I think you’ll find that driving under the influence is agaisnt the law pretty much everywhere.
This might be relevant if there was an actual smoking prohibition. There isn’t.
It’s not about payback, it’s about being able to go out and breathe relatively clean air as much as possible. It’s about employees being able to work with one less hazard to deal with. One of may favorite things about California is being able to go out dancing while being able to breathe.
Think about just how inconsiderate smokers have been over the years. Every time the light up in public, the force everyone around them to partake in their drug of choice. The world is their ashtray (I remember a post here from a smoker who complained that the anti-smoking ban meant that the sidewalk in front of the bar was now covered in cigarette butts…as if it was the ban and not the actual smokers who were to blame for this). Now that the general public wants to be able to go out and breathe clean air and not come home with clothes and hair stinking of stale cigarette smoke, smokers have turned into the biggest bunch of whiners anywhere. I guess the 5 minutes spent outside is a great hardship. It is kind of fun watching the libertarian knees jerk though (how dare they regulate a business to make it safer for employees!).
I think it may help to start counting them. You brought it up, so explain it. Who’s car? Who was smoking? What was the situation? It sounds like you’re really reaching to pull that shit out of your ass, so maybe you’ll want to wash your hands before touching the keyboard again, lest you do anything that may interfere with someone wlse’s health.
Now on to the stats. Anyone know the number of skin cancer cases each year caused by overexposure to the sun? I’m willing to bet it’s higher than the mass elimination of the species from a whiff of devil-smoke.
Based on that, what’s next in our little quest of avoiding all risk in life? Mandatory suncreen? Mandatory body coverings to avoid UV rays? If you’re concerned with any and everything that may or may not shave a few days of your life, where do we stop? If melanoma cause more deaths than second-hand smoke, I think we have to focus our attention on the evil sun. Fuck the sun! How the fuck am I supposed to avoid that?!? I demand all places public and private places to block all harmful rays from my skin. Does nobody give a shit about the skin cancer victims in the world? Insensitive pricks.
As to smoking outside, can someone help out in finding a cite for the pussy that sued over a neighbor smoking outside? I know it happened at least once. While the suit never came to fruition, it’s telling of the mindset of some of the posters in this thread.
Also, part of the smoking ban includes outdoor areas of restaurants. Let me say that again. Outdoor areas of restaurants. Don’t give me this shit of “Take it outside and I don’t mind.” You use that as a small wedge to hold open the door on banning it altogether. We took it outside, in -40 degree fucking weather, and now that’s not good enough.
Here’s the most telling evidence that the anti’s are out for complete control of everyone. Part of the ban includes limits on how close you can be to an entryway of a pubilc-access structure. The original the cocks went for was 25 feet. That would mean office workers downtown would have to literally stand in the middle of the street to compy. That would put me in danger of being run over by a truck. Of course, being a smoker that’s likely the idea. The compromise was 5 feet. 5 fucking feet.
Grab a tape measure and see how far 5 feet is from a door. Does that really help? I don’t know what bizzarro world these people live in, but here on Earth smoke is less dense than air and rises immediately. It’s not the smoke, it’s the person you hate because of unacceptance behavior in your eyes.
Just wondering why it’s ok for a business to get folks drunk, but they can’t allow people to smoke. Stay on topic of the OP and you may understand the POV, or stay on your crusade and continue the hijack attempt.
I guess this proves that anti-gay marriage legislation is only right and proper, since a majority of people in quite a lot of places seem to support it, and bills seem to be getting passed without much difficulty. How nice to know that majority support for something is all that’s necessary, then we can make the “right” choice for everyone! No debate about the merits of the action is necessary, we just need to know that we can.
Is anyone going to bother to address the point that there’s lots of no-smoking places already, and that this is inevitable if smoking is as unpopular as you claim? Why do we need every place to be identical? Really, are people too dim to seek out places that satisfy their preferences? I’ve constructed a helpful diagram to indicate if you are, in fact, this stupid:
I grew up with a smoker for a parent. After I barfed on his shoes during one road trip, he did start cracking the window. I guess that’s an improvement.
What do you want? You want an accounting of all the times I’ve had unwanted smoke in my face? How about every day of my life until I moved out at age 18, plus school vacations and any sort of holiday? And since I later worked with my father, we’d have to add those years on, too. Nah, we’ll ignore those because we can’t figure out the exact dates. And hey, maybe I didn’t see my dad a couple of times per year before age 18. So, let’s call it 6000 times. And that’s just one smoker.
When I first went on a plane, there was a smoking section. Dad sat in it alone because the rest of the family refused. What’s interesting is that when they got rid of smoking on planes, my father didn’t stop flying. He just did without. Funny how that works.
As I’ve said repeatedly, laws? Meh. Private businesses going no-smoking? Awesome. Voters deciding that publically-owned property should be no-smoking? I’d vote for it. Smokers? Sorry about your luck. Here’s a mint.
According to this article, both Louisville and Fort Collins have smoking bans. When looking at a map of Denver, it appears they both make up a sizable chunk of the Denver Metropolitan area. There are probably more; this is just what I found in a single google search. With respect, I don’t think the Denver area is as regulation free as you suggest.
