It looks like the big Northeast Smoke Out is starting this weekend, with New York City being the first major city in these parts to completely ban smoking in bars/restaurants. Boston will soon follow on May 5 and I just read that New York is enacting a statewide ban this summer. Massachusetts is already talking about a state ban and I'll bet it passes sometime this year. As an on again/off again smoker, I have mixed feelings on this issue. I understand the bans and I really don't have a problem with them in principle. I just question the sketchy manner in how some of these laws are put into place. There's also an issue about all the state revenue that's gained from tobacco. I dunno... maybe I'm just tired of being looked upon as Satan whenever I have the urge to light up.
I wish they made chocolate Advent calendars for WrestleMania, although I'd skip the Mark Henry day.
I'm an ex-smoker. My theory is either that it should be illegal to smoke or not. If it's as bad as the govt. is making it out to be, it should be illegal. If not, property owners should be able to determine whether or not they allow smoking on their property, same as any other legal activity (Jesus, I'm making a property rights argument. They're going to take away my lefty card).
It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
Originally posted by MoeGatesI'm an ex-smoker. My theory is either that it should be illegal to smoke or not. If it's as bad as the govt. is making it out to be, it should be illegal. If not, property owners should be able to determine whether or not they allow smoking on their property, same as any other legal activity.
1. Most do-gooders just want to restrict rights in an effort to make them more comfortable, whatever rights smokers have be damned.
2. There is too much money to be made by Government to justify banning them.
Originally posted by MoeGates(Jesus, I'm making a property rights argument. They're going to take away my lefty card).
Gonna hold you to this...
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. - Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
It has been this way as long as I can remember out here. I don't really like the way that smokers get treated, but it is nice to go into a restaurant/bowling alley/club etc, and not be inundated with cigarette smoke.
The WWE (Caution: May Contain Wrestling-Like Substance) Go Redroom (goredroom.com) ]
Here in Chapel Hill, at least the law goes like this:
You can permit smoking inside your bar/resturaunt if you have two things. One, a seperate section for smokers, and two, a seperate ventillation system for the smoking section.
If they studied their paper money for clues as to what their country was all about, they found, among a lot of other baroque trash, a picture of a truncated pyramid with a radiant eye on top of it, like this:
Not even the President of the United States knew what that was all about. It was as though the country were saying to its citizens, "In nonsense is strength."
Banning smoking in bars was one of the best things that they have done. I can't tell you how much more pleasant it is to NOT reek of smoke when leaving a bar. The law is lightly enforced - no one goes 50 feet from a door before smoking - but it still makes the whole thing 100% better.
Plus - if you are a smoker - it means the chicks that smoke have to come over to where you are every 15 minutes if you hang out on the patio.
Of course, this may suck in a place where it snows.
Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Originally posted by Guru ZimPlus - if you are a smoker - it means the chicks that smoke have to come over to where you are every 15 minutes if you hang out on the patio.
Of course, this may suck in a place where it snows.
In Toronto, they've banned smoking in any establishment that doesn't require one to be 19 (the legal age here) to enter. Basically, we can still smoke in bars, but thats about it. I think that a total ban is in the plans, but I'm not sure when it will be implemented.
Yes, going to have something to eat and having to go outside to smoke in the winter does suck. Braving -40 celcius weather takes all the fun out of smoking.
I don't understand the ban, to tell you the truth. Shouldn't it be left to the property owner to decide? An "all or nothing" law might be more apt. If a restaurant owner allows smoking in his restaurant, he puts a sign on his front door. Likewise, owners who don't want smoking in their establishments would do the same. People could then decide for themselves.
I could care less about smoking in restaurants. I smoke, but I still don't think it's very appetizing to be breathing in some other fool's smoke when I'm trying to enjoy a $40 meal.
The thing that makes me pissy is banning smoking in bars. That's insane. "Hey asshole, I'm busy getting liver cancer over here, put that cigarette out!" That just doesn't fly with me. Bars are, by their nature, unhealthy places. Banning smoking in bars is total overkill.
While I tend to agree with the arguments posted in this thread, I do wonder about one thing. In the United States, and surely in many other Western countries, there are very strict rules about workplace environment and what you as an employer may and may not expose an employee to without certain precautions being taken. In most workplaces, I have to think spending an 8-10 hour shift taking in constant unprotected lungfuls of all of these chemicals (smokefreecapital.org) could lead to some sort of OSHA complaint or something along those lines. Just another side of the issue to consider, since thus far everyone seems to be looking at merely the owner/consumer question. I know this was something that was mentioned a decent amount here in Chicago when the issue came up.
Of course FWIW when Chicago discussed the idea of banning smoking in restaurants, it was the wait staff who were among the most vocal opponents for fear it would cut into their tips.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
Some states do restrict their electors by law to the candidates to which they committed. Incidentally, we should not change this requirement for at least one very good reason. Horace Greeley was the Democratic nominee for President in 1872.