Smoking Bans??

[dt3]

It should be up to the business owner. If he feels smoking is driving away his business, then he can ban it. If he does, then maybe someone will open a smoking place across the street. Either way, the government should stay out of it. And don't give me the "it's for the public health" argument, if you don't want to eat in a bar that allows smoking, then don't eat at a bar that allows smoking.

 

[RedRyder]

It will come to it if the cradle to gravers have their way :nod:

If parents can't do the right thing themselves, then maybe it's the only way. I'm not saying all smokers are inconsiderate of their children, but those that are truly careless might need a good swift kick in the ass by an authority figure. Hence.... government.... local.

Give a warning or three and then get harsh.

 

[Alien Allen]

If parents can't do the right thing themselves, then maybe it's the only way. I'm not saying all smokers are inconsiderate of their children, but those that are truly careless might need a good swift kick in the ass by an authority figure. Hence.... government.... local.

Give a warning or three and then get harsh.

You voted for Obama and the democrats didn't ya

Where does the shit end.. My wife let the daughter out with a flimsy jacket on sub zero weather. Nothing happened as the car did not break down. But it could have and then she would have had frost bite. You want to legislate that??

We do not have a nation of children dying from 2nd hand smoke. It is all bull shit. IMO

 

[RedRyder]

You voted for Obama and the democrats didn't ya

Where does the shit end.. My wife let the daughter out with a flimsy jacket on sub zero weather. Nothing happened as the car did not break down. But it could have and then she would have had frost bite. You want to legislate that??

We do not have a nation of children dying from 2nd hand smoke. It is all bull shit. IMO

First of all, yes I did vote for Obama. I mean McCain? Puleeze....... :willy_nilly:

Shame on your daughter for not dressing for the weather. Apparently, if she is old enough to drive, she is old enough to dress herself. I'm sure that your wife harped at her, but teens don't give a shit. They need to know just how cold cold is sometimes to learn the lesson.

And please provide statistics showing children NOT dying of 2nd hand smoke. What about asthma? Are you aware that asthma can kill? Smoking can definitely aggravate the condition and quite possibly bring it on in the first place.

 

[Alien Allen]

First of all, yes I did vote for Obama. I mean McCain? Puleeze....... :willy_nilly:

Shame on your daughter for not dressing for the weather. Apparently, if she is old enough to drive, she is old enough to dress herself. I'm sure that your wife harped at her, but teens don't give a shit. They need to know just how cold cold is sometimes to learn the lesson.

And please provide statistics showing children NOT dying of 2nd hand smoke. What about asthma? Are you aware that asthma can kill? Smoking can definitely aggravate the condition and quite possibly bring it on in the first place.

The wife said little and nobody listens to me so I figure she is on her own and can learn the hard way. She would never have been in harms way as she was not going far so it is not like it would have been dangerous for her. It was just an example

As to the 2nd hand smoke studies I have yet to see one that was conclusive. If somebody wants to provide one pertaining to children.

With regard to asthema I believe you will find that the increase in that is related to babies and young children taking tylenol. No baby should get tylenol but tons have

Baby Acetaminophen Tied to Asthma

46% Increased Risk of Asthma With Baby Acetaminophen Use

Baby Acetaminophen Tied to Asthma


.

 

[RedRyder]

Secondhand Smoke | Indoor Environmental Asthma Triggers | Asthma | Indoor Air Quality | Air | US EPA

Secondhand smoke can trigger asthma episodes and increase the severity of attacks. Secondhand smoke is also a risk factor for new cases of asthma in preschool aged children who have not already exhibited asthma symptoms. Scientists believe that secondhand smoke irritates the chronically inflamed bronchial passages of people with asthma. Secondhand smoke is linked to other health problems, including lung cancer, ear infections and other chronic respiratory illnesses, such as bronchitis and pneumonia.

Many of the health effects of secondhand smoke, including asthma, are most clearly seen in children because children are most vulnerable to its effects. Most likely, children's developing bodies make them more susceptible to secondhand smoke's effects and, due to their small size, they breathe more rapidly than adults thereby taking in more secondhand smoke. Children receiving high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those with smoking mothers, run the greatest relative risk of experiencing damaging health effects.

 

[Makedde]

On one hand, I believe that the business owner has the right to enforce whatever rules they please in their establishments, so if they want to allow smoking, they should be allowed to.

At the same time, we have to be concerned about the health risks. Smoking infringes upon the rights of others. If you smoke around someone, they breath in your smoke. Smoking at home isn't so bad, as you are the only person affected, but smoking in a bar or club has the opposite affect. It puts the health of others at risk.

I believe that protecting the health of others far outweighs the 'right' to smoke. People can smoke at home. They don't need to smoke in a bar or club, they just want to.

 

[Haus]

i got to TGI Fridays alot on the weekends. before the Ban in Pa that place was always always crowded on Friday and Sat. Night. where you would have to wait for a good 15-30 mins for a table. now after the Ban you can get in there no problem right away. now that is telling me that Business' are being hurt by this stupid ban. and when a business start to lose money, prices go up to compensate. There was a non smoking section and a Smoking section.

Seems non smokers have more of a right then Smokers. and last i checked theres like a 20.00 tax on a carton of cigs in Pa. and upwards of 30.00 for other states. if it wasnt for smokers then of course there would be taxes added on to everyone. Non smokers and Smokers should have the same rights

and i fucking guarantee that the Govt would never out law Cigs. why?? cause it makes them to much money

Everything is going up except our paychecks now adays.

