Supporters of smoking bans

[eve]

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

 

[JanetElaine]

To answer your question about why the government gets into this: because the US isn't the land of the free anymore. Sad but true.

 

[HeartofTexas]

I think I would rather be a crack cocaine addict in this society rather than a smoker. Crack addicts are treated more sympathetically. Our society is always "madder than hell" about something, and right now it's the smokers. The self-righteousness of the groups trying to change the laws is a bit much for my taste. JMHO. (and sorry this doesn't answer your question!).

 

[Jules]

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?

 

[montana_16]

It's ok with me if they open places that are for people who want to smoke there. As long as the employees and owners and patrons are good with it let them do it.

But I am for bans in any place open to all people because a lot of people just can't stand to be around smoking and some people truly get ill from it. For me it triggers horrid headache. And I did smoke some at one time. (years ago).

I do think banning smoking in bars is stupid because everyone knows people smoke a lot in bars. I know people who don't regularly smoke, but do when they drink.lol. Of course, I mean bar only places. Not bar-restaurant places.

Then there could be bars for non smokers too.
There ought to be some attempt at compromise.

 

[JBean]

This doesn't answer your question either, but we have had smoking bans here in Ca for so long it has just become a way of life. I remember when bans were first introduced the bar owners were sure they would lose all their business because they couldn't allow smoking anymore. There was a period of adjustment, but no one really minds , that much, anymore. Smokers step outside and since the weather here is typically mild, it just isn't a big deal for most.It has been an intersting cycle to watch.

It is banned at many beaches and other outdoor locations now.

I have to say, that while I really didn't care one way or another at the time, I am really glad that there isn't cigarette smoke evrywhere anymore. I don't smoke, but it has never bothered me nor do I care if people smoke around me. but now that it has been banned just about everywhere for so long, i have really gotten used to it. When someone lights up in a taboo location, it smells really odd and it sure gets everyone's attention lol.

 

[eve]

Thanks for all the replies, I am really interested in people's views on this issue. Jules, the state with the prohibition on driving and smoking w/ minors is Maine (Bangor, specifically). Janet, I think you are right and people won't care until their ox is gored and then it will be too late. HOT, one of my parents recently said something like, "I can now imagine internment camps for smokers, and yet, no one knows a thing about WWII anymore. Maybe it's time for us to check out!" Montana, the spirit of compromise and willingness to accept the unpopular or the sake of freedom and enterprise is what made the U.S. great, imo. And JBean, we may see restrictions in the future that people are less willing to adjust to than those regarding the evil cigarette. Oh, and the weather is not mild everywhere - smokers here have a harder time (and I know some people think it serves 'em right). Still, I find myself wondering to what we could all eventually become accustomed.

Eve

 

[JBean]

Thanks for all the replies, I am really interested in people's views on this issue. Jules, the state with the prohibition on driving and smoking w/ minors is Maine (Bangor, specifically). Janet, I think you are right and people won't care until their ox is gored and then it will be too late. HOT, one of my parents recently said something like, "I can now imagine internment camps for smokers, and yet, no one knows a thing about WWII anymore. Maybe it's time for us to check out!" Montana, the spirit of compromise and willingness to accept the unpopular or the sake of freedom and enterprise is what made the U.S. great, imo. And JBean, we may see restrictions in the future that people are less willing to adjust to than those regarding the evil cigarette. Oh, and the weather is not mild everywhere. I find myself wondering to what we could all eventually become accustomed.

Eve

The reason I mentioned the weather was mild was because I know it isn't everywhere. that's why it isn't quite as big of a hardship here as in other locations.
I am a sympathetic non smoker. It doesn't bother me for the most part at all.My only point was that it has gotten to be pretty accepted to not smoke around here and the smokers practically have to hide. At our football stadium they have set aside one small area that is a pretty good hike away from the seating for smokers. Most places try to do something like that if they can. But it is getting harder and harder to accomodate the smokers.

 

[Jules]

Here's an article I found. Seems smoking while driving with minors 16 and under is illegal in Louisiana, Arkansas, Puero Rico, Bangor, Maine and quite possibly New Jersey in the near future.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2807735

As I said, I don't smoke, but my hubby does. He does smoke while driving with the window down. We have family in Louisiana and visit frequently. I guess we'll be taking a few extra stops getting there now as we have an 11 year old son.

