what do you think of the smoking ban

aussie, with you 100% on the perfume/cologne thing. dixiechick, i will be in the suit with you when you file.

Here are some stats.

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/tobacco/en/index.html

read that rotorhead but where does it mention "open air" bars etc??

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070502181454.htm

Yes smoke in outside bars and restaurants have the same effect, Dixie

speedy thanks....and believe me we are not alone....just our goverment blowing smoke up our you know whats???

have friends who would NEVER smoke cigs but the other "stuff" ..... sure they smoke that...

i have been told by non smoking people to quit smoking cig's and go to the natural stuff. lol its all bad for ya. so i would rather be aware of what im doing and not pigging out .

read that rotorhead but where does it mention "open air" bars etc??

It does say.

"Guidelines to Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control state that there is “no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke”. Creating 100% smoke-free environments is the only way to protect people from the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke."

"Separate or ventilated smoking areas do not protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke can spread from a smoking area to a non-smoking area, even if the doors between the two areas are closed and even if ventilation is provided. Only 100% smoke-free environments provide effective protection."

It's funny how people use the word "rights", like smoking is some protected sacred event. There have been many things people have done over the centuries that they thought they had the "right" to do that was at the cost of others suffering. If it wasn't such a big business they would probably not be available any longer, and if smokers weren't addicted they would perhaps choose not to smoke simply to save their own lives, since addiction is an aspect of smoking your really not choosing to smoke the choice to continue smoking was made for you by the cigarette company.
Not a big fan obviously.

We play trivia at Chicken Charlies. We sit under the tent and there is a new team sitting across from us with a couple that smokes. one person on our team has physical problems and absolutely cannot be around the second hand smoke. On 2 occasions recently she left rather than be subjected to the smoke. We asked the owner if he would at least make an announcement when the place is packed on Tuesday nights requesting that smokers take it outside and he said no -- it's allowed and its pretty much tough if you don't like it.

I don't really want a law either. But if people can't look around and decide not to smoke out respect for others, well then make a law.

As far as outside is concerned, anything that's under cover really does hold the smoke.

aussie, I agree with you. Perfume gives me a headache, especially at the airports, they let people spray it all over, then l have to sit next to them on a plane smelling that stinky stuff. I hate that.

Sheeple, smoking is not at this time illegal. It may offend some people but it is not illegal. Neither is flying a small green helicopter. It may offend some people but it is not illegal. Shall we ban all things that offend some people? Be careful what you ask for.

Rotor, Edward, this isn't about the rights of smokers vs non-smokers. It's about the rights of property owners. If I own a bar I should be the one who determines if I am going to allow smoking there or not. I'd favor a ban on smoking on public land well before a ban on smoking in privately owned businesses. The smoking bans are an assault on private property itself which is why I cannot morally be in favor of it if I practically like the outcome.

Sean

Sheeple, smoking is not at this time illegal. It may offend some people but it is not illegal. Neither is flying a small green helicopter. It may offend some people but it is not illegal. Shall we ban all things that offend some people? Be careful what you ask for.

So this goes from a discussion on the smoking bill before the senate to a personal attack on me? Thank You.

Roto, not attacking you at all. You are very vocal and in your face about your own personal beliefs never considering who you may offend or attack. I would never ever do that to anyone. I think everyone is entilted to their opinions and beliefs. I am the last one to attack someone or call them stupid or unintelligent because they believe in God for example. You hate smoking and you have the right to say so. If you attack people who think or believe differently than you do that just makes you a not so nice person or rude if you will. I just made a comparison. I hate for a helicopter to fly low over me and my grandchildren while laying on the beach. Acorrding to you that is perfectly legal so my option is to take my grandchildren and go elsewhere because the person flying the helicopter doesn't care how I feel and as long as he or she is not breaking the law it is my tough luck. I feel that my life is in danger. Now how is that different from someone being rude and smoking in an area that you are in? You can say to that person that you believe that they are putting your life in danger but if they are rude and inconsiderate they can just tell you that what they are doing is not against the law and you need to just deal with it. No attacks from me, just a comment on my opinions.

Rotor, Edward, this isn't about the rights of smokers vs non-smokers. It's about the rights of property owners. If I own a bar I should be the one who determines if I am going to allow smoking there or not. I'd favor a ban on smoking on public land well before a ban on smoking in privately owned businesses. The smoking bans are an assault on private property itself which is why I cannot morally be in favor of it if I practically like the outcome.

