Smoking

[Gastrick]

I understand that people who do not smoke don't want to smell other peoples smoke (I'm a non-smoker) but laws that take away peoples personal rights rub me the wrong way and are dangerous in my opinion. I think it's a slippery slope and should be left up to individual establishments. I'm not in favor of these personal restriction laws. Lets concentrate on actual crime and worry about that instead of wasting resourses.

 

[Sam_Fear]

As a non smoker, I have to say your right to smoke ends at the end of your nose and my rights to not smell your smoke begins at my nose. ...

....Smoking is a dirty, unhealthy, and expensive practice. Why should the majority of us who choose not to inhale known cancer causing agents be forced to endure it because others are smokers?....

Don

Sam_Fear: Ex-smoker.

Your rights to not be affected by my smoke start at your nose. Or your property. My right to stink should end at my property.

Yes, smoking is a dirty, unhealthy, and expensive practice - so is drag racing.

If you are 'forced' to endure it in a public building, then I agree, somethings wrong. If it's a personal business, like a bar, it should be that owners right to choose if it's a non-smoking bar. It is the individuals right to choose not to go to that bar.

Freedom

 

[Bonehead]

I am with you guys.... we should be able to smoke what ever we want, whereever we want. It is a free country.

Wait... this is harder than it sounds.

(Bonehead....Non-smoker)

 

[cantwell.colton]

I was a heavy smoker for over 30 years and the non smoking laws being introduces actually helped me quit.
One thing no-one seems to think about is the staff at the businesses that you would let choose if they allow smoking or not,they wouldn't be given that choice.
Don't ever think that smoking and DUI are similar..one's illegal and for a little while longer one isn't.

dont get me wrong - im not saying the laws are all bad (i have no problem not smoking in restaurants, or on planes or airports or any other place where i feel my smoking could be justly considered a nuisance or bothersome to others - but in CA they were trying to make it illegal to smoke in your own backyard bc the smoke can linger across the fence give me a break --

- AND those employees CHOOSE where they work ___ dont want to be in a smoke filled environment, dont work in a bar? its that simple - thats like complaining the sun hurts your eyes but refusing to put on a hat ? -- but the people frequenting the same place dont get any choice, nor do the business OWNER? Thats not democracy, its totalitarianism -- how many of the people against smoking in public places even went to casinos or bars on a regular basis .. had they limited the voting to individuals it would actually have an impact on, id say the results would be quite different - and who better to know the clientele than the owners of the businesses ??

sorry for the ranting but the preservation of individual rights (or what we have left) is something im quite passionate about...

 

[Willowbilly3]

I was a heavy smoker for over 30 years and the non smoking laws being introduces actually helped me quit.
One thing no-one seems to think about is the staff at the businesses that you would let choose if they allow smoking or not,they wouldn't be given that choice.
Don't ever think that smoking and DUI are similar..one's illegal and for a little while longer one isn't.

Uhm, the staff has a choice of whether to work in a smoking establishment or not don't they? I mean when you take the job you know and can you can choose.
I personally think smoking is a stinking disgusting habit too but if you have never smoked, you don't know that tobacco is one of the most addicting drugs there is. Ask any smoker if they would like to quit and most will say they do.
Our government subsidizes the tobacco farmers and makes huge profits from taxes. If there wasn't taxes a pack of smokes would cost about a fourth of what they cost now. And what about the huge settlement the big tobacco companies had to pay a few years back, what did your state do with their cut? Most states spent a little money on non smoking ads for a while but the lions share went into their general funds, not into programs to help smokers (who indirectly created all that revenue). So our government promotes smoking and profits from it on one hand and then treats smokers like third class citizens on the other. It isn't right. How about using ALL the money from tobacco taxes to aid smokers in quitting and providing them with health care for smoking related issues. Then see how the non smokers feel when they have to pick up the tax load. Like I said, it's a very complicated issue.
One other tidbit of info. I read once that a nonsmoker with a sedentary lifestyle has higher risk of heart disease than an active smoker. Maybe we need to start taxing people more for being fat.
A quick search for how states use their revenues shows that smoking is on the decline and states are concerned with the diminishing revenue. How do they make up for it? You guessed it, raise the cigarette tax. Where will that end? With a few hopelessly addicted souls paying $100 a pack?

 

[darkk]

uhh...Mister Big Brother sir! Can I come out and play?

 

[donsrods]

I repeat........all the Government did was put the idea on the ballot. 65% of your neighbors did the American thing and went out and voted their wishes. As far as I know, that is how it has worked in most, if not all, of the States where this has become law. I know we somehow think that the Government is this totally seperate little entity removed from us regular guys, but in most cases we is them.

