I am a smoker

[ballabosh]

and I have no problem with a smoking ban. I usually go outside to smoke anyway, even if the establishment allows smoking. One of the reasons is that both my wife and daughter have breathing problems (my daughter has asthma). But I usually went outside even before I was married, especially if none of the people I was with were smokers. It's just a matter of being considerate in my mind.

The argument that people who are offended need not go to a place that allows smoking doesn't fly for me. While that's certainly true, it's also true that anyone who smokes can step outside. Also the employees of the bar or restaurant don't have the same option of not going.

[Straight Shooter]

1. If your daughter has asthma, here's something I learned

This info came from a pulmonologist who specializes in respiratory problems with children; feel free to research the info on the 'Net.

He said people think if they smoke outside, that's all it takes to prevent secondhand smoke from affecting their children and others in the house. Wrong. He said it's the particles that cling to your clothing which are inhaled by other people which is just as harmful, especially to children. He said please wear a "smoking jacket" or some similar attire and remove it before coming back into the house.

It's just something to think about, just in case you weren't aware of this. It certainly surprised me when I heard him talking about it. :hi:

[ballabosh]

9. Thanks

It's actually something I already do, and I am trying like hell to quit altogether (right now I'm on the only smoke every other week plan;) ).

Actually she's never had an attack triggered by smoke (or by our cat or any other environmental factor). The attacks have always come while she's been suffering from a cold. Even so, I'm not going to tempt fate by smoking in front of her.

Thanks for the advice.

[Straight Shooter]

12. You're welcome.

Good luck with your plan to stop being a smoker :thumbsup:

[Gato Moteado]

20. you're truly a courteous smoker.......

...a rare breed, for sure.

i knew a woman who told me she was a courteous smoker because, when sitting at a dinner table with other people at a restaurant, she held her burning cig behind her and away from the table. unfortunately, i'm not sure that the people at the table behind her found her to be all that courteous.

anyways, it's good to hear from a smoker that actually is concerned about the lungs of the people around him. i hope you're successful in kicking the habit for good.

[Dorian Gray]

53. I quit seven months ago.

It was damn hard, but it's doable. Good luck! You'll feel so much better after you quit!

[venable]

168. 3 weeks free (after almost 40 years)

and I encourage you to do it. It's wonderful.

I also encourage non-smokers to try to recognize how difficult it is for most people to quit. Smoking is not a reflection of character, don't treat it as such.

[KalicoKitty]

221. My hubby recently quit due to clogged arteries.

He smoked since a teenager two to three packs a day. He NEVER did want to quit. After having a physical, he was sent to a vascular surgeon and had ultra-sound done on his carotid arteries. One side is 100% clogged (non-operable and the other 85%. He then had to see a cardiologist, had a stress test, failed that, so was scheduled for a heart catheterization. That showed he had three block arteries. After we found out about the carotid arteries, I bought him some Nicorette gun. He continued smoking, but did cut down to less than a pack a day. He then had surgery following the cath. on the one carotid artery and had a triple by-pass. He then was prescribed Zyban and that is very helpful. It has been three months since his last smoke, and he is still on the Zyban. People have told him he will never lose that want a cigarette, but he has weaned himself from that addiction.

Hopefully you will be successful in quiting. I have heard acupunture is a great way to quit. Costs a little more than a carton of cigs. Meanwhile, take a baby aspirin daily. That helps prevent a blood clot as it keeps the blood thinner. That is what the doctors say saved my husband from a massive stroke or major heart attack. And remember lung cancer is a terrible disease which is usually caused from smoking.

Best of luck to you.

[ballabosh]

296. My father

quit two years ago after smoking since he was 14 -- unfiltered Pall Malls. He quit after watching my uncle almost die in the hospital. Luckily, now they are both non-smokers.

Incidentally, there is one cigarette waiting for me in a pack out in my garage. I will have it later tonight. The plan is that's my last one. It will be about the eigth time I've tried to quit in the last year. I went almost three months last year, but then basketball (watching, not playing) season started and my nailbiting wasn't enough. Weak, I know.

But now I'm on my way. It seems to get easier every time, so wish me luck.

[Cetacea]

93. laundry detergent will kill you first

I am a former smoker, but it amazes be how the masses continue to be ignorant of perfumes, auto emissions,household cleaners and pestisides,and laundry detergent.

[Maru Kitteh]

273. What a ludicrous statement. Tide didn't kill my dad. Winstons did.

I'm not saying the chemical world is safe but that's just asinine, to say that laundry detergent is more dangerous that cigarettes. :spank:

You're all worried about Cheer and Joy but I'll bet there's a good chance you chow down on a nice plate of dioxin every night. It's in every single ounce of dairy and meat on the shelf, even the "organic" stuff. Just google dioxin and meat, see what you come up with. There will be info on the vegetarian sites but keep looking, it's available from mainstream impartial sources too. Bon Appetit.

[Village Idiot]

2. I agree 100%.

I am in the same boat. Have tried to quit for years and years...unable to give it up. I smoke OUTSIDE my own house, OUTSIDE my own CAR, unwilling to expose my loved ones to the same SHIT I am forced (by addiction and government regulation) to inhale day after day after cough-wheezing day...

On edit - I have a "smoking jacket" - and I keep it in the garage, where such smelly things belong.

[beyurslf]

15. I recently moved in with 2 friends after living alone for several years.

They both smoke and I was really worried we would have a big fight about smoking in the house. They both smoke outside though and we never even discussed it.

[skids]

3. I don't even smoke in my own house.

I always step out on the porch. Even when none of the housemates care.

As far as smoking bans go, though, try to talk to the advocates of smoking bans about how they could alternatively require an air circulation system in, say, bars, that prevents smoke from being spread, but still allows smoking without the health risks to employees.

The response you will get from mentioning this possibility will clue you in to exactly what type of people you are dealing with -- more often than not, their agenda is not to protect the workers, but to use the smoking ban as a tool in their power-mad quest to control the behavior of everyone around them.

[porphyrian]

4. So, you're advocating the creation of politeness laws.

That's crap. What you do is fine for you. However, you have no right to control the behavior of others in a private establishment of consenting adults, especially not through the law. No, it's not a big deal for smokers to go outside, but it is a big deal to legally remove their freedoms. Restaurants are one thing, but bars are another. No one is shocked to find out that the bar they've been hired to work at gets filled with smoke - that's the fucking nature of a bar! C'mon.

[Bridget Burke]

8. High ceilings & smoke eaters can help air quality.

Bars do not need to be smelly dives. And some workers don't have a big choice of jobs. What might be OK while you're a student gets real old after enough years.

[porphyrian]

11. No, but the skills required to work a dive bar...

...can also get you a job in a non-smoking restaurant. No one is forced to work in the same bar for years. People just get scared of change and find it easier to ask the world to change for their personal comfort.

[EnfantTerrible]

39. "No one is forced to work in the same bar for years."

This is a similar argument that was made about folks not evacuating from NOLA...

Everyones situation is different. I would be cautious when making sweeping statements about what people are or aren't forced to do to survive.

[Ms. Toad]

90. If you're lucky enough to live

where there are non-smoking restaurants. My state is not so enlightened yet.

[Touchdown]

26. I have to laugh at this argument every time it comes up.

Some bars are smelly dives. Some patrons like it that way. Some of us dislike the corporate antisceptic atmosphere of a Bennigan's or the loud flashiness of a dance club.

Look at what bar employees do. They serve alcoholic beverages, cut off people who are too drunk, try to calm the belligerence of a cut off drunk, eventually to call another employee to kick the drunk out. Then there's the employee who dances on the bar itself. All of them carry their $75-600 tips (in cash) out of that bar at 2:30 in the morning.

If workplace safety is such a concern for anti-smoking zealots, then to the bar employees, smoking is WAY LOW on the list of safety issues compared to black eyes, sprained ankles from falling off the bar and knife wounds from a robbery.

It's like expecting a Sea World trainer to never be bit when he's feeding Shamu all those fish.

[progressivebydesign]

71. I guess MUSICIANS are just cancer fodder for smokers. n/t

[Touchdown]

76. Most musicians I know smoke, and not just tobacco.

BTW: The risk of cancer from Second hand smoke is wildy overblown...from a post from another thread...

BTW: There is an infintessimal risk of cancer from second hand smoke. What you believe is not true...


http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/739 ...

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

----
http://reason.com/ogmyt.shtml

5. Secondhand smoke poses a grave threat to bystanders. The evidence concerning the health effects of secondhand smoke is not nearly as conclusive as the evidence concerning the health effects of smoking. The research suggests that people who live with smokers for decades may face a slightly higher risk of lung cancer. According to one estimate, a nonsmoking woman who lives with a smoker faces an additional lung cancer risk of 6.5 in 10,000, which would raise her lifetime risk from about 0.34 percent to about 0.41 percent. Studies of secondhand smoke and heart disease, including the results from the Harvard Nurses Study published in 1997, report more-dramatic increases in disease rates—so dramatic, in fact, that they are biologically implausible, suggesting risks comparable to those faced by smokers, despite the much lower doses involved. In any case, there is no evidence that casual exposure to secondhand smoke has any impact on your life expectancy. (See Chapter 5.)

