While i don’t agree with banning cigarettes at all, i think the second paragraph you quoted is a great example of the real rationale guiding some lobby groups - we’d prefer to keep getting funds for opposing something, rather than actually fixing the problem completely. But that’s a whole new pit rant right there.
I like their logic, “The ban won’t work because no one’s tried it yet!”
(Actually, we have, back in the 1920’s, with a little thing called alcohol. Didn’t work then either, but at least the gov’t had the good sense the repeal the law later.)
Smokers are being forced out of restaurants? What’s to keep them from simply not smoking while they’re inside?
You should be able to get in, get served, eat and get out in a couple of hours. If you can’t go a couple of hours without smoking . . . I dunno. That’s just sad.
Even when I smoked I could handle movies, flights, libraries, etc.
Bars are different. Bars are where I started smoking again, after quitting the first time. Bars and smoking just go together, and I think bars should continue to allow smoking, unless they’re not really a bar but a restaurant that happens to serve liquor.
I don’t like that the government had to get involved but let’s face it, if we depended on people’s good grace and common sense to handle the smoking problem, your kid’s kindergarten teacher would be lighting up during class and there’d be ashtrays in the operating room (and butts where your spleen used to be).
AuntiePam,
I think that you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head. If the government does not approve of smoking in governmentally funded places (and it does not) then you will not have to worry about little Johnny or Suzy’s kindergarden teacher lighting up. This also holds with the surgeon in your argument. If you go for a consultation with a private surgeon and he smokes through the session, then it is your perogative to find another surgeon.
The problem is that when the government involves itself in private business everyone will eventually lose freedom. When you allow the government to outlaw the things that you dislike, you also potentially allow the government to outlaw things that you approve of.
Why should they? They’re not doing anything illegal and the owner of the business doesn’t have a problem with it. If the owner did, they can ban it from their property.
You and I have a decision to make. I have no problem enjoying a meal while sitting in the nonsmoking section of a restaurant. If you find that’s not good enough, I have no problem with you deciding to spend your money elsewhere. What I have a problem with is someone else deciding what my tolerance level for cigarette smoke is. I’m quite capable of figuring that out myself, thank you very much. And I assume you are quite capable of deciding for yourself.
>> Why should they? They’re not doing anything illegal and the owner of the business doesn’t have a problem with it
That’s the same circular argument as “drugs are bad because they’re illegal”.
Well, as soon as smoking in restaurants is illegal then, well, it’s illegal. which means it’s no longer leagl, if you follow me. Which means you can’t do it legally and your argument falls apart.
The fact that it is legal to do something in one place does not mean it has to be legal everywhere. Shooting a gun is legal, but not everywhere. Peeing is legal, but not everywhere. Drinking alcohol is legal, but not everywhere. Driving a car is legal, but not eeverywhere. Can you see how smoking could be declared illegal in some places? It already is illegal to smoke in some places!
Well, sailor, my point is that smoking should not be illegal on private property.
No one is forcing anyone to patronize a restaurant they find distasteful, whether it be because of bad food, poor service, or inadequate ventilation. Don’t you think that if astute business owners figured out they’d make more money by going smoke free, they would? If the public doesn’t demand it by voting with their wallet, why should the gov’t impose an artificial demand?
You just gave women everywhere a strong incentive to start smoking.
I was thinking, dangerous I know, that if California needs more tax revenue, they could just start placing a tax on wheelchairs. Most of the people don’t use wheelchairs, so the tax would get approved. Most people are annoyed by people in wheelchairs. It’s not illegal to use a wheelchair. If you need a wheelchair, then you’ll definately pay the taxes.
They could also tax cell phones.
And meat.
Then the only restaurants you could go to would be free of meat, cell phones, smokers and wheel chairs. ummm umm good.
Cell phones are annoying, but if someone takes a call next to you, they are not POISONING you. If someone eats a steak at the same table, NO ONE ELSE is forced to share it. If an alcoholic has a drink, NO ONE ELSE is forced to drink too. Smokers share with EVERYONE around them. How sweet. It’s the same as is a heroin addict insisted on injecting the person next to him everytime he shoots up.