Maybe you can lobby Uncommon Sense on this score, since I was addressing this statement of his:
In this instance (passage of antismoking ordinances), the majority happens to be dead-on correct.
You can vent your frustration and rail about the injustice of it all, or wise up and a) smoke where it won’t affect the comfort and health of others, or 2) quit.
Bolding mine. If this is the case, then we are actually agreeing with each other. If a business chooses to go smoke free, they should be allowed to. They might lose a few smoking customers and gain a few nonsmoking customers. If they choose to not go smoke free, they should b allowed to. It gives people choices, and the ability to go where they choose. That is a whole lot different from a blanket ban enacted into law.
Out here in California, as I already said, the sort of bans that “favor” you as a nonsmoker, are already in place. And yet, people are pushing for more and more.
I refer you to my earlier avowals, now numbering three for the terminally hard of reading, to the effect that I do not smoke, nor have any intention of so doing. I think it’s gross. I wish people would stop. Blah blah, Dido CDs, etc. etc.
I don’t think that is a good reason to ban the entire country from smoking indoors, however, as I am not that wrapped up in myself that I think I know what’s best for everyone, and I think if people want to go out and have a smoke, there should be places available to them. I am also imbued with slightly more common sense than the aforementioned concussed produce, and am therefore able to choose where I go out of an evening appropriately, should I wish to avoid smoke. It’s marvellous, it really is, I suggest you try it.
Yet again, I ask you (or anyone) to address the point that people are perfectly free to run a non-smoking bar, and that if you are so confident that this is what everyone wants, people should be flocking to such establishments. Why is this not sufficient? So far, not one person has addressed this, and it’s beginning to look really rather suspicious.
Those laws are either in effect now, or will be soon. Please see however, that it will never be enough for some people. There are those who want a full up Prohibition and will settle for nothing less. Those are the people that make me more than a little bit crazy.
Fort Collins doesn’t even show on that map; that is because it is some 60 miles north of Denver. Louisville doesn’t show either, but that’s cause it’s too small, and it is more often associated with Boulder than with Denver. Boulder also has a ban (the first city in Colorado to have one), so does Greeley (the better to enjoy the odor of the stockyards). With respect, you’re making the Denver metro area larger than it actually is. Actually, you’re only forseeing the future - soon enough there will be nothing but one giant city all the way from Ft. Collins to Pueblo.
… where every restaurant has a color-coded sticker on the front door showing whether smoking is allowed everywhere (red), in designated areas (yellow), or nowhere (green). There’s no shortage of restaurants here with green stickers on the door, but that hasn’t stopped the neo-prohibitionists from running ads for a ban.
That just proves my point - some people want it all and will never compromise at all. No matter what laws or restrictions there are, no matter what smokers give up, they will never be satisfied.
With all due respect to Steve and duffer, claims that pre-regulation smokers posed little or no burden on the nonsmoking majority strikes me as ludicrous. The sidewalks were covered with cigarette butts. A night on the town would invariably end with smoke-saturated clothing, necessitating a wash. It wasn’t unusual for people to light up in enclosed spaces, like a bus.
Hey, it’s an addiction.
That said, this lifetime nonsmoker of cigarettes* once lived in a city on the cutting edge of anti-smoking regulation. When I they passed a 100% ban on smoking inside restaurants (justification: restaurant employees), I wrote a letter in opposition to the editor of the local rag. Not that it did any good.
Methinks it would be best if there were some 50/50 smoking establishments and some 100% nonsmoking restaurants. How might that outcome be realized? I propose that restaurants be permitted to apply for “smoking licenses”, just as they do for liquor licenses. You want to serve smokers? Fine. But make sure you have a nonsmoking section, provide adequate ventilation, and pay a fee to the city, since -let’s face it- smoking is a nuisance for nonsmokers. Said fee can be set via auction.
Interventionist? Sure. But an improvement over the status quo for smokers.
[On preview] Hm. Like that sticker idea. Heck, I’d even permit auction of a few 100% smoking licenses. I enjoy a cigar now and then.
Ok, actually I’ve smoked less than a pack over my lifetime.
------ Yet again, I ask you (or anyone) to address the point that people are perfectly free to run a non-smoking bar, and that if you are so confident that this is what everyone wants, people should be flocking to such establishments. Why is this not sufficient? So far, not one person has addressed this, and it’s beginning to look really rather suspicious.
Restaurant employees.
In practice, restaurants may not want to piss off their smoking patrons, without a governmental scapegoat to point at.
In practice, some nonsmokers may prefer not breathe in smoke, but not enough to forgo their favorite steakhouse.
But, hey, I like the color-code method, backed up by the issuance of smoking licences for restaurants.
I did mention something about the health of the employees, but it was easy to miss. Here in California we’ve banned smoking in most indoor (and some outdoor) places that are open to the public. What has been the biggest downside? A minority of people have deal with a very minor inconvenience whenever they want to feed their addiction. Not a big price to pay so that bartenders/servers etc. can have a safer workplace. And it makes for a much nicer atmosphere for most of the patrons as well. Even many smokers are happier not to have clothes that stink after a night out. The laws have worked out magnificently.