This is from the WHO, whose findings have been supressed because they came up with nothing?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri ...

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

NY Daily News on the faultiness of the EPA's METASTUDY. The EPA never conducted a ETS study of their own. They merely cherrypicked the studies they liked and ignored the ones that contradicted their pre-determined findings...

http://www.junkscience.com/news2/zion.htm

In a devastating 94-page opinion, Judge William Osteen put the cat to the Environmental Protection Agency. These ideological hustlers are responsible for all the madness we've experienced since 1993, when, without a scintilla of evidence, they declared that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

This "finding" created civil war in America. Suddenly, it wasn't just the smoker who was endangered it was the person at the next table, even the tenant in the next apartment and the guy sitting next to you at Yankee Stadium.

Common sense should have put this into the garbage pail. If secondhand smoke killed, we'd all be dead, especially everybody who worked in newspapers a veritable smoke screen in the old days.

[Rainbowreflect]

10. Sorry, your rights end where my rights begin!

Other's right to breath trumps your right to smoke where ever you wish.
I have horrible allergies to cigarette smoke and was unable to go many places I would have like to go. Then last November our city passed a smoking ban.
I have been able to go to bar with friends for a drink. I have gone to a Sports bar for the first time in years to watch a game.
I am thrilled.

[porphyrian]

13. Your rights do not extend to all private establishments.

You have every right to fly smoke-free and pay your bills without an allergy attack. However, you don't have the right to force the owner and patrons of a private establishment to stop smoking just because you decide to buy a beer there. That's ending the rights of hundreds of people just for you. Why are you entitled to special treatment at a private establishment you don't have to patronize at all?

[Rainbowreflect]

17. So do you think it ok for a "private establishment" to say

they do not want to be handicap accessible?
Allowing smoking in their business is the same thing. They are making it inaccessible to those with allergies or breathing problems.

[porphyrian]

21. A non-essential private business, yep.

It's not a good business decision, but I think that's up to the business owner. I feel differently about, say, a department store, which carries necessities as well as luxury items. Americans aren't entitled to go to any business they want, just as we aren't entitled to drive or have cable TV. Bars are non-essential private establishments, and those that choose to frequent such establishments do so at the whim of the bar owner, who can refuse service to anyone they want.

[Rainbowreflect]

25. I figure that if over 65% of the population of the city I live in

voted for the smoking ban the business owners can go to another city if they don't like our laws.
What I find really funny is all the bars that are going out of their way to cater to smokers (about 20% of the population) by setting up out door smoking areas that are covered & heated. I think if they had tried even half as hard to cater to non-smokers, by making truly smoke-free areas, before the ban there may have never been a ban.

[porphyrian]

30. So, if 65% of your city votes to have women wear burkas in public...

...then you'd be OK with that, or with being told to move if you didn't? Are you serious? With the exception of utilities, food and certain household staples, you never have to spend a dime in most business establishments - you do so by choice. Business owners who provide products and services other than the basics, such as interior designers and bars, are not trying to appeal to the general populace, and they can target whatever audience they want. If they make a bad decision, their business will fail as a result. If their business doesn't fail, there must be enough customers in the target audience to support the business. Why do you care who that business caters to if they aren't breaking any laws? Certainly there are other establishments that cater to your needs and/or desires, and if there aren't, there's a business opportunity for you. However, it is obnoxious for you to dictate the behavior of consenting adults in a private establishment. What makes you focus on controlling the behavior of others anyway? Feel out of control of something yourself?

[Rainbowreflect]

31. Do you really not see any difference between forcing women

to wear burkas in public & not letting smokers poison the rest of us with 2nd hand smoke in business's that are open to the public?

Nice try on the "feeling out of control of something yourself" B.S. Don't have an reasonable argument attack others personally.

I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home, but when it affects me & others I do care.

[porphyrian]

34. Seems you're trying to poison the air yourself.

My example was exaggerated, but not incorrect. You don't have a right to go to a private business, you have a priveledge. As long as smoking is a legal activity for adults, it is neither your right nor your place to tell those adults what kind of consentual legal behavior they may or may not exhibit in that establishment, as long as its owner allows it. If you don't like the policies of that business, DON'T GO THERE. THAT is your right. If you can't find a bar with a smoking policy you can agree with in your whole city, then open one or move yourself. It is unacceptable in a free society for people with control issues to pass behavior-restrictive laws simply because they disapprove.

[Rainbowreflect]

36. There is no such thing as "private business" as you are stating.

From the smallest town to the biggest city the local, state & federal citizens & governments decide the regulation for all business that are run in their town/city. There are OSHA regulations, environmental regulations, ADA regulations, health department regulations etc. You cannot run a business without following the regulations of the city, state & country you are running it in.
If the city government/citizens rule that smoking should be banned local business that is just another type of health regulation. IMHO

[porphyrian]

37. You haven't negated (or listened to) a single thing I've said.

You are now trying to argue that private businesses aren't private because they are regulated and/or licensed. You are also suggesting that passing behavior-control laws on non-essential private businesses is justified because your discomfort while voluntarily visiting an establishment in which the legal practice of drinking and smoking is performed by consenting adults somehow justifies passing a smoking ban due to vague allusions to health concerns. Newsflash - it's a BAR! If you're concerned about your health, what the hell are you doing in a bar? You can't be for real.

[Rainbowreflect]

40. So in your mind someone like myself who has serious allergies

to cigarette smoke, or anyone with any kind of lunge illnesses should just stay in our homes & order everything we might want on line.

We should not have the right to go to a sports bar to watch a game. Or go out to dinner where the serve alcohol. Or be able to have a drink with friend. Because you should have the right to smoke when ever & where ever you want.

There is nothing you can compare to smoking, because there is no other habit the people have that directly affect everyone near them. Hell, I cannot even walk down the street or wait for a bus when people are smoking without getting ill, but I guess that is just my problem, so screw me, right!

I am sorry, but nothing you have said comes close to changing my mind that smoking in public, & it is public, is anything but a health issue.

[porphyrian]

41. This proves you aren't listening.

In fact, you say as much in your last sentence, where you declare you've already made up your mind and can't be convinced otherwise.

Government buildings are public. Bars are not. You have every right to a smoke-free court house. You have no right to the same in a bar. If you can't except that, tough shit. I hope controlling the behavior of others helps you out.

[Rainbowreflect]

42. I did not say my mind was made up, I said...

"I am sorry, but nothing you have said comes close to changing my mind that smoking in public, & it is public, is anything but a health issue." Is not the same as "you've already made up your mind and can't be convinced otherwise."

Give a reasonable, logical argument that is something besides I am trying to control others & people should be able to do what ever they want crap and I might reconsider.

It is so obvious by your attacks that your mind is completely open to others opinions.

Could you have the courtesy to actually respond to what I said?

Do you believe that people who are not able to be around cigarette smoke should just stay home? Do you believe we should just deal with it.

If a bar, restaurant, etc. does not allow smoking you can still go there you just cannot smoke while you are there. If that same place does allow smoking, I & many others cannot go at all. Does that not matter to you at all?

[porphyrian]

43. This is now redundant.

I'm sorry, but until you listen to what I've already said, I have nothing more to add.

[Rainbowreflect]

44. In other words you have no answer to my question.

I asked a very specific question and you are unable to give a reasonable answer so you have to say I am not listening.

Of course you have nothing more to add.

[porphyrian]

45. Now you're trying to control my behavior. Read what I've said...

...and get back to me.

[Rainbowreflect]

46. I have read every word you have written in this post and

no where have you answered my questions.

Do you believe that people who are not able to be around cigarette smoke should just stay home? Do you believe we should just deal with it?

Do you believe that the public should not be allowed to enact law & regulation to protect peoples health?

[porphyrian]

50. You're wrong.

I've stated my position more than once, and I'm growing tired of repeating myself when you won't hear what I have to say. Against my own better judgement, though, I'll try one more time. Your job is to listen.

Your questions are based on false assumptions and your insistance that your medical issues somehow entitle you to control the legal behavior of others on private property. The fact that you continue to ask these questions proves that you 1) don't understand what I'm saying, 2) can't accept what I'm saying, or 3) haven't listened to me at all.

You have a right to be able to have smoke-free access to public buildings and businesses which provide essential services and/or products. You DO NOT have that same right of access to private non-essential businesses, regardless of your mental or physical handicaps. If you don't like it, the proper form of protest is to not frequent the establishment. It is not appropriate to control the behavior of others in such an establishment simply for your comfort, regardless of your medical issues because you don't have to patronize that business. Insisting that you have some kind of entitlement to do so is both obnoxious and inappropriate behavior for adults in a free democratic society. Pointing out your control issues wasn't a personal attack, it was a suspicion you have confirmed for me, and I suggest you get some help, both physical and mental, before spending energy telling others what to do on private property.

