I’m curious to all the anti-smokers out there. Do you not think that weather or not you can smoke in a place of business should be left to the propieter of said business?-- As opposed to the goverment saying so?
If not, by which logic do you get this from?
Yes folks, the great mind of the new millenium has spoken. Humble thyselves and glory in the awesome presence that is nuthinboutnuthin.
I have conducted extensive studies and can categorially prove that second hand smoke not only stinks, but makes me stink too.
Now as soon as fat people eating manage to do that I’ll accept your stupid analogy and commense the persecution.
This most definitely should not be a government issue. Florida is now a “no-smoking-where-food-is-served” state. I think that’s insane.
I don’t care if someone wants to smoke with or after their meal. I do care if they want to do it near me. But if I know ahead of time whether a restaurant allows smoking or not, I can make my choice. I’ll opt for a non-smoking facility every time. At most, the gov’t could require a sign be posted outside each dinery stating whether it’s a smoking or non-smoking facility. Everyone wins. Life goes on.
Yet another reason I hate Florida and can’t wait to leave…
Sorry, Inuthinboutnuthin I’m going to take the liberty to fix this statement for you.
Casual, contact with second hand smoke will have absolutely nill affects on your health. By this I mean if you go out to dinner once a week and sit next to a smoker; your health will most likely not be affected. Now, if you happen to work as a waitress in the smoking section of a restraunt for say like 20 years or so, then you may have a problem.
And no I don’t have a cite I seen it on the TV. (Discovery chanel or something)
I disagree that this is a rant. I think it’s more a declaration of nuthinboutnuthin’s stupidity.
Smokers at some point in their lives choose to start smoking. All people have to eat to survive and fat people are not in their predicement because they chose to start a habit.
Paybacks(?) are hell?!?
Fucking moron! Bring a rational rant next time.
And stupid people generally have stupid kids. Stupidity, unlike ignorance, can’t be cured. So when are you going in for YOUR Big Snip For The Good of Humanity?
The government can and, I believe, SHOULD mandate safe working conditions. As others have said, working in a smoking environment takes its toll on the servers and others who work there. I’d also like to point out that back in the good/bad (depending on your POV) old days when the gummint didn’t regulate smoking in businesses, it was damned near impossible to find a restaurant that had even a non-smoking section, let alone a restaurant that was completely non-smoking. When non-smoking sections started to appear, some smokers would light up anyway, claiming to either not have seen the sign or just not giving ANY reason as to why they should smoke in a non-smoking section. I’m not saying that ALL smokers did that, by any means. I’m not even sure that MOST smokers did that. But I am saying that I was always quite careful to choose a table in the non-smoking section, and always insistent that it was as far from the smoking section as possible if I was seated by a server, and more times than not, I’d get someone smoking near me.
SOME smokers seem to believe that they have the right to smoke anywhere, at any time, no matter how it inconveniences other people. Those smokers have ruined it for the considerate smokers (and I’ve met a few of that type, too).
My right to breathe smoke free air trumps a smoker’s right to smoke, unless I’m in the smoker’s private space, that is, his home or car. And I won’t go in a smoker’s home or car. Period.
:wally
The gov’t isn’t going to make it illegal to overeat. They’re more focused on making information available about what is and isn’t healthy. When KFC is advertising itself as health food, somebody’s gotta tell the chubbies the truth. If there is legislation, it’ll target restaurants and food companies, not consumers.
Actually, I think it would be kind of funny if restaurants had to put on their menus, or make readily available, the fact that (for example) “This Extra-Large Platter of chicken-fried steak contains more protein for an average adult is supposed to consume in 3 days, and more fat/cholesterol than an average adult is supposed to consume for 2 weeks.” Now, I love chicken-fried steak. Love it. Love it. Love it. But the SMALLEST restaurant servings seem to be more meat than I’m supposed to eat in at least two days. And the jumbo platters…well, more meat than I’m supposed to eat in a week, I’d guess. Restaurants have been upsizing meals for a long time now. It’s a way to increase the price while seeming to give the customer more value, as the food is the cheapest part of a restaurant meal, I’m told. We’ve gotten used to having jumbo sizes, and quite a few of us are jumbo sized as a result. And doggy bags seem to be less common than they were.
I do see NBN’s badly stated point, but it bugs me to agree with such an ill-fated OP.
For instance, San Antonio’s mayor decided to ban smoking in all restaurants as of Jan. 1st…and the anti-smoking champion, president of some group for the Ban Smoking campaign, was at least 70 lbs overweight. (She was on the news the day the bill was signed.)