While being around the smoke doesn't bother me (he only smokes outside - not in the house - and only in his truck - not my car), I do know some people get sick from the smell/smoke. Hubby doesn't smoke much either, so that helps.

I work with a lady who used to smoke 3 packs a day. She drove a little car and everything always felt sticky from the nicotine. It was disgusting. She frequently picked up her very young grandchildren and I will say it bothered me thinking about them riding in her car. She quit cold turkey after smoking for 40+ years. She hasn't smoked in over 2 years. I think it's wonderful. She feels so much better! Now if I could just get hubby to give up his 1/2 pack a day.

Getting back to Eve's topic , many of the restaurants here are smoke-free. All public buildings are smoke-free with smoking available outside the building a minimum of 25 feet from any entrance/exit to building. Our building has a parking garage and the building owners put in benches WAY in the back corner of the garage for people who smoke. Those that don't want to go back there can - and do - smoke in their cars.

 

[chiefs_fan_4life]

Here is the Arkansas state law regarding vehicular smoking:


20-27-1903. Tobacco use — Prohibitions

Effective July 21, 2006, smoking is prohibited in any motor vehicle in which a child who is less than six (6) years of age and who weighs less than sixty pounds (60 lbs.) is restrained in a child passenger safety seat properly secured to the motor vehicle in accordance with The Child Passenger Protection Act, § 27-34-101 et seq.

§ 20-27-1904. Penalty

(a) A person who violates this subchapter is guilty of a violation and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25.00).

(b) If a person is convicted, pleads guilty, pleads nolo contendere, or forfeits bond for violation of this subchapter, no court costs pursuant to § 16-10-305 or other costs or fees shall be assessed.

(c) Any person who proves to the court that he or she has entered into a smoking cessation program may have his or her fine eliminated for a first offense violation of this subchapter.

 

[reb]

eve-- you wanna know why???? because--- bars and restaurants are SO addicted to the MONEY that the cigarette companies dish out to them for advertising-- they help get and keep their patrons addicted to nicotine- and then BRIBE the establishments by offering top-notch advertising and other perks. also the owners are SO afraid that once all their nicotine addicts leave they will go out of business (my response to that-- if you are so dependent on NICOTINE USE to stay in business, then your business must suck anyway!!-- and you deserve to close).. that they will find ANY loophole to get around it. and believe me they will. and then what you will have is still the same old bunch of nasty, smoky bars & restaurants and nothing will have changed.
the people have spoken-- smoking bans have passed in city after city BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTED AND VOTED FOR.

i think people wanted a clean break. they voted for an across-the-board ban because #1) the city didn't want any issues.. they did not want to deal with the endless squabbling and lawsuits. abd because #2) citizens have the right to go into ANY establishment without having to breathe noxious, toxic fumes into their lungs! (wow, imagine that- what a concept!)

and janetelaine--- you are WRONG. in this matter, now truly ARE free- FREE TO GO INTO PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO BREATHE SOMEONE ELSE'S NASTY CIGARETTE SMOKE!!! believe me.. you all had your day. and the rest of us have suffered enough!!!!!

but guess what,, you are still free... you are free to sit in your car or in your house and smoke your lungs into a black, charred, cancerous mess... if that is what you wish to do. but DON'T subject me to that also!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there is a GOOD REASON it is now illegal. people shouldn't be "free" to subject other people to vile, cancerous, chemical-laden smoke and fumes in an enclosed room that is a public place of business.