[CardInAustin]

60. Would you mind if....

porphyrian ,

Would you mind if I sit next to your table and fart up a storm?? Better yet, how about I also bring in my 14 month old son with a dirty diaper sit next to you. Perhaps I'll have a pastrami, sauerkraut, and banana pepper sandwich with a tuna fish chaser while I'm there. And if you move, maybe I'll just follow you from establishment to establishment.

Apparently this would be perfectly acceptable and reasonable behavior in your world.

The one thing beyond a total lack of concern for others (and yourself for that matter) you have exhibited is a lack of concern for the employees of said establishment. Or would you subscribe to the "they can work somewhere else" theory? Such a theory is obviously a load since it is well within one's rights to expect and demand a safe working environment. Second hand smoke is not a safe working environment.

[porphyrian]

62. I would never try to pass a law banning you or your son from farting.

That's what this other person is trying to do.

As far as your judgement on my level of concern, your opinion on the matter is of little importance to me. With regards to the employees, you are absolutely wrong. I would never suggest that a non-smoker even apply for a job at a smoking bar, and most people I know would have the sense to consider this before applying. Once employed, however, expecting and demanding a safe working environment is perfectly reasonable and protected by law. However, the second hand smoke bullshit doesn't, and shouldn't, apply in this case as dealing with it is a requirement of the job. If you don't like the medical plan, go work at Shoney's.

[CardInAustin]

63. That's what this other person is trying to do

Right, but you are the one farting in my face.

As for the rights of the employees you seem to be making two contradictory statements back to back.

"Once employed, however, expecting and demanding a safe working environment is perfectly reasonable and protected by law."

"the second hand smoke bullshit doesn't, and shouldn't, apply in this case as dealing with it is a requirement of the job"

So, they should expect and demand a safe workplace, but dealing with an unsafe workplace is a requirement of working in a smoking-allowed workplace?!?!

[porphyrian]

64. Sometimes you need a fart in the face.

You are making the assumption that second hand smoke creates an unsafe workplace, and we both know what happens when we assume... Just because California believes it doesn't make it true.

What is so hard for you to understand? Why is it hard for you to understand? Why are you in favor of making laws to control peoples' legal behavior on private property? What is wrong with you?

[ballabosh]

65. Come on dude

I've held back, but this is too much.

Now whether you think that secondhand smoke is dangerous or not, don't you think that we shoud err towards being safe? In other words, if secondhand smoke might be unsafe, shouldn't we protect people from it?

This is what they went through with asbestos, ddt, etc. Conflicting studies so let's go with the status quo. Meanwhile people are sentenced to death. AIDS: no evidence that it's sexually transmitted so let's do nothing. Global Warming: no evidence that it exists, so let's let the planet die.

That's stupidity.

[porphyrian]

68. The validity of the dangers of second hand smoke is beside the point.

Is it better to ban legal adult behavior in a private business, or to simply suggest that no one is required to go to that business, so don't go there if you have a problem with the behavior of the patronage? Why is everyone so eager to remove personal freedoms through instituting more laws rather than merely using their own fucking common sense? If you have a pace maker, you don't go into places that have microwave ovens. From everyone's position here, we should pass laws requiring everyone who might have someone with a pace maker come in be banned from microwave oven use at all. What is wrong with everyone here? No wonder the Patriot Act passed.

[CardInAustin]

83. porp....

Nothing is wrong with me....but I do appreciate your concern.

I don't want to pass laws to prevent reasonable adult behavior. However, I also think that there is a substantial health risk for employees exposed to second hand smoke. After all, we aren't talking about being in the general vicinity of a single person smoking. For many employees we are talking about sitting in a fog of smoke hour after hour. Are you telling me that does not potentially affect their health????

[porphyrian]

85. No one HAS to work at a bar. Non one HAS to go to a bar at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a "protecting the employees" argument, which it isn't. No one concerned about the effects of smoking applies to a job in a smoking bar. They don't want your protection. What this is really about is your willingness to pass laws controlling the behavior of other adults because you believe it to be wrong. Well, you're the one in the wrong. Why are you scared of freedom? Why do you insist on controlling the legal behavior of others in private establishments you probably would never go to anyway?

[mondo joe]

102. No one HAS to work or go to a restaurant. But you've already conceded

that place of business to non smoking.

You have no argument.

[porphyrian]

135. Then you have no cognition.

I've said multiple times that there is a difference between a business that offers essential services or products to the general public, such as a restaurant, and a private adults-only business whose only products and services are known to possibly cause health problems, a fact accepted by every adult who enters.

[mondo joe]

141. Again, the presense of minors is a non-issue.

Even with age restrictions, bars are a public accomodation.

[porphyrian]

145. Wrong, the prohibition of minors and the nature of bars IS the issue.

Drinking is bad for you. Smoking is bad for you. Only adults who accept this risk go to bars. They do not compare to restaurants or movie theaters.

[mondo joe]

148. Public accomodation is not defined by whether minors have access

or not. If you think it does I suggest you cite some legal precedent.

[porphyrian]

155. It makes all the difference. It proves bars aren't public.

They aren't open to everyone, just the adults the business allows to enter.

[mondo joe]

161. Here is the legal code regarding public accomodation

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 126 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 12181 Prev | Next

§ 12181. Definitions
Release date: 2005-02-25


The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

[porphyrian]

170. Now you're distracting from the argument.

I'm arguing that it is unnecessary and obnoxious behavior control to ban smoking in bars. You are trying to squabble about pre-existing legal jargon.

[mondo joe]

175. Now you're changing your argument. What were all those posts about

how bars aren't public accomodations because minors are prohibited?

[porphyrian]

177. They were right.

You are merely arguing semantics, which has nothing to do with the unacceptability of banning smoking in bars, which my posts support.

[mondo joe]

180. To the contrary, I am arguing law which you were pretending to do up

until confronted with actual law.

[porphyrian]

182. Wrong.

I haven't changed anything I've said. Your misinterpretation of my posts is not my concern. Bars are private businesses, not public ones.

[mondo joe]

184. Bars, restaurants, theaters, book stores - all private businesses, all

public accomodations.

No one ever said they were public businesses.

Stop playing with definitions.

[porphyrian]

185. Sorry, you're projecting.

My argument remains consistent. Your attempt to distract from it with semantics is only that.

On edit: "You're" to "Your"

[mondo joe]

188. Your argument is like *'s reason to invade Iraq - anything and everything

except when you're proven wrong.

If you have an actual argument please summarize it definitively.

[porphyrian]

190. Yeah, and I'm a terrorist too, hmm?

Who's trying to limit our freedoms here and who's trying to protect them? If you can't understand my argument then maybe you're the one in the wrong party.

[mondo joe]

192. Please summarize your argument if you actually have one. Thanks.

[porphyrian]

196. Again? No, if you haven't gotten it yet, you're not going to. - n/t

[mondo joe]

197. HAHAHAHAHA. *, is that you?

"We don't need to restate our case for war in Iraq. If you haven't gotten it yet you're not going to".

Face it, if you had an actual argument you could just state it instead of playing evasive games.

[porphyrian]

212. Of course it's me...

Don't you remember who enlisted you to help me destroy the freedoms of consenting adults on private property?

[mondo joe]

219. The freedoms of adults on private property like no smoking in restaurants

and theaters?

[porphyrian]

222. No, like in bars, not that you can differentiate between them.

Apparently they're all the same to you. I'm sorry for your cognitive dissonance.

[mondo joe]

225. With regard to this matter there is no practical difference between the

two. In all legal regards they are both public accommodations.

The restriction on minors does not make bars something other than a public accomodation.

And you have already acknowledged the legitimacy of prohibiting smoking in restaurants.

[porphyrian]

226. Are you just trying to get the last word?

I'll let you have it if it's important to you, but you haven't refuted my claim or made one of your own that's anything other than semantic distraction yet.

[mondo joe]

228. All your claims have been refuted. And you have no argument.

By your own admission the prohibition of smoking in restaurants is okay.

This is no different.

[PowerToThePeople]

241. Yup, Mojo is trying to get last word in.

Couple of times s/he did it with an input of some fictitious quote supposedly from the person who was the object of the "last word."

It's crap. I don't care, there are way more of us in support of rights here than not, so if brought to vote, we would win..

[porphyrian]

294. That's what I thought.

The thing is, most of the people who have a problem with laws like these once they're on the books find it easier to just break the law than to fight these stubborn self-righteous behavior control crusaders. That doesn't mean we should let them pass more stupid laws, though. It seems the concept is more easily explained to a slime mold, however.

[EmmaP]

159. Kids in Bars

What's all this stuff about minors not being allowed in bars? They're certainly allowed in bars in Pennsylvania.

It is against the law for retail licensees to permit minors to on its licensed premises, or any premises operated in connection therewith, unless the minors are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, or are under proper supervision.

http://www.lcb.state.pa.us/plcb/cwp/view.asp?a=1327&q=556216&plcbNav=|32370|

[mondo joe]

163. Porph is like people who think once you get to international waters

no laws apply - he just thinks it about bars.