Now, I have no issue personally with obese people. But a woman on TV who is clearly no poster-child for health, talking about “The Public Health?” Talking about heart-disease? Talking about the way that smokers burden the government health system?
I’m sorry, lady, but you might wanna lay off the chips and queso before you get up in front of the public to talk about health.
It does bother me that smokers are targeted and banned for disturbing the public health, while alcohol, for instance, has never been banned and is not even under discussion. I’m sorry, but how many people have been killed/harmed by drunk drivers? Provably, unequivocally? Vs. smoking in a restaurant?
The problem is that most people drink. The majority drinks.
The same majority doesn’t smoke.
So it’s easier to attack smoking, because you’re attacking the minority, than it is to tackle other similarly harmful issues that are enjoyed by the majority. If the issue is strictly “saving the public health,” why not ban alcohol again? Second-hand smoke might kill you in a few decades, but drunk drivers kill people in a split second.
Sounds like political grandstanding and hypocrisy to me.
And FTR, until tobacco is banned, I think it’s ridiculous to outlaw it everywhere. If it’s that big a threat, get rid of it.
Til then, all this “public health” drama sounds a lot like bullshit to me. And the government makes a shitload of money off the taxes on tobacco products.
Never? Like, say, not even in the 1920s? Yeah, that worked.
Public smoking within certain buildings is banned because it harms other people, as is driving while drunk. People continue to do both.
The problem with your analogy is that drinking one alcoholic drink a day has been shown to provide health benefits for many people, while smoking one cigarette not only doesn’t seem to do the same, but stinks like hell and makes other people’s clothing reek, plus sets off asthmatics. Alcohol isn’t an aerosol which makes other folks smell like drunks too and risks causing relapses in alcoholics. 
To cause the harm you’re talking about, you need one person to drink to excess and then drive (which isn’t legal but of course is done), while secondhand smoke is produced merely by a lot of people smoking one or two cigarettes each, which is mild tobacco usage for them.
Many establishments can also face fines and other legal penalties if they serve alcohol to someone who’s obviously drunk, just like they can if they allow smoking when they’re not supposed to.
The government also taxes the crap out of alcohol as well, just for the record.
I agree with Lynn’s point too; I think it’d be seriously funny to have those kind of fine-print labels on menus. Most restaurants serve a few times the amount of food you’re supposed to be eating in one meal, or even one day.
alcohol NEVER been banned?
my town currently has a “dry” area, no restaurants or grocery stores can serve or carry beer wine or liquor. I can’t imagine we’re the ONLY locality that has such a law in the entire country.
It depends on what kind of business it is. If they want to ban smoking in customer-oriented businesses, I say power to them. Even if smoking doesn’t turn out to cause cancer, it’s noxious, the smell lingers on clothing and hair, it triggers asma (sp!) attacks…
Anyway, I don’t object to bans of smoking in stores or eateries. You shouldn’t have to put up with smoke just trying to shop or eat dinner.
However, if the business is not open to the public, I think they ought to leave it to the owners to decide. If he and his workers are in agreement that they want to work in a smoke-filled building, whatever. It doesn’t affect anyone but the people making the decision so “public health” objections do not apply.
It depends on what kind of business it is. If they want to ban smoking in customer-oriented businesses, I say power to them. Even if smoking doesn’t turn out to cause cancer, it’s noxious, the smell lingers on clothing and hair, it triggers asma (sp!) attacks…
Anyway, I don’t object to bans of smoking in stores or eateries. You shouldn’t have to put up with smoke just trying to shop or eat dinner.
However, if the business is not open to the public, I think they ought to leave it to the owners to decide. If he and his workers are in agreement that they want to work in a smoke-filled building, whatever. It doesn’t affect anyone but the people making the decision so “public health” objections do not apply.
That was true of a suburb in my area until a few years ago.
Personally, I welcome with open (and jiggling) arms the government’s attempts to make me less fat and ugly.
Bring it on!
There are entire counties in the state of Arkansas that are ‘dry’. ‘Dry’ meaning it is against the law to sell or serve alcohol to anyone regardless of age.
FB
Doggy bags to take home for the husband to snack on… Aren’t you contributing to the scourge of second hand eating mentioned above?
If you had truly wanted a discussion, you should not have been as agressive as you were. Here, this would have engendered a discussion:
What you did was rant, and you were mean whilst doing it. Why are you surprised people don’t want to have a discussion with you?