At one time I worked for West Marine and it is a totally non smoking company........they will not hire a smoker. It was a pleasure to work there because of not having to go into the break room and suck up other peoples smoke, or having the smokers taking a break every hour to go outside and have one. (it's always rubbed us non smokers the wrong way that smokers take a bunch of breaks during the day, but we only get two 15 minute ones)

We would get applicants for a job and printed in bold letters across the top of the application was the fact West did not hire smokers. Some people ranted about it being "illegal" to discriminate and stuff like that, but West got better insurance rates because of that stand and were totally within their rights to decide who they would hire.

Bottom line, none of us here on either side of this argument will concede to the other side, but from experience I can tell you the bad things that are predicted do not happen. Restaurants still serve food, bars still serve drinks, and life goes on.

Don

 

[hotrod preacher]

smoking is a health risk issue-it causes problems for not only the smoker but also those around them and the loss they may leave...drinking alcohol is also a health risk issue not only for the drinker but for those around them and the loss they may leave or the family of 5 they crash into after leaving a bar....

personally i think drinking has an "accepted image" whereas smoking has now become an "unaccepted image"....

BOTH HAVE RISKS NO ONE CAN ARGUE THAT POINT......





HRP presently a non smoker but i do occasionally have smoke come out my ears from temper tantrums.....

 

[Willowbilly3]

Don, you are correct in that the voters have spoken, and that is the bottom line. I do think they would have voted a smoking ban in regardless of how it was drafted, unless it had something tied to it like a state income tax to make up for the lost revenues. And you are also correct that this too will pass and things will adjust. Some casinos will close, a few jobs will be lost and those single mom barhops may have to go back on public assistance. We really don't need gambling either. Deadwood can go back to being a struggling little tourist trap town like most of the other historic towns in the Black Hills. The state will adjust, more sales tax and personal property tax to make up the lost revenues. It will all wash out, but I have to wonder what's the next freedom we can convince the voters is best to give up.
Also this wasn't a direct representation. Our state has less than 20% of the voters who smoke but the casinos have over 50% of employees and customers who do, customers from other states that used to come here and spend money. I would feel better if the vote was left up to the citys.

 

[Sam_Fear]

...(it's always rubbed us non smokers the wrong way that smokers take a bunch of breaks during the day, but we only get two 15 minute ones)...

Don

Yeah - that one always got me too?! Even when I was the smoker....

Just because a majority agree with it, doesn't make it right - history reflects that well. What the government didn't do is insure the ban is Constitutional - that is where I believe there is failure. For me this argument isn't just about smoke, it's about a loss of someone's freedom because of popular opinion.

My city has a leaf burning ban, and Iowa is struggling with the problem of large hog confinement farms - both are the same idea as smoking. Where do your rights end and mine begin?

Just as West Marine had the right to not hire smokers, another business should have the right to have smokers smoking and bad music on the shop radio. Now if I can hear that radio on my property, then there is a problem....

Enjoying the argument.

 

[cantwell.colton]

still think its horse manure -
i can personally not car less if im not allowed
to smoke inside anywhere -

but it really IS as bad as it gets as far as us letting go
of personal freedoms that the govt. has no business doing
-- when a bill of that manner comes up -it should immediately
be shot down - shouldnt even be a question --- Id put my money
that less than 50% of Americans do not own hot rods - doesnt
mean they should be outlawed - but what youre saying is IT WOULD
BE FAIR to say that if they were outlawed bc the majority spoke?

thats along the same lines (a stretch) of taking 10 people - 6 of which can be
saved if they just kill 4 of them and the 6 justifying murder of the other
four because they took a vote and majority ruled???
Democracy at Best right there

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Democracy doesnt work until people can vote responsibly - sorry.

 

[King Herald]

.......Funny story. She watched my Son Don's cat for a few days when he was on vacation one time. He stopped over the shop after picking up the cat and said to me "Smell Sassy." The cat reaked of smoke! We thought it was funny, but I bet the cat's lungs didn't.

Don

I bought my young daughter some plasticised table mats off Ebay, with cartoon characters on, but when they arrived they stank so badly of cigarette smoke that my wife would not let them in the house!

I hate going out to clubs and bars and coming home with red rimmed eyes and stinking clothes.

People say "Oh, you can choose not to go there". So, if I threw my drink around in the bar and wetted other people, made them smell of beer, made their eyes sting, would they accept that? Would they feel it was acceptable? Would they simply choose to go to other bars so they didn't get wet?

No, they wouldn't. They'd play merry hell about it.

Well, that is the way I feel about smoking. Why should I leave a place to avoid some elses foul emissions and habits?

 

[IAM-LDS-2]

Don here is how I handled the smokers gettin more time to smoke . I only worked inside for short time while waiting for a truck to drive . I picked the person who went out side to smoke the most .Then when ever she went out side I went with her and stood on the loading dock till she finished . She was the office manager so who was she gonna report me to worked for me .

 

[BigIrish]

If alcohol and tobacco were invented tomorrow (as opposed to forever ago), they both would be outlawed as as controlled substances and you would probably get arrested for a beer as quickly as you can for a joint.