But both are miconceptions.

[porphyrian]

193. What a perceptionless observation you make there.

I understand more than you do, apparently. I understand the importance of protecting our freedoms from the likes of you.

[mondo joe]

198. Let's review your first post, #4:

"However, you have no right to control the behavior of others in a private establishment of consenting adults especially not through the law.""

Wrong, the electorate have every right to do this and do it all the time. Every private establishment confirms to a variety of public health and other laws.

"that's the fucking nature of a bar! C'mon."

And the nature of bars, like the nature of every business, changes with the times as do the laws.

The nature of restaurants was once that you'd expect people to light up after a meal. The nature of many businesses was that you'd expect smokers to smoke. But that is no longer the case.

The nature of bars is not immutable.

[porphyrian]

211. You're right, we should make laws restricting adults' freedom...

...to behave as expected in bars. You've made such a strong case by pointing out that I've said the same thing consistently that I reverse my opinion entirely. The hell with the freedom of the people the law would affect, legal semantics prove they should have less.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

215. All laws impact freedoms. This is no different than other laws that

restrict freedoms of adults -- like laws against smoking in restaurants and theaters.

[porphyrian]

218. Wrong.

Committing murder is not a freedom, and laws against it don't restrict freedoms. Obviously your problem is that you neither understand freedom nor have any respect for it. It's a shame to see how many people apparently have the same problem.

[mondo joe]

220. All laws impact freedoms. Like no smoking in restaurants and

theaters. And bars.

[porphyrian]

223. Again, repeating false statements won't make them true. - n/t

[mondo joe]

224. Then stop doing it. :-)

We are free to do that but which we wish to limit.

[porphyrian]

227. Call kettles black much, pot?

If you just feel better getting the last word, I'll let you have it, but you haven't refuted my claims yet. Instead, you've been continually trying to drag us off point into a semantic argument about legal jargon. My repetition only mirrors your own.

[mondo joe]

229. From Public Accommodations on everything you'd said has been refuted

except of course for the few things no one disagreed with to begin with - like bars are privately owned.

You sure beat on that drum - even though NO ONE said otherwise and even though it is irrelevant to the precedent.

[spacelady]

231. Why do you want to make MORE laws that impact freedoms?

You are not my Mom!

[mondo joe]

242. I don't need to be your mom to wish to prohibit you poisoning others,

just as I don't need to be mom to corporations that seek to dump toxins into the air and water.

Do I?

[spacelady]

246. So, you want to be the prohibition police? Big Shoes.

[mondo joe]

251. Prohibition? Not at all. I have no interest in outlawing cigarettes.

Or alcohol. Or drugs.

[porphyrian]

189. That sounds more like a parenting issue...

...than a smoking ban justification.

[EmmaP]

191. Clarification

I was simply trying to add some clarification for those who have been saying that children are not permitted in bars.

[porphyrian]

194. Thanks, then. - n/t

[spacelady]

232. Ha Ha! I made my post #231 before I read this one!!

We are on the same page & I got your back. I have been following this thread since the beginning & thank you for your consistent & COHERENT responses to these...dare I say it...Little old ladies--sorry to smudge your white gloves dearies!

[porphyrian]

297. It's good to know some of us value freedom.

Really, I think Mondo just likes to debate.

[CardInAustin]

230. Very interesting....

"Stop trying to turn this into a "protecting the employees" argument, which it isn't."

It isn't? Well thanks for clearing that up. :sarcasm:

"No one concerned about the effects of smoking applies to a job in a smoking bar."

They don't?!?! Says who? You?! Oh well, that certainly clears it up!

Give me a break. Oh what authority do you say that? Of course they do. How can you possibly speak for these people??

"Why are you scared of freedom?"

Oh, that is just classic. Absolutely classic. Yes....that is it....that is completely and totally it. I am scared of freedom.

Well it could be that, or it could be that I think it is unfair to provide an unsafe work environment. Either way.

Now, couldn't you just as easily say:
- workers that deal crops aren't concerned about the effects of pesticides
- nobody that is concerned about physical safety works in steel mill
- nobody that is concerned about cancer works in a chemical plant

Let me know when I should stop.

Seriously, I understand your position and sympathize with it to a point. I wish nobody smoked...ever....but I know that is not a reason to outlaw it in any way, shape, or form. However, when people who are simply trying to earn a living are exposed to something so voluntary that can forever harm their health....that is unacceptable.

[porphyrian]

300. Who are you protecting?

No one who seeks a job at a smoking bar is unaware of its hazards. No one who seeks a job at a bar is limited to that job as those skills are transferrable to any number of other service jobs. The thing is, bar employees are not the ones here crusading to get smoking banned from bars, its merely a bunch of behavior control technicians who seek to eliminate the freedoms of adults in places they will never frequent anyway, because they are aware of the conditions of a smoking bar. Your moralistic high horse crap is simply that. If you really want to help others, help those that want help.

[dogday]

204. Some people cannot be around

Cologne, Perfume or any of those substances. Should we ban people from wearing them cause some people are allergic? Everyone has some problem or another. Where do we draw the line?

[mondo joe]

210. Some people are allergic to things. Smoking is poisonous to everyone.

Sound like a good dividing line?

[dogday]

213. So are the fumes from Carbon Monoxide and

all the cleaning sprays in your home. They are poisonous. Yet everyday in America, women are mixing 5-10 different chemicals when they clean their home. And if you live in an area where there is a lot of traffic, don't forget factories and refineries, you can see what you are breathing.

Poisonous fumes comes in many forms.

[mondo joe]

214. Yes, and so I support emissions regulations and other ways to try

to minimize or eliminate those toxins. Those are pretty standard Dem issues.

I'm pretty libertarian on most personal matters. Do whatever drugs you want, get as many abortions as you like, drink yourself to death if you like.

But when your choices directly negatively impact others things get more complicated.

(And before anyone bothers, the things I mentioned CAN impact others. In those cases I favor prohibitions to limit that - like laws against drunk driving. It is possible to do drugs without harming anyone else. As soon as someone figures out a way to smoke without it putting toxins into people nearby, I'll be more supportive.)

[dogday]

216. I think they should have smoking only bars

Smokers should also have some sort of venue. This point they are being shunned and ostracized, and that is not the way either...

Protect everyone but allow equal rights.. Can that be done?

[mondo joe]

217. I don't think no smoking in public accomodations shuns smokers --

it's not as if they can't enter a space without smoking. They can and do stop for periods of time.

That said, I wouldn't object to some sort of smoking club, the same way I don't object to strip clubs. If that activity is the core business, I think one can hardly object to it once inside.

The core business of a standard bar is not smoking, but selling alcoholic beverages, some consumed by people who want to smoke, some not.

This is fine tuning, I know, but I think the distinctions are important.

And for that matter I'm not even all that anti-smoking, though I am very opposed to illogical and fallacious arguments.

[spacelady]

234. Says you, give some proof that smoking is poisonous to EVERYONE.

Then talk to the various 80 & 90 year old lifelong smokers. Enough with your ridiculous blanket statements about what YOU think is proper behavior. Don't frequent places where smoking is allowed & let smokers do what they do in peace already.

[mondo joe]

239. This has nothing to do with what I consider "proper behavior". Another

fallacy from the pro-poison campaign.

And "where smoking is allowed" is precisely the issue -- and an ever changing category at that.

[spacelady]

275. Where is the proof that smoking is poisonous to everyone? n/t

[ballabosh]

295. Clarification

Are you suggesting that smoking is healthful to some people? Or that some people can smoke without being affected detrimentally?

[High Plains]

94. Nothing like arguing with the self-righteous

No, people who are not able to be around cigarette smoke need not stay home. But neither do they need to go to places where people smoke, then complain and try to get laws passed to stop people from engaging in a legal activity.

If there are enough people who feel like you, there will be a business that will accomodate your wishes.

Why not leave it up to the business owner to decide whether to allow smoking or not? We have enough laws already.

I'm allergic to fish. I stay away from fishy restaurants. I do not demand that laws be passed stopping these restaurants from cooking fish.

[mondo joe]

103. Fishy restaurants?

Are there restaurants at which you ingest some of the fish from another diner at another table?

[PowerToThePeople]

195. Some Oriental restaurants make all food on one grill-top.

So you could ingest some fish oils or other pieces of someone else's meal.

[mondo joe]

199. If you have a specific or unusual allergy it is your responsibility to

inform waitstaff.

But no one else ordering or eating fish at another table is going to get it in your body. It's quite easy to eat a restaurant in which others are having fish and yet not consume any yourself.

The same is not true of smoking.

[PowerToThePeople]

200. You won't get any smoke in your body if you don't go in.

That is your choice.

Another, foreign example, is the running of the bulls. No one there is dumb enough to go into the streets where they know there all a bunch of charging bulls, then sue to get the bulls removed because they were stupid.

You do not have to go where there is smoking. That is your choice.

[mondo joe]

201. And it is your choice to advocate for smoke free bars. Choice is

funny that way.