Amazing the hyperbole that smokers will grasp at in defending themselves. “If they take away our right to smoke, next thing we’ll all be in concentration camps being run by Nazis in a Communist totalitian state.” Or the ever popular “everything is BAD for you” argument: "Even breathing is bad for you. Just walking down the street you could be hit by a comet."Anything to divert the debate from the actual subject of cigarettes.
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if every beach had more cigarette butts than a litter box has catshit? Where thousands of acres and countless lives weren’t lost every year because some dipshit tossed a lit cigaratte out a car window or fell asleep smoking and burned down the whole apartment complex. But I guess I’m selfish because I don’t understand how awfully hard it is to be an addict. Quick, someone get me a tissue, I feel a tear coming on.
No, its not. None is forcing you to sit next to a smoker, and if you voluntarily go to a place where you know smoking is allowed, you give up any priviledge you had to complain.
> No, its not. None is forcing you to sit next to a smoker, and if you voluntarily go to a place where you know smoking is allowed, you give up any priviledge you had to complain.<
Would that apply to a public park bench when someone sits down beside you with a cigar? That’s legal. I wonder if smoker notice that the reaction they get from non-smokers is quite similiar to the reaction to someone loudly and horrilby farting next to them. Socially, it’s shows the same level of class.
The world is a closed system, therefore anyone else’s actions will affect our world. If you drive you are taking part in killing 20,000 people a year. You don’t have to drive.
If you eat unhealthy foods and don’t exercise, you are increasing my health care costs.
You don’t see taxes on snicker bars? You don’t see snicker bar only seating sections.
If you want a smoke free bar, open up a smoke free bar!
Don’t pass laws against something you don’t like under some guise, such as health.
If it was really a ‘health’ issue, then candy and potato chips will be next.
My eating a snickers bar or potato chips isn’t endangering the health of people around me.
I see your point. For example, I’m feeling aggrieved just because your idiocy is polluting this thread.
Anyway, go see what that nice TwistofFate wrote. If you don’t like being in places where people smoke, don’t go to them. There’s lots of bars and restaurants without smoking sections - exercise your choice as a consumer and frequent them.
But before you go, I don’t suppose you’d have a light?
It may not be endangering the health, but it is affecting them in some way. Everything is connected.
BTW, enjoy eating that candy bar now, cause soon they’ll be laws to enforce healthy eating habits…
>if there are even just one or two smokers in a group of ten, the group will probably go to a bar where the smokers can light up.<
In California, the opposite is generally true. Smokers are perceived as struggling with an addiction, and tolerated, but not indulged at everyone else’s expense.
>they’ll text you to say that they’re in a another pub, with a cigarette, and that you can join them if you wish.
What do you think?<
I think I wouldn’t even hang out with people who stink like smoke in the first place.
>Oh, my, Rexdart - do you blow your dad with that mouth?<
See how one oral habit leads to another? I always heard that smokers are apprentice cocksuckers.
It’s been 10 years since I had a friend that smoked. It’s like anyone else with a bad addiction; first, why hang out with someone who is either self-destructive or stupid? I’ve seen too many ex-smokers gasping out their last breath on a respirator. No disrespect, but cancer makes a person look like an extra from Dawn of the Dead. It’s like the body starts to decompose while the person is still alive.
Dammit MOJO! I’ll have you know that I’m alergic to kittens!
That was YOU? Oh man, I’m so embarrassed blush
I am sure that is your point but your argument that it should be legal in the future because it is legal now just doesn’t hold much water does it? We would still be living under the laws of the Romans if that were the case. Things change.
That’s your opinion and I disagree for reasons I have already posted. We do not allow the free market to determine is segregated bars do better than integrated bars. In a private place you can do whatever you want but in an establishment of public accommodation you have to abide by certain rules which society imposes on you. There are tons of rules. You have to pay minimum wage, you cannot spit on patron’s food etc. It is not left to the free market when the public has a compelling interest. And, for reasons I have already posted, I believe the public does have a compelling interest in banning smoking in public places.