Smoking Ban Feelings?

[semperfi211]

 

[Smokepole]

AAAAAMEN BROTHER !! !! !! !! !! WOW ! ! ! ! ! !

Couldn't have said it better. Rep inbound.

 

[sepe]

What you think you look like smoking

What you really look like

Do you really want to be THAT guy?

Then again, this little kid is pretty cool

Here is a freebie guys, this one is for all the crowd wanting to smoke whenever where ever.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

That is perfectly acceptable but a business owner would most likely prefer to cater to the majority, you know...so they could possibly enjoy more sales. For the record, there are several places that I won't go because employees and customers chain smoke. Absolutely disgusting while you're trying to enjoy a meal.

The thing is, most businesses that will attract more customers by being a non-smoking establishment - already are.

Many of the businesses that allow smoking, do so as a business decision. Bars, restaurants that cater to adult crowds... very few places still permit smoking, and you can bet that by this point in time they have given their decision some thought.

The idea that forcing businesses to allow smoking will boost their sales has proven incorrect time and time again.... we watched it have a significant negative impact here in Frankin just a few years back, after non-smokers made the same argument.

At the end of the day, non-smokers did not take the place of regular daily bar patrons.... Yes, it may have attracted another customer for a night here and there - but their business did not come anywhere close to making up for the loss of regular patrons.

It is easy for someone to point at a business they do not frequent because they allow smoking and say "if they banned smoking, I would go there - and that would bring them more business".... but what is less obvious are the amount of people that already do frequent that establishment that would no longer do so if the policy was reversed.

As a general rule, sound business decisions do not have to be forced, and forced business decisions are not sound.

 

[todkapuz]

I have yet meet anyone who is addicted to second hand smoke,

*raises hand* When I was a teenager, my mother smoked 2 packs a day in the house. I didn't even smell the smell of the cigarettes, or when anyone else smoked for that matter. When i moved for college, the first few days, I felt the classic symptoms of withdrawal (anxiety, mood issues, etc), but I passed it off as just the move and stresses of going to college... but as i worked for the fire department still, I came home every weekend, and was exposed to it again and again, and I would feel calmer and relaxed. I'd go back and I'd go through the same routine again... it wasn't until I got my first job outside of the FD after my Bachelors degree, and stayed away from home for more than a few months. Had the same weird anxiety and mood issues. But after a month or so it was fine. Then when I visited my mother the first time after that, the smell of smoke in the house made me gag. It was everywhere, I even smelled it on my clothes when I came home (something I had never been able to do, but my friends used to pester me about it, as though I smoked). Now with the new formulations that make the cigarette less likely to start a fire, its even worse.

Should be a warning on every vehicle thats says carbon monoxide, the silent killer.

Studies have sown the CO a cigarette is more per volume than a modern catalytic converted car. However, most non-california emissions motorcycles will have significantly higher co per volume. Now it is arguable that because cars generate more emissions in general, the total co is higher, but equally the cigarette is being directly inhaled where-as the car is indirect through dilution. Its all a wash in the end really.

I don't smoke and don't like to be in places where there is a lot of smoke. That said I still wonder where anyone gets the right to say that people in this country can't us a legal product in a public place.

But I fully agree here... if the product is deemed safe enough to be legal in the united states, what reason is there to restrict it's use on a government level?

Employees shouldn't have to make the choice to work in it or not

Interestingly I am more surprised, as my occupation is environmental health and safety, that more workers haven't filed worker compensation claims and/or suits against employers for exposure to some of the chemicals in the cigarettes. I'm not sure if employees are unaware of such OSHA regulations in workplaces. I have to say, I have never done air sampling in a bar to see if it exceeds any of the OSHA Standards or NIOSH recommended levels.



Anyhow...

In reality I have to say I am conflicted. I generally believe that people should be free to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on other people's lives or liberties / harming them. I have a general distaste for a lot of the laws, rules, regulations that are imposed on us 'for our protection' (and yes I go to work every day and tell people what they can and cant do under the laws, rules, and regulations that have been forced on us). But people often do not, can not, or choose not to see the impacts their expression of their rights and liberties have on other people, and that is what causes these laws to be written.