Sean

Property rights have long ago been eroded. If you are a restaurant owner you do not have a right to exclude people that you don't like. For instance you are not allowed to put up a sign that says "No Asians Allowed". You are not even allowed to have a private business that does not provide access to handicapped persons according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. How is prohibiting smoking more restrictive than the other rules that business owners must tolerate.

Why should smoking be allowed in public places when over 400,000 Americans a year die from smoking related illnesses. Should the business owners who allow their customers to be exposed to second hand smoke be held accountable? I don't think that smoking should be banned from public places, I think that tobacco should be made illegal just like marijuana is because it causes far more harm to the public than marijuana. Shouldn't our drug laws make sense? Why have one drug which is extremely harmful and legal and another drug which is relatively harmless and illegal? Our children are supposed to understand the difference?

To answer your question, I'm against all those other restrictions on Private Property as well 🙂 I never understood why people wanted to patronize establishments that didn't want them. Of course there's the lunch counter thing but there was also the "No Irish allwed" signs in the 20th century as well which my ancestor's were affected by. I really wish people could still post these signs so I knew they were racist and would be able to not patronize their business!

And I'm also pro drug legalization so I can't morally agree to making cigarettes illegal either.

But if we want to continue to take away the rights of people lets just go all the way and ban drinking in bars. Let's ban whatever it is that 51% of the people don't like. That's not the country I want to live in.

Sean

Tami,
Please post the stats on health issues related to helicopters flying near you. I posted the information about the health effects of second hand smoke. The two are not the same at all. It was a personal attack, You singled out a "little green helicopter". You made it a very personal attack.
John

If smoking is banned in open air bars, then how will they keep the mosquitoes away?

There are a lot of smokers on StX. They're gonna be pissed.

But I don't like coming home smelling like them.

Many would like to try to spin smoking as a individual rights issue. It is not. It is a public health issue of the worst kind. Not only does smoking adversely affect the smoker, it adversely affects everyone around the smoker.

I see few people around advocating that we reintroduce DDT or Asbestos. They were perfectly good products which accomplished their designed goals. They were banned because of the health risks associated with their use. Smoking is no different.

Tami, see if you can find some lead-based paint to use on your child's bedroom.

As soon as they develop smokeless, harmless tobacco I will support it.

DixieChick,
Get the picture now?:D

LoL John. I am sure that there are no stats on health issues related to little green helicopters flying around people. It is just my own fear that death is close by when you fly low over my head. I don't know you and wether or not you follow the law. I don't even care. I just pack it up and leave. You don't care just as long as you get to do what you want. Who cares how you make me feel. Right. I am terribly sorry if you feel attacked. I don't attack people. I was just comparing how two legal activities can adversely affect others and if people were more considerate of others we would all be much happier. I personally think that if our government is able to bann smoking then smoking should be illegal. They won't do that though. They make way too much money off of the addiction. Same with alcohol.

I won't respond to YOUR attack telling me to paint my childs bedroom with lead based paint. I will offer you my childs old left over pacifiers to soothe you whenever "anyone make a comment or voices an opinion that differs from your own" as you are unable to control your own temper tantrums and personal attacks. Crybaby.

That's all I have to say.

Tami, let me see if I understand this. You have no statistics indicating that helicopters pose a health risk to you. However since you don't like my helicopter you decide to single me out from all of the other posters on here who are also against smoking and use my helicopter as an example of something that you don't like. And since you don't like the helicopter we should all stop bitching about not liking smoking and just accept it. And that's not a personal attack on me, just your opinion about little green helicopters in general.

Until you posted I thought we we having an intellectual discussion about the ban on smoking and individual rights, now it's about what makes you feel good or not. Why is the helicopter an issue if not for you attacking me because my opinion on the smoking ban differs from yours.

I am sorry that you are not capable of participating in intellectual discussions and need to resort to personal attacks. Tobacco is a public health issue just like DDT, Asbestos and lead-based paint used near small children.

How is me suggesting that you paint your childs bedroom with lead based paint any different than you suggesting that we continue to let people smoke in public places? Do you not believe all of the studies that point out the danger of smoking not only to the smoker but to the people around them? Do you still feel that more study is needed on the topic before we make a decision? Or do you simply not care?

Sean, It's all about rights and the proper balance of rights among persons with different views.

At our university in post-Soviet space, we have a strict no-smoking policy that is in line with national law. I entered one office and found two men smoking. I told them they were breaking the law and University regulations. One said, "This violates my human rights"!

yes it is still there in cores d and alanta has 3 smoking rooms