Thanks for dropping the stupid fish analogy, which like all those other analogies is laughably flawed.

[PowerToThePeople]

202. It is also your choice to advocate for child slavery.

We are talking about rights, and your wish to repress other peoples rights. You know darn well what is taking place inside of a bar. It is your choice not to enter if you do not wish to.

It would be like someone going into a strip club and trying to pass a law saying the girls need to stay clothed....

[mondo joe]

205. Yes, smoke free bars are just like child slavery. Thank you.

You've made a very eloquent point there.

Smoke free restaurants and movie theaters and work break rooms have us 80% of the way to virtual child slavery.

Smoking bars are the last hold outs.

(PS: Smoke free bars do not repress anyone else's rights, any more than pet-free bars or non-sex-on-the-stools bars do.)

[PowerToThePeople]

207. You do not read what I write. Or, at minimum, fail to understand.

I will not continue this talk. Good day.

[mondo joe]

209. I understood you quite well - with my regrets on such a poor analogy.

It's almost worse than the fish analogy, and certainly more insulting.

[EmmaP]

208. When did

When did looking at naked women start causing cancer?

[Texasgal]

301. I once had a patient in ER

That had a SEVERE allergic reaction from a spot of shellfish that squited in his eye from another table.

It can happen.

Carry on.

[spacelady]

82. You are talking about your allergy to cigarette smoke and saying that

there is nothing you can compare to smoking. Try this: people with severe peanut allergies cannot even be around peanut dust, it is deadly to them. So in that vein are you suggesting that all privately owned bars must remove all the complimentary bowls of peanuts to accommodate those peanut allergy sufferers who insist they must have a peanut-free environment so they can exercise their "right"
to go to a bar and drink?

[TahitiNut]

166. There are no allergens in tobacco smoke.

While ETS may increase the frequency of asthma attacks, so does stress.

[PowerToThePeople]

75. The main reason for legislating handi-cap accessible.

Was because there were not enough handicapped "in-need" people to warrant the introduction of accessibility options on a purely profit driven business. It is not the same idea as a non-smoking bar.

Everyone walking into a bar knows what to expect. Drunks, sluts, booze, smoke, hookers, drugs, drunken-fights, etc. Those are things that have always been in bars.

FUCK those people telling me how to live my life.

I swear I need to fucking kill myself before these "morality driven" fucktards take over the world.

[elehhhhna]

165. Uh, IIRC, suicide is also illegal.

[progressivebydesign]

72. Sorry. As long as a business is open to the public, we have rights. n/t

[porphyrian]

88. Yes, your right is to not go into the private establishment...

...if you don't like their policy. Bars ARE NOT open to the general public. You must be an adult to enter, and you must be 21 or older in most states in order to consume alcohol on the premises. What non-smoker who would otherwise be allowed in a bar could not tell that it was a smoking establishment at the door? Why do you think you can dictate the legal behavior of adults on private property?

[mondo joe]

106. Of course you are also free to not enter the business.

That's another non issue.

Why do people think legal behavior can be dictated? What a funny question -- the fact that there is legal and illegal behavior tells you behavior can be dictated, and you ought to know what is legal or illegal is subject to change.

[porphyrian]

109. Now who's being silly?

Legally smoking in a private bar does not equate to murder, or any other behavior we've already made laws to prevent. You ought to know that.

[mondo joe]

113. "Murder"? Who said "murder"? Got drama?

Legal smoking impacts the health of those in the same restaurant/office/bar.

[porphyrian]

117. I merely listed a behavior that's illegal in response to your statement.

Use lame debating tactics much?

[mondo joe]

122. Many legal activities are already prohibited in bars.

That something is legal doesn't mean it can't be prohibited in bars.

[porphyrian]

125. It also doesn't mean that it should be.

Who should decide, the people who go to and work in those bars, or anti-smoking crusaders who will never spend a dime in those establishments?

[mondo joe]

128. Issues of public health are public issues.

And your question here about bars is no different than any other accomodation:

"Who should decide, the people who go to and work in those bars, or anti-smoking crusaders who will never spend a dime in those establishments?"

vs.

"Who should decide, the people who go to and work in those restaurants, or anti-smoking crusaders who will never spend a dime in those establishments?"

[porphyrian]

131. Wrong.

The difference is the clientele. Minors are not allowed in a bar. No one needs to go to a bar in order to get essential products or services. Entering a bar is purely an adult choice - there is no accidental exposure to the bar environment.

[mondo joe]

133. Neither are restaurants or movie theaters essential.

And the presence of minors is an absolute non issue.

[porphyrian]

136. Wrong again.

But feel free to call everything you can't argue a non-issue.

[walldude]

16. If your rights end where mine begin

then stop driving. Turn off your air conditioners, stop using plastics.. etc, etc.. we could play this game all day. While I am a smoker I am very careful of other people, I didn't smoke around non-smokers before it was "fashionable" to hate smokers. There are already cities trying to ban smoking altogether and I believe there are already a couple that have done it. I don't mind smoking outside but thats where it ends. I will be happy to keep my stinky habits away from you, you want it to go further than that then you are going to have to give up a few habits that affect my health and well being.

[Skittles]

18. well in the same vein

my right to be safe on the road trumps ANYINE f***ing talking on their cell phone while driving

[Rainbowreflect]

22. You won't get any argument from me on that one.

My husband & I were almost killed a few weeks ago by an idiot on their cell phone who believed their conversation was more important then our lives.

[Touchdown]

27. You have a right to go to a smokefree bar?

:wtf:

Do you have a right to go to the rodeo and not smell bullshit too?

[Dorian Gray]

55. :)

Touchdown, you just put a smile on my face!

[progressivebydesign]

73. SMELLING BULLSHIT DOESN"T KILL YOU!

Is there some chemical that is deposited in smoker's brains that make them unable to understand that it's NOT THE SMELL! It's the chemicals and particles that kill people. If you are hellbent on killing yourself, groovy, just don't take us with you.

Smoking is not self-contained.

[Touchdown]

77. Neither does second hand smoke.

See my post above.

BTW: Thanks for loving the sinner and hating the sin there. How very sanctimonious of you. Who would Jesus browbeat? :eyes:

EDIT: ...and just an FYI, Bovine feces contain Methane.

[mondo joe]

57. I don't give a fuck how polite you are - but I do about having to breathe

your fumes. And I care about people who have to breathe it to have a job.

You know we usually don't go for employers making employees intake toxins.

[Touchdown]

80. How's your coal powered electricity your using?

Coal miners get black lung, but without them, 1/3rd of the country would be without power. Some jobs have certain hazards. That's just life.

[mondo joe]

97. But those hazards are necesities of the job - not arbitrary. n/t

[Touchdown]

238. Drinking in a bar is not a necessity, thus having a job there

isn't critical to society or the infrastructure.

[mondo joe]

240. Who ever said it was critical to society? Not me. Can't you guys come up

with one honest response?

[Touchdown]

255. Who's "us guys"? Besides...

Your resonse was less than disingenuous itself. You made an emphatic statement about saftey in the workplace, and not specific to drinking establishments, which ostensibly include ice climbing photographers as well as the mundane cops and firefighters.

Why must you guys, who say your liberal, but don't see freedom for indivinduals, always bring out the extreme hyperbole as if your reading lines from Reefer Madness everytime this subject comes up? I thought liberal was supposed to mean open minded.

Here's an honest response...I have no sympathy for you if you have to inhale tobacco smoke while your destroying your liver with that 3rd Sex on the Beach.

[mondo joe]

263. There are risks in many jobs, but not all risks are necessary.

In answer to your question, I do see freedom for individuals. I see your freedom to ingest anything you like (meaning I'd support your freedom to ingest those things that are currently illegal).

I also see the freedom of people to use public accomodation without being exposed to toxins.

That's what makes smoking problematic - it doesn't only impact the smoker.

And that drinker destroying his or her liver - I support the freedom to do that as well.

[Touchdown]

302. Well, I'm sure those bar workers feel so cared for

knowing you wish them to work in such a sterile place. I'm sure they have a little tear in their eye now.

Speaking of being honest, don't try to condescend that you actually care about mixologists. This isn't about them, and you know it. You are using them as your parade of "innocent victims" for your own sanctimonious crusade.

[porphyrian]

86. You don't have to breathe my fumes.

You don't have to go to a bar. Exercise your rights and stop trying to limit mine.

[mondo joe]

96. The employees have to. Usually dems frown upon inflicting toxins

on each other.

[porphyrian]

98. The employees know that's part of the job.

Smoking is a legal activity. As long as that's true, you're claim is merely conjecture and exaggeration. I'm sure feeling like the savior of bar employees makes you feel superior, however.

[mondo joe]

100. Like Karen Silkwood knew the risks? "Politeness laws" my ass.

Smoking is legal.

So is having sex. But it's not legal to do it at the table in a restaurant.

That's just more BS like your phoney "politness laws" which is flat out untrue. It has nothing to do with "politeness" and everything to do with not having to breathe in toxins in public accomodations.