I really personally would rather leave it up to the property owner to make the call on if they feel their clients would enjoy it or not enjoy it, and not require a law to make it so. I know I vote with my wallet on nonsmoking establishments (or ones where there is good ventilation design). As long as smoking is legal, I dont see why a govt should regulate it otherwise.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm seriously scratching my head how so many people believe that a private business, owned by a private person, should be forced to abide by a govt's ban of a legal activity. Absolutely baffled.

It's a very slippery slope. If people didn't have the choice to go there or not, then it's a non-issue. How long before we're told that we can't do something in our own home? If I throw a neighborhood BBQ every weekend, am I going to have to worry about the city shutting me down because some of the neighbors that attend don't like that others smoke? It's the exact same logic.

One thing I have learned about this site, it's that many persons here don't understand what freedom and liberty actually mean. For many, this place is literally a "as long as you don't take my gun" place (and rarely anything else). Well people, if you continue to let stuff like this get past you, your guns will eventually fall in the line of sight. You can cling the the 2nd Amendment all you want, but after the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th have all fallen on the wayside, good luck trying to keep your apparently "precious" 2nd Amendment.

 

[Pocketman]

My mother, step-mother and mother-in-law all died from smoking related illnesses. My son had chronic respiratory issues associated from being around the above named individuals. There seems to be little disagreement that smoking is not a healthy practice.

I have personally never smoked and avoid places where smoking occurs. From a personal perspective smoking bans make it much easier choosing a restaurant. I believe the governmment has the right, if not the obligation, to prevent smoking in public areas*. Privately owned businesses are not "public." While this smoking ban is probably in everyone's best health interests, it is certainly a restriction on freedom.

EDIT: *Public, i.e. government owned, facilities.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Baaaaaa. Baaaaaa. Baaaaaa.

 

[$mooth]

This is a hard one for me to defend. Normally, I'm all for private property rights and I think i am here too. But I think smoking should be banned on public land. Let the restaurant/bar decide who they want (i hope they decide against it though), but on the street you shouldn't be smoking. It's akin to peeing on my leg. (You're right to swing your fist stops at my face).

I think smoking should be outlawed altogether. I know you won;t agree with me so here is my opinion. I go into a bar and everyone is smoking and I'm not. So now I go home smelling like a chimney. I've talked to several restaurant owners. I'm told the smokers usually buy drinks after a meal while smoking, there spending more money on drinks.
2nd, If you going to smoke, then get years older and have a cancer of some kind or just something wrong with you that smoking has created, you should have enough health insurance to cover it. If you don't have any insurance, then you should not seek medical attention. It's not fair for me to continually pay for your medical bills with my tax money when you were told that smoking could injure you.

I've actually seen a couple studies that show smokers are less of a burden on the health system than non-smokers. the reasoning is that smokers die off quicker, so you don't have to pay for 20+ years of care and all the other expenses that come with old age.

 

[RockofStrength]

I think that the government has the right to ban smoking on public land (a courthouse, heck even a national forest) though I firmly believe it should be a state level decision in that case.

Banning smoking on private property, business or otherwise, infringes upon my right to run my business as I see fit. I don't care if secondhand smoke is addictive or dangerous, it is my property and if my patrons are willing to endure the danger then so be it.

I don't smoke, and I find cigarette smoke highly unpleasant and it irritates every airway I possess within minutes. Yet that doesn't give me the right to inform a business that they are no longer permitted to allow customers to use a legal substance.

 

[$mooth]

When I first moved to Indy, I thought there was a restriction on smoking near doorways or vertical structures or something like that. Did I just make that up or is there something about that?

 

[ATOMonkey]

It's idiotic. Even if you make it for "only private clubs" people will still get around it.

You know how?

They'll sell you a $1 membership with your drink or meal or game or whatever. Ta-da~!!! You're now a member of a private club and can effectively skirt the law.

You can't stop someone from doing something just by passing a law.

So you outlaw smoking. How many cops are you going to hire to enforce this? How many clerks are needed to process all the tickets? What if everyone goes to court over their smoking ticket?

Seriously?

Prohibition has never ended well. You'd think people would be smarter than this after 200 years of trying to tell people how to live.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm a non-smoker. In fact in as little as 3 minutes of exposure to second hand smoke I can't breathe and go into an asthma-like seizure.