I am not a smoker, and do appreciate the smoking ban in bars and restaurants - but people have to be allowed to have their vices. When/if cigarettes get outlawed entirely or taxed so outrageously that they are unobtainable, people are just going to turn to something else that may be worse.

People need to be allowed their vices.

In Houston, you can't smoke inside bars anymore, but you can outside on the patio. I think thats a decent compromise.

 

[robertbandit]

Freedom

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE my 2 cents [cl[cl[cl[cl

 

[cantwell.colton]

People say "Oh, you can choose not to go there". So, if I threw my drink around in the bar and wetted other people, made them smell of beer, made their eyes sting, would they accept that? Would they feel it was acceptable? Would they simply choose to go to other bars so they didn't get wet?

If i knew - without a doubt - that going to that bar meant getting beer thrown on me and if thats what happens at that bar every moment of every night - then yea - unless i wanted beer thrown on me - which actually does happen regularly at some bars or whatever thrown on me - and you know what? the people that go there KNOW thats what theyre getting into and theres no problems --

you going to a smoking bar and then complaining about smoke is like sitting in the WET SECTION at seaworld and complaining you got wet...

like i said its not about the law - but say for instance - in Most places in texas its illegal to smoke in bars as well - and as mentioned it IS legal to have a patio on which smokers Can smoke - but if a business owner was not so lucky to have an establishment with a pre-existing patio they either have to have one built - or make patrons step outside for a cigarette -- neither of which are very good options -- its also illegal to have any alcoholic beverage outside of the establishment- just all a bunch of crap -

if you want to give up freedoms you dont enjoy simply bc you dont approve or take part in it - thats fine - but just remember eventually one will be removed you DO enjoy (for instance making hot rods illegal or putting super high taxes and driving restrictions on them)_


and when that happens - I hope you remember conversations like this -- and how YOU DEFENDED THE REVOCATION OF INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS - and keep that in mind --- if you think this is far from ever happening THINK AGAIN -- think about laws about YOUR property and what you can and cant do on property you own, think about laws regarding engine swaps, titling, and emissions... its already and progress guys.

 

[brew]

What it comes down to gentlemen is the simple fact that lawmakers refuse to see that the problem is not in making new laws, but enforcing the laws we have. I am a non-smoker and I don’t like smoking, but I do feel it should be up to the business owner to make the choice. With that being said the main support the lawmakers have to pass the clean air act laws is from the non-smoking people that work at these facilities. The laws are not passed for the patrons of the bars or any establishment but for the people that work in the smoke filled air. Again it can be said that they have the choice to work there, but in today’s economy do they really? If you want to talk about lawmaking getting out of hand look to California’s new law making trans fat illegal. What’s next the ban on fat or ugly people in public because they bother other people? If that happens ill never get out of my house LOL. I do believe we what have to worry about is our vehicles being banned or outlawed for several reasons: noise pollution, air pollution, gas consumption, or modern federal safety guidelines.

 

[Sniper]

Lots of good points on both sides of the fence, but everyone is citing their rights as it suits them...a no win situation. For every point, there is a counter point raised, equal in strength and validity. Like a lot of instances, there is going to have to be some give and take, it's not a cut and dried subject. Freedoms, privileges or rights, no one wants to lose what's in their corner, but to be totally ridgid won't work either. What's the answer? Don't know. But as we evolve, things and situations change. But in the future, it will be the same argument, debate, discussion or what ever you want to call it, just a different subject. It won't stop...but where will it end?

 

[donsrods]

Maybe I am different, but I don't see our Government as being this big, two headed monster that is out to put us all in a cage. I think a lot of the laws make sense, such as restrictions on prescription narcotics, physicians and professional people having to be licensed, parents having to pay child support, quality of the food we buy being controlled, etc.

Even things like cameras at strategic locations don't scare me, although some see them as being evasive. The world today isn't 1950 any more, where people were mostly nice and crime was low. Today we have to educate our kids not to trust even neighbors, and just walking to your car in a parking lot is sometimes dangerous.

Yes, some laws don't make sense, and lawmakers do go overboard sometimes. But we are the reason most laws are passed. If we just used common sense, didn't abuse things, and didn't do criminal acts, laws wouldn't be as necessary as they are.

Don

 

[EnglishBob]

- AND those employees CHOOSE where they work ___ dont want to be in a smoke filled environment, dont work in a bar? its that simple -
sorry for the ranting but the preservation of individual rights (or what we have left) is something im quite passionate about...

Having worked in bars as a kid struggling through school I can say in my opinion most people working there have little choice.This economy makes it even worse.
Chat with the majority of bar tenders and you'll see they are second jobs because they need the money.
Can't see too many jobs available part time for some people with little or no education or others that can only work 'off' hours.
I'm right behind rights for people especially smokers but there are other people involved too.