[porphyrian]

107. A bar is not public!

It is a PRIVATE business. All of the adults who enter a bar are aware of the smoke, and choose to enter anyway. It's ridiculous of you to imply that an adult who enters a smoking bar may not be aware of the dangers involved in doing so. Simply choosing to enter the bar means they accept that. Who the hell are you to tell them they can't?

[mondo joe]

110. A bar is as public as a restaurant or bookstore - those are also private

businesses. But they are public acccomodations and subject to laws that govern public accomodations.

[porphyrian]

116. No, a bar is not the same.

Only adults are allowed in a bar. Unless you are implying that adults need their choices made for them by laws, there is no reason to ban smoking in them. I've already said that I support smoking bans in truly public areas and businesses which supply essential products and services. Bars do NOT fall into that category.

[mondo joe]

120. Adults only is a non-issue to public health concerns.

Adults are the only people in office break rooms too.

Bars are as public as reataurants.

[porphyrian]

124. You like to bandy about the term "public health concerns..."

...yet we know drinking alcohol to be one of the biggest public health concerns, and I don't hear you saying anything about that. So, you just like to be able to cherry-pick your public health concerns when passing behavior control laws, am I right?

[mondo joe]

130. And bars are required to limit that as well.

Additionally - and this is the critiical issue - if you drink all night long it doesn't intoxicate anyone but you.

I don't care if you drink, use cocaine, pierce your body 1,000 times or almost anything else, as long as it's only to your own body.

[porphyrian]

132. But the only other people it is affecting have accepted that...

...and chose to be exposed to it anyway. Why do you want to remove that freedom?

[mondo joe]

134. For the same reason I respect the right of the people to prohibit

smoking in and movie theaters.

[porphyrian]

139. Then you're being intellectually dishonest. - n/t

[mondo joe]

143. No argument, huh? At least you know that much.

A bar is a public accomodation, regardless of age restrictions, just as restaurants and movie theaters are.

[porphyrian]

147. Wrong again.

A bar is a PRIVATE accomodation open only to the adult public, and even then, the business may refuse service or admission to anyone they like. Your non-argument is getting tiresome.

[mondo joe]

149. A bar is a public accomodation, as are restaurants and theaters. Public

Accomodation is not defined by minor access.

[porphyrian]

156. You are a broken record.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

[progressivebydesign]

70. No. He's advocating HEALTH laws. 2nd hand smoke kills.

Just as you are not allowed to bring in a pesticide fogger into a restaurant, cigarettes (which also contain pesticide) are essentially the same thing. It's a health issue.

If your personal addiction is one that did not affect everyone around you (why don't smokers get that part?) then who cares? I couldn't care less if you were a heroin addict and sat near me in a bar, it doesn't affect me. BUT.. your habit is not self-contained.. that's the point.

[porphyrian]

87. Smoking is rightly restricted in public.

However, a private non-essential business such as a bar is not public. Until smoking is itself illegal, you have no right saying what people can and can not do within the law there. If you don't like the policy of the business, DON'T GO THERE.

[mondo joe]

101. Having sex is legal too. Can you have sex on the bar?

Another silly fallacy of yours - that anything legal is legal in a bar.

There are already health codes and more in place in bars.

[porphyrian]

105. I never said anything legal is legal in a bar.

But feel free to misinterpret what I say all you like.

Yes, there are health codes in bars. But they don't, and shouldn't, affect smoking, as everyone who enters a smoking bar is aware of, and accepts, these health concerns, but CHOOSE to enter ANYWAY, as is their right. This seems to be the thing you're all hung up on.

Pesitcides are as toxic, if not moreso, than cigarette smoke, yet I don't hear all this righteous indignation about pesticides to protect exterminators. Now, get your damn agenda off my rights.

[mondo joe]

108. Sure you did. And as you should know, what is legal or illegal is

subject to change.

There are plenty of legal things that aren't legal to do in bars, even though you say "Until smoking is itself illegal, you have no right saying what people can and can not do within the law there."

[porphyrian]

115. And I hold to what I say.

No one who enters a private bar where people smoke is unaware of the smoke or the fact that they'll be breathing it. Each person who enters that bar is accepting this willfully. Why do you feel that more laws need to be created to prevent their right to do so?

[mondo joe]

118. Laws to protect public health are a legitimate concern of the people,

that's why.

Do people know there's smoke in bars? Yes. Can they change that? Yes, they can, just as they did in workplaces and restaurants.

You already acknowledge these things - bars are no different.

[porphyrian]

121. People in smoking bars don't want the laws changed.

They want to be able to smoke in their bars. It's self-righteous crusaders who would never go into these businesses in the first place that are trying to ban smoking in bars across the board, and I call bullshit. This is unnecessary behavior control, and it is obnoxious and uncacceptable in a free society.

[mondo joe]

123. Then then can advocate to permit smoking, just as others can advocate to

prohibit it.

And it is certainly acceptable in a free society.

[porphyrian]

127. There's no need to advocate freedoms in a free society!

You are advocating removing freedoms, which is antithetical to the concept.

[mondo joe]

137. You mean like the freedom to have sex on the bar or bring cats to the bar

or use crack in the bar?

How about the freedom to smoke in restaurants and movie theaters?

[porphyrian]

142. Crack is illegal, so now who's being fallatious?

And I have absolutely no problem with consentual adults having sex in an adult-only private business establishment. It is merely another behavior control law pushed by morality crusaders.

[mondo joe]

146. Crack is illegal? You mean the people have the right to regulate

these things? Good -- you're making progress!

Now we know you have no problem with people doing anything in a bar, but try not to confuse that with the right of the people to regulate commerce.

[porphyrian]

150. Don't be patronizing with such a weak position, it's embarrassing.

Bars are private businesses. They are not open to the public, they are open only to the adults the business allows to enter. Keep trying, though, you're actually helping my argument.

[mondo joe]

152. Bars, restaurants and theaters are private business and as a matter of law

they are public accomodations.

[porphyrian]

157. You are a broken record.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

[mondo joe]

160. Don't worry - I'll help you. Here's the legal code:

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 126 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 12181 Prev | Next

§ 12181. Definitions
Release date: 2005-02-25


The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

[porphyrian]

171. Now you're distracting from the argument.

I'm arguing that it is unnecessary and obnoxious behavior control to ban smoking in bars. You are trying to squabble about pre-existing legal jargon.

[mondo joe]

173. To the contrary - you have claimed bars are exempt from public status

becuse they are privately owned and restrict users.

You are wrong.

[porphyrian]

178. See Post 177. - n/t

[mondo joe]

181. Let's end your lesson with a summary:

The law:

Are bars public accommodations? Yes, they are.

Do the people have a right to regulate commerce, including prohibition of otherwise legal activities? Yes, they do.

Opinion:

Should the people regulate commerce, including prohibition of otherwise legal activities?

Some say yes, some say no, though there are MANY regulated, otherwise legal, activities that incur little or no protest, so apparently people do accept that prohibiting some activities in private businesses is appropriate legislation.

[porphyrian]

183. Wrong. See Post 182. - n/t

[mondo joe]

186. No one said bars are public businesses. They are public accommodations

which are something different.

It's silly of you to go on about bars not being public businesses since no one ever said they were, and it is not legally relevant, nor is it relevant in any other way since you already concede the right to legislate behavior in other privately owned businesses.

[porphyrian]

187. See Post 185. - n/t

[GodHelpUsAll2]

276. I beg to differ

I work in a business that services the public. We allow smoking in the building. A lot of our customers smoke so we put out the ash trays. We are a PRIVATE owned busines that services the public.

[mondo joe]

279. Bars are privately owned, but are Public Accommodations as a matter

of law, as are movie theaters, restaurants and many more privately owned businesses.

Public Accommodation doesn't mean Publicly Owned.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

284. Yes I am well aware of that

But thanks for pointing it out as if I were 5. I don't know how I lived this long without you here to define things for me!

[mondo joe]

286. Then what did you "beg to differ" over, since that is precisely what

I argued earlier?

[m_welby]

5. very true, I'm a smoker and I do the same for the most part.

I smoke outdoors at my own home (even in the dead of winter). That is not a problem for me, nor is stepping outside at a smoke free establishemnt.

I can't agree on a universal smoking ban though. If an establishment wants to be 'smoke free' that is just fine, but establishements should also have the right to allow smoking.

Forcing an establishment to be smoke free is just as fascist as forcing an establishment to allow smoking.

It really should be up to the proprieter of the business, not the government. The government doesn't belong in my local barroom any more than my bedroom.

Why is always all or nothing?

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I favor anything that makes smoking harder to do or less

socially acceptable. I am a smoker trying desperately to quit. I quit buying cigarettes the first of August. If they weren't available or if it was harder to find a place to smoke, I would be have quit a long time ago.

[porphyrian]

91. Oh, that's good.

You can't quit smoking, so let's punish the entire populace for it. Does anyone remember the meaning of "freedom" or "personal responsibility" anymore?!