Govt is more like a business anyway. always trying ways to make as much money as possible

 

[Alien Allen]

Red you should know by now I am not a fan of the EPA

That agency IMO is run by idiots that are bought and paid for by special interest groups.

I say that based on personal dealings with stuff in my work that is regulated by the EPA.

I have seen EPA studies that were deliberately tailored to provide the desired result they wanted. I have seen them make reductions on substances when there was zero evidence back the need to lower the levels. All at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

So anything coming from them is not going to be convincing to me.

 

[Makedde]

^The government should be able to charge as much as they please for cigarrettes, but the extra money they make should go toward the Quit Smoking campaign, to encourage people to quit. That would be the right thing to do, but I doubt the government knows that.

 

[Alien Allen]

Govt is more like a business anyway. always trying ways to make as much money as possible

Govt is not like a business because govt can not go bankrupt.

The only way govt resembles a business would be to compare it to the corrupt people on Wall Street

A giant blood sucking ponzi scheme

 

[Haus]

^The government should be able to charge as much as they please for cigarrettes, but the extra money they make should go toward the Quit Smoking campaign, to encourage people to quit. That would be the right thing to do, but I doubt the government knows that.

your exactly right. they should beable to. Cigarettes make the govt so much money with the tax they charge.

but i believe smokers make the tax lower for the non smokers cause they do smoke. and if someone wants to smoke and pay 5-6 for a pack of cigs then awesome.

 

[Makedde]

your exactly right. they should beable to. Cigarettes make the govt so much money with the tax they charge.

but i believe smokers make the tax lower for the non smokers cause they do smoke. and if someone wants to smoke and pay 5-6 for a pack of cigs then awesome.

There are two things that irritate the hell out of me about smokers.

1. They can walk in off the street when you are waiting in line at the supermarket, and even though you were there first, they get served straight away.

2. People constantly complain about not having enough money, but they are quite happy to spend $50 or more on cigarettes.:eek

Just the other week I watched an old man buy $90 worth of them!

 

[michael4168]

I am a smoker and I happen to agree with the smoking ban. This may seem odd but I think my fellow smokers need to quit complaining.

 

[dt3]

On one hand, I believe that the business owner has the right to enforce whatever rules they please in their establishments, so if they want to allow smoking, they should be allowed to.

At the same time, we have to be concerned about the health risks. Smoking infringes upon the rights of others. If you smoke around someone, they breath in your smoke. Smoking at home isn't so bad, as you are the only person affected, but smoking in a bar or club has the opposite affect. It puts the health of others at risk.

I believe that protecting the health of others far outweighs the 'right' to smoke. People can smoke at home. They don't need to smoke in a bar or club, they just want to.

It doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Non-smokers have the right to not go to a smoking establishment. If they choose to, then the health risks are of their own choosing.

 

[Makedde]

It doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Non-smokers have the right to not go to a smoking establishment. If they choose to, then the health risks are of their own choosing.

You have a point, but what if there are no non smoking establishments for a few miles? Should someone be expected to drive a long distance just to enjoy a meal in relative comfort?

A pub or club should benefit everyone. An enclosed area outside for all smokers would be suffient, while the non smokers can remain inside. Both smokers and non smokers should be able to enjoy a night out if they reach a compromise.

 

[Alien Allen]

You have a point, but what if there are no non smoking establishments for a few miles? Should someone be expected to drive a long distance just to enjoy a meal in relative comfort?

A pub or club should benefit everyone. An enclosed area outside for all smokers would be suffient, while the non smokers can remain inside. Both smokers and non smokers should be able to enjoy a night out if they reach a compromise.

Non smoking areas reduce the contact with the smokers

Who is driving this bus anyway. I do not see a lot of non smokers making protests. This comes from a tiny fringe group of idiots that bend the ears of the morons that govern us. It is a feel good stance for those idiots we elect to deal with. They just love to micro manage shit which they have no clue about as the majority of them have never run a business. You think it is not driven by politics verses science then tell me why a casino with hundreds of people working and gaming in them should be exempt

 

[dt3]

You have a point, but what if there are no non smoking establishments for a few miles? Should someone be expected to drive a long distance just to enjoy a meal in relative comfort?

A pub or club should benefit everyone. An enclosed area outside for all smokers would be suffient, while the non smokers can remain inside. Both smokers and non smokers should be able to enjoy a night out if they reach a compromise.

Again, it's all up to personal choice. The government doesn't need to legislate choices for everyone, you can't please everyone. That's why I say leave it up to the business owners. They know what's good for their business because they're personally invested in it. A pub/club/bar/restaurant/any business isn't there for everyone's benefit, it's there for the owners benefit. If the owner feels that banning smoking is driving away his business, then he should have the ability to allow people to smoke there. The opposite is also true. But in no way should it be the government's decision to tell someone how to run their business.

 

[satinbutterfly]

People should do the right thing on their own, please no more government in our lives. Ack.

Seriously.

I smoke off an on... and while I enjoy going to a restaurant without the haze of ciggy smoke... I really feel it should be up to the business owners... be it restaurant, bar, whatever.

Smoking is banned in Ohio in any place that serves food.

 

[Accountable]

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the Right to be STUPID!!


It's none of the government's damn business whether a private enterprise allows a legal activity to occur on its premises. It's different for government buildings, because everyone owns them and it's better to err for the nonsmoker. But a restauranteur is putting up his own hard-earned cash and deserves the right to make that decision for himself.