 

[reb]

<Still, I find myself wondering to what we could all eventually become accustomed.>

i sure could find myself becoming accustomed to going (or working in- as i have in the past) a bar or restaurant without having to subject myself to lung cancer.

sometimes.. the government has to set limits for people because they can't do it for themselves. if something gets to the point where it's hurting other people- and it gets bad enough- then the government has to step in and do something.
i'm sure lots of drunk drivers also complained about their 'rights' being taken away when those laws were passed too.

unchecked 'freedom' is one of the world's biggest myths. the fact is.. that people cannot HANDLE too much freedom- they need control and limits just like children.... ESPECIALLY when it comes to addiction. and the cigarette companies have become so powerful and influential for several decades now.. and the health statistics speak for themselves-- i think we have enough evidence now, that the govt (i.e. the people)-- had to step in and do something. as i said, if you want to be addicted, fine. but DON'T make me suffer for your addiction! and it's about damn time.

and for those who say-- 'if you don't like smoking, then do go to bars'... well, WHY should i have to not go to a bar or a club because of other peoples' stupid addictions??? sorry--- but MY right to breathe is more important that YOUR right to be an addict!

 

[txsvicki]

I'd hate to work in a bar nowadays when all this starts. I can imagine dealing some unruly drunks who are angry about not being allowed to smoke and with the drunks who are angry because someone is smoking.

 

[poco]

As I said, I don't smoke, but my hubby does. He does smoke while driving with the window down. We have family in Louisiana and visit frequently. I guess we'll be taking a few extra stops getting there now as we have an 11 year old son.

Just make him lay down in the back seat while your hubby smokes one!

 

[jaxibear]

Our smoking ban passed with something like 87% of the vote. That tells me that smokers are either a huge minority or they did not care enough about the subject to vote. The government did not decide, the people did, and by a huge margin. We also voted by a pretty big margin to tax cigarettes another 80-something cents a pack. That tells me the majority of people in our state do not support the smokers.

I have never gone into establishments that allow smoke and I never will. My husband sometimes has to because of his job and he gets ill afterward. I believe people have every right to smoke if they want, but I don't want to see it or smell it. I have that right because I expressed myself through my vote.

 

[JanetElaine]

:laugh:

and janetelaine--- [ ...quote shortened... ] believe me.. you all had your day. and the rest of us have suffered enough!!!!!

It always cracks me up when people jump to conclusions. I am a non-smoker and have been all of my life.

*chuckles some more and moves on*

I think in Ohio it's also against the law to smoke in a car with children... not sure though because I didn't look into it too much since it really makes no difference to me and hubby. The Ohio non-smoking law became effective as of December 7th.

People here have complained about the choices they had when voting: it was either keep the smoking everywhere (I think) or banish it everywhere. That just doesn't leave business owners much choice, and I don't agree with that.
The law that was voted on should have been more elaborate and have left more room for exceptions (both choices). We usually picked smoke free restaurants when going out to eat, but never were bothered if they weren't.
Bars especially should be allowed to have their own choice. I personally know of both smoke free bars and smoke free restaurants by choice around here, and they are doing well.

Everybody used to have a choice, but smokers don't anymore. Neither do business owners. And the Ohio people who voted for or against the bans didn't have much choice either - they just went with what they saw on the surface, or decided for the lesser of two evils.

The public has not truly spoken, because the laws either way weren't worded well enough. The fact that the Ohio ban passed with only 52%-48% (or 53-47) speaks volumes to that.

 

[jaxibear]

The public has not truly spoken, because the laws either way weren't worded well enough. The fact that the Ohio ban passed with only 52%-48% (or 53-47) speaks volumes to that.

Many votes are that close, (the presidential race for example) but one side has to win. That is how our system works.

I am thrilled that our smoking ban passed, but had it been defeated, I would have accepted it as what the majority of voters wanted. We actually had two smoking bans to vote on, one that allowed business owners to set their own rules. That one was defeated.

 

[Dalilah]

sometimes.. the government has to set limits for people because they can't do it for themselves. if something gets to the point where it's hurting other people- and it gets bad enough- then the government has to step in and do something.

So, when will the government step in and outlaw [morbid] obesity? And, what about stupidity? How about having the government regulate how often you clean your house and yard? Maybe we can get the government to control how much perfume the lady on the subway should be allowed to wear. She makes many folks sick on a daily basis.

These are all issues that [can] affect others. Do you want the government controlling all these things and more?

 

[JanetElaine]

Many votes are that close, (the presidential race for example)

That was also a lesser of two evils choice, no matter where you stood.

 

[Kymistry35]

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.