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. Smoking is harmful

This isn't about punishing anyone. It's about keeping everyone healthy.

[porphyrian]

99. Smoking is legal.

Deal with it.

[mondo joe]

104. So is corporate polluting of water and air - but I am opposed to that as

well.

So is Diebold voting.

"It's legal" is a value-neutral observation.

[porphyrian]

111. Equating smoking in a private bar...

...to corporate polluting and election rigging is intellectually dishonest.

[mondo joe]

114. The only difference is your personal bias. That something is legal only

reflects the past thinking of the people - and that is subject to change.

[porphyrian]

119. That doesn't mean it should be changed.

It's your personal bias in thinking it should.

[mondo joe]

126. It's up to the electorate to advicate for what they want changed or

not.

I don't care very much either way. I just have to point out your arguments are falllacious.

[porphyrian]

129. No, it's not their business to pass laws on a private establishment.

Public establishments, yes. Private adults-only businesses, no.

[mondo joe]

140. Nonsense. There are numerous laws - and you already accepted them -

on private establishments.

No smoking in restaurants and movie theaters.

No bringing your cat to the bar, or having sex on the barstool.

I could go on for a very long time, but the end point is the same.

[porphyrian]

144. Are you bothering to read what I've said, or just what you want to see?

Restaurants and movie theaters are not the same as bars, and I don't accept the other behavior control laws on them, they just haven't applied to me yet.

[mondo joe]

151. I read what you wrote, but you're wrong. As a matter of law, bars are a

Public Accomodation, as are restaurants and bars.

And whether you accept other regulation is not relevant to whether they exist, can exist or should exist.

[porphyrian]

153. Sorry, you're wrong.

Bars are private businesses. The general public is not allowed in a bar, nor is it every necessary to enter a bar. Imagine whatever you like, however.

[mondo joe]

154. I see you don't know what "Public Accomodation" means.

That explains a lot.

[porphyrian]

158. You are a broken record.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

[mondo joe]

162. US Code for your benefit - no charge for the tutelage!

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 126 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 12181 Prev | Next

§ 12181. Definitions
Release date: 2005-02-25


The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

[porphyrian]

172. Now you're distracting from the argument.

I'm arguing that it is unnecessary and obnoxious behavior control to ban smoking in bars. You are trying to squabble about pre-existing legal jargon.

[mondo joe]

174. Your argument has been that smoking is LEGAL. Now you want to ignore

the LAW.

Funny.

[porphyrian]

179. See Post 177. - n/t

[spacelady]

233. The true democratic process is designed to protect the minority from

the tyranny of the majority.

[mondo joe]

236. This is not a majority/minority issue - there are no civil rights

being denied to those who choose to smoke.

And public health is designed to protect the health of the public.

Or do you think the "minority" has the right to poison innocents nearby?

How do you feel about the "minority" rights of corporate CEOs who would like to engage in toxic dumps into drinking water?

[spacelady]

243. You are advocating a type of bullying tyranny by advocating

legislation prohibiting private business owners to allow a legal behavior in an adult non-essential establishment. Get off your own fundie cross! For heaven's sake, just think for a minute about what you are advocating--why do you CARE if some bars allow smoking? What exactly is your argument? Go to your own potpourri & fern bar!

[mondo joe]

244. Why do citizens care if they can enter a public accommodation without

being exposed to toxins? I'll let you think about it.

And I don't particularly care if you smoke in bars or not - but others do and all your BS reasons are fallacious.

And once more, ALL SORTS of legal behavior is prohibited in public accommodations. I suggest you get over it.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

248. That's about the reasoning of the pro-public smoke posts in this thread.

Thanks for not disappointing.

[spacelady]

252. Way to edit, Mondo Joe. Looks like you want to take back a few things.

[mondo joe]

254. Do you have a problem with the edit function?

[spacelady]

257. Yes, when it completely alters the message to which I have responded.

Kinda takes my answer out of context in an unfair way.

[PowerToThePeople]

259. Mojo certainly has some Rovian-like spin going on here imo. n/t

[mondo joe]

261. Is insulting other posters your entire argument?

Or do you have a point to make about the issue?

[PowerToThePeople]

264. I have made many points in this thread.

But, you don't seem to recall them. I addressed that issue here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5126058&mesg_id=5142932

The argument is a private property rights issue. The property owner is the bar owner, the property the bar. It is NOT required for you to enter it for any reason whatsoever. You darn well know what takes place there and, if choosing to enter, take on any risks associated with it.

[mondo joe]

266. Private properrt rights? Bars are a public accommodation, as a matter

of law. They are subbject to a whole range of laws. You can't legally have sex on the bar, bring in pets, tattoo people or a lot of other things.

Or do you think the people don't have the right to regulate commerce?

[mondo joe]

260. I didn't edit anything after it was responded to - I don't even think you

CAN do that, though I may be wrong about that.

If I was editing while you were responding and we overlappped I'm sorry for the apppearance of taking out the context - I didn't mean to.

[spacelady]

274. I am not familiar with the editing functions, but it sure smelled like

back pedalling--anyway, your "sex in a bar" comparison is as specious as the "sex with whatever" issue with regard to gay marriage. It's not even an issue for discussion. I have an issue with people who think thay need to be the public health police--perhaps akin to vegetarians who disparage people who eat animal products. Please live & let live, it's the democratic way, right?

[mondo joe]

277. I don't know which post in particular you're referring to so I can't

check, but you can easily look at the timing of the edit and your reply.

I assure you I did not change anything after knowing you'd responded at any time.

But my points were not specious -- private businesses are regulated in more ways than you can count and I listed several of those ways.

Your vegetarian analogy, however, is fallacious - if you eat a harmburger it doesn't enter my body. But if you smoke near me it does. You all seem to keep forgetting or ignoring that.

You may believe the people do not have the right to regulate commerce, but I don't agree. To the contrary, I wish people were more invested in clean air and water.

[spacelady]

281. Well, the "get off your cross" remark comes to mind in your earlier post

and your second edited post is completely different but alas, I did not memorize it. But you seem to keep ignoring the fact that if you do not enter a smoking allowed establishment, cigarette smoke will not enter your body. Is that so hard to fathom?

[mondo joe]

285. If you look at that post you'll see I first posted at 8:35 and edited at

8:37. Your follow up was posted at 8:46, almost 10 minutes after I edited.

It sometimes happens that posters overlap in timing and this was clearly one of those times. It's unfortunate, but it happpens, and I have apologized for the appearance of removing the context.

With regard to this post, I do not ignore the fact that if you enter a smoking establishment you risk intaking smoke.

That's not at question.

The question is which establishments should/will be allowed to permit smoking.

This is a mutable state, as many establishments that once did permit smoking no longer do, and many of those are prohibited from doing so.

[spacelady]

289. OK, does that make it right? Should we burn books so that certain

ideas should not "pollute the mind"? Why is it so hard for you to accept that it is wrong to continue down a slippery slope when there are venues for different tastes still available? Tomato/Tomatoe

Just because prohibitive laws are made, should we not champion the underdog when unfair laws are made? Do smokers need to go sit in the corner? What would make you happy in this discussion?

[mondo joe]

292. Books don't cause cancer, and you reading a book doesn't place

the text in someone else's head.

I see you still don't get the difference between choosing things you intake and things that you cause others to intake.

I don't accept that it's wrong because it's not wrong. The people havve the right to regulate commerce, and the right to areas of public accomodation free of toxins if they so choose.

I don't think smokers need to sit "in the corner". They can go anywhere anyone else can go.

What would make me happy in this discussion? I would be happpy if people would get that smoking is not like eating fish or reading books or drinking alcohol because unlike any of those things it is enters the bodies of those nearby.

[spacelady]

249. I suggest you get over your overly supercilious, prohibitionistic,

overly inflated, self-proclaimed nanny police state idea of what you think everyone in the entire universe should do just so you can look like an ecologically, evironmentally astute know-it-all. Find a real issue & then get back to me.

[mondo joe]

250. "Nanny state"? I don't know where you got that.

I think you should be legally free to use any drugs you like, drink all you like of whatever you want, have all the consensual sex with anyone who will have you, read what you want, buy all the porn you choose, have an abortion as it suits you and pretty much anything you like to do.

[PowerToThePeople]

253. "I think you should be legally free to use any drugs you like"

Thank you. I choose nicotine. And I will continue to use it in the venue it has been used since ages gone by, my local tavern.

[mondo joe]

256. Great. And at present you can do that legally.

That may change.

[PowerToThePeople]

258. By the looks of this board, I doubt it will become illegal.

Unless you pay diebold off first...

[mondo joe]

265. I don't know -- there have been pretty big strides in getting

smoking out of a lot of other public accommodations.

I don't care personally if it happens or not in bars.

[PowerToThePeople]

267. I agree, many (back)strides have happened recently in USA

n/t

[mondo joe]

268. Do you believe the people have the right to regulate commerce?

Or are you of the Business Can Do Anything school of thought?

[PowerToThePeople]

269. Commerce? No one is purchasing cigarette smoke... n/t

[mondo joe]

270. Did you not know commerce includes bars and restaurants?

Do you believe the people have the right to regulate commerce?

[PowerToThePeople]

271. I believe I have the right to ignore this thread.

Damn! Can't believe i got sucked into it second day in a row...

Time to smoke.

[mondo joe]

272. If you can't answer that's okay. I can see why you wouldn't want to say

you don't believe in the right of the people to regulate commerce.

[spacelady]

278. Well, I like to smoke cigarettes in smoky bars while looking at porn,

& getting really drunk, & acting responsibly when I leave. Who are you to want to prohibit that, a Nanny? Go jump in a lake, hopefully not a polluted one & pick up the litter while you're at it. Now, why can't we all just get along?

[mondo joe]

280. Sure we can all get along - though that may ultimately require you

to stop blowing toxins into the air in some businesses.

We'll see.

[PowerToThePeople]

282. Sure we can all get along - when you stop trolling. n/t

[mondo joe]

287. Nothing to contribute but insults again? Tch tch.

Have you decided if you believe in the power of the people to regulate commerce?

[PowerToThePeople]

288. Read my sig, if you can read at all.

I am a staunch socialist. Prolly more regulatory towards business than you are.

But also a staunch supporter of personal rights. One of those rights being having a smoke while my friends and I get drunk and pick up bar sluts at the local pup.

[mondo joe]

290. I see. You believe in the power of the people to regulate commerce

except when it inconveniences you.

Thank you.

[PowerToThePeople]

291. You sir, are a fucking idiot!!!!!

done for good with you, dumbshit.

[mondo joe]

293. You've said that before, but come back. Maybe I'm addictive. :-)

[spacelady]

283. And that may require you to stop blowing hot air in a free country.

Yes, we shall see.

[proud2BlibKansan]

164. Hopefully not for long

[porphyrian]

298. Glad to see you embrace the concept of freedom...

:eyes:

[ballabosh]

7. Wow, I screwed up

This should have been in the smoking ban thread. My bad.

[SheilaT]

14. Thank you.

I am a nonsmoker and I sincerely appreciate that many smokers do honestly try to be considerate.

But what a lot of smokers really don't get is that when they come inside after going out for the smoke, they reek. Not too long ago I was at a local social security office, and despite the standard non-smoking ban, so many of the people in the waiting room were smokers, the waiting room absolutely smelled almost as strongly as if people were actually lighting up inside. I was quite astonished. The main reason I could tell that no one had actually smoked inside was that it was the slightly stale/sweaty/body odor kind of thing that was in the air along with the clear aroma of nicotine.

[Rainbowreflect]

19. I just had lunch with some friends, one of them smokes.

Although she did not smoke in front of me the reek on her clothes and hair made me lose my appetite.

[SheilaT]

23. Yeah, good example.

And no matter how much you try to tell smokers this, they honestly think that if they're not lighting up in front of you, there's nothing to smell, or worse yet, you can't tell they're smokers.

[Dorian Gray]

56. Okay....

But if bad smells were illegal, then nobody would be allowed to ride the subway in the summer. Because... Horrendous!

It's one thing to discuss second hand smoke. It's another to complain about smokers who make every concession NOT to smoke around you as if they were doing something terrible to you.

And trust me, I hate going over to my in-laws house since quitting smoking because there is a permanant stale odor of smoke all the time. But, that's just life. They smell bad. So does the guy who lives next door to me. Constant B.O. smell in our hallway. Ugh.

[SheilaT]

78. I'm not referring to merely

putting up with bad odors, which we all have to do from time to time. But the fact that smokers really, truly think that if they smoke outside no one can smell it on them. Guess what? We can.

I hate it when I sit in front of someone, such as in a classroom, and during the break they go outside and have a cigarette or three, and then when they come inside it's almost as bad as if they were smoking right behind me. Yuck. But I do not complain to them, because maybe they don't like my perfume, which I try to wear as discreetly as possible so that someone has to be quite close, closer than they should be getting in that situation, to smell.

[Touchdown]

28. Poor thing.

How large is your royal throne anyhow? It's now odors. What next, sight?

And I thought all this time living in a society meant we have to learn to live with other people. I guess I was wrong.

[Rainbowreflect]

32. I have allergies, sorry if that is insulting to you.

I did not say she did not have the right to smoke. I was simply stating that the smell bothers me & she does not realize, as most smokers don't, that the smell is very strong.
I do not wear scented beauty products or perfumes because I understand that some people are bother by them.

[Touchdown]

79. Well that's one thing.

To talk aboujt her as if she isn't human, and that everybody, especially her must bow before your greatness is what ticked me off.

[Rainbowreflect]

176. I have reread & reread my post & I cannot see how anyone

could read into that the I though she should bow before my greatness or I though she was less than human.
I simple stated the fact of my reaction to the reek of smoke on her clothes & hair.
I feel like I must have hit some kind of nerve.

[Touchdown]

237. Hmm. Strange. Maybe you'd read it differently if you were the target

of the talk behind your back. I understand you have upper respiratory problems, but your physical condition is not her responsibility.

[mondo joe]

245. You see, now you're not even allowed to notice bad odors without hitting

the smoking martyr nerve.

[Zhade]

24. Thanks for not being selfish.

NT!

[mokawanis]

29. smoke em if you got em

I am an unrepentant smoker. Don't like the odor? Tough shit. Does it bother you if I'm standing on a sidewalk and smoking? I don't care, go somewhere else.
I don't smoke where it's forbidden, but I do smoke where it's allowed, and I never apologise for that. If someone complains about it at my house I tell them to step outside and get some fresh air. If that's unacceptable they are free to stay away.
As for bars, why not not let the owner of the establishment decide if he/she allows patrons to smoke?
I won't come to your house and remove your fatty foods and soda if you keep your hands off my cigs.

[Rainbowreflect]

33. So you won't have a problem if I spray some lysol in your direction?

[mokawanis]

61. I love the smell of lysol in the morning

So by all means, spray some my way. My point is really just that I don't want to be hassled about smoking as long as I don't light up in no-smoking areas.
If I ain't breaking the law or the rules, I'm not going to be tolerant of people who complain (unless they can make a strong case), like the woman at the beach last summer who approached me and asked me to put out the cig. She walked away angry because I kept smoking. :smoke:

[smbolisnch]

47. Oh please.

:eyes:

[NCPatriot]

35. WOW - Look what YOU stirred up! LOL

I am a 20 year smoker... and until our government makes them illegal, I am sure I will continue to smoke. Too much of a revenue pig for someone to outlaw though! If they really truly wanted to help smokers quit, they would force tobacco comps to provide cessation programs that actually work, instead of just fining them millions of dollars they can write off at the end of the year!

I DO NOT smoke in restaurants... permitted or not! Not in the house, not in the car (resale value) and not in public places where it is not commonplace, I agree that it is a dirty habit and unhealthy.

I DO however smoke the hell out of them in bars... Bars are not something you MUST have to survive (Like clothes from Kohls, or food from BiLo) and they are strictly there for entertainment and relaxation. You rarely go to a bar for dinner, and if you do... you know by now that there is going to be a smoker there!

I agree we both have rights, but I dont feel yours are more important than mine!

I am truly surprised SMOKING in general has not been challenged in the SCOTUS, since it is a proven fact that nicotene causes or contributes to serious health problems. That would make it assisted suicide wouldnt it? I'snt that supposed to be illegal?

hmmm....

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. My son does the same thing because my granddaughter has

allergies. When I visit them, I go outside to smoke as a courtesy to my son's rules of not smoking in his house.

[tx_dem41]

48. I have a problem with the Government being able to tell a private..

property owner what they can do with their own property.

[KerryOn]

54. I agree ...

Private business should be able to do as they please.

I live in Columbus, Ohio and they banned smoking in all bars and restaurants last fall. The city council members decided to vote without asking the people what they thought, and like our government city council is controlled by the Republicans. I think they only had one no vote from the only sitting Democrat. So many complained that it went on the ballets last fall, and the smoking ban passed. Of course they used Di-bold machines and Blackwell was in charge so you can guess the outcome.

I don't have a problem with the restaurants but I do have a problem with bars. At many of the bars you can rent an ash tray for a dollar. The money collected goes into a jug, which is used to pay fines if the bar owner gets caught. I think the fine is $150 each time.

Many of the bars have gone out of business. The patrons just moved to another bar in a suburb. In some areas you can smoke in a bar on one side of the street, but you can not on the other side of the street.

[porphyrian]

92. Thank you. - n/t

[Breeze54]

49. Does your daughter go out to bars?

Because if she does?
You have bigger problems than me smoking a cig with my drink in a bar!!

Get over yourself!!

I nor do you need a f**king nanny!!

Go to a place that serves alcohol and is non-smoking!!

I'm so sic of you people who think the 'gubmint' needs to regulate your life!!

GET ONE instead!!

Yuppies wanna make me puke!!

:puke:

self righteous cry babies!!

Your a