/closed.)

My oldest had horrible asthma problems when she was younger and we couldn't risk going anywhere where there would be smoking. So we didn't. If the ban had been in place back then, they would have had our business.