I [strike]hate[/strike] despise anti-smoking laws slightly less than the nannies that think society needs them. It's other people's choice what to do with their private property, including their body. It's my choice to decise whom to associate with and where to assemble.I don't need the government to save me. I stay away from places that could kill or harm me.

 

[eldirector]

When I first moved to Indy, I thought there was a restriction on smoking near doorways or vertical structures or something like that. Did I just make that up or is there something about that?

I don't think it was an actual ordinance. Many businesses do restrict smoking near the entrance, though. My office park has designated smoking areas away from the main entrance, so the rest of us don't have to "run the gauntlet" just to get to work.

 

[ultraspec]

I hope this passes as its damn nice to be able to go into a restaurant or bar without having to suffer from other people making the choice to smoke.

 

[UncleMike]

I'm seriously scratching my head how so many people believe that a private business, owned by a private person, should be forced to abide by a govt's ban of a legal activity. Absolutely baffled.

It's a very slippery slope. If people didn't have the choice to go there or not, then it's a non-issue. How long before we're told that we can't do something in our own home? If I throw a neighborhood BBQ every weekend, am I going to have to worry about the city shutting me down because some of the neighbors that attend don't like that others smoke? It's the exact same logic.

One thing I have learned about this site, it's that many persons here don't understand what freedom and liberty actually mean. For many, this place is literally a "as long as you don't take my gun" place (and rarely anything else). Well people, if you continue to let stuff like this get past you, your guns will eventually fall in the line of sight. You can cling the the 2nd Amendment all you want, but after the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th have all fallen on the wayside, good luck trying to keep your apparently "precious" 2nd Amendment.

Yup!!!
I quit smoking after forty seven years.
I quit for me and my family!!!
NOT because other people didn't like it.
The very people who condone the Government restricting/limiting/banning smoking are the ones who go nuclear when the EXACT SAME reasoning is applied to firearms.
That reasoning??
"It costs the Taxpayers money." (Just like guns)
"It's dangerous" (Just like guns.)
"It can kill children". (Just like guns)
"I might become an innocent victim of it." (Just like guns)
I could add at least a half dozen more of the idiot anti gun propaganda sound bytes that are being successfully used to eliminate smoking and vilify smokers.
Wake up people!!!
You can't have it both ways!!
Either we have freedoms or we don't!!

Personally I wouldn't be upset if they banned it.
BUT!!
Don't come crying if/when the "Do gooders", and "I'll save you from yourself" crowd turn their sights on firearms.
Consider the tobacco fight as their proving ground/test run to see if they can demonize something out of existence.

OK
Rant off.....

 

[Smokepole]

This is a hard one for me to defend. Normally, I'm all for private property rights and I think i am here too. But I think smoking should be banned on public land. Let the restaurant/bar decide who they want (i hope they decide against it though), but on the street you shouldn't be smoking. It's akin to peeing on my leg. (You're right to swing your fist stops at my face).

Originally Posted by yotewacker

I've actually seen a couple studies that show smokers are less of a burden on the health system than non-smokers. the reasoning is that smokers die off quicker, so you don't have to pay for 20+ years of care and all the other expenses that come with old age.

I will agree ONLY where publicly owned and/or managed property is concerned. The Gov't is tasked with the management of same and is entitled to make the rules. As are the owners/managers of privately owned property/establishments. There the Gov't has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to dictate to whom the property/establishment owner may cater to. How soon before the Gov't starts telling you where you may or may not go or who you may or may not cater to (Oops, they already do).

There have already been a couple of communities in the country that have tried to ban all smoking in the community, including in one's own home. Once the anti's have gotten smoking in ALL businesses and open spaces everywhere, the next step WILL be an individuals home. Believe me they will. History bears me out.

 

[radonc73]

The nonsmoking section of a restruant is like sitting in the non peeing section of the hottub you make you own choice

 

[Smokepole]

The nonsmoking section of a restruant is like sitting in the non peeing section of the hottub you make you own choice

Cuuuute!!!

 

[Expat]

The nonsmoking section of a restruant is like sitting in the non peeing section of the hottub you make you own choice

So I don't go sit in hot tubs that belong to other people and then ***** because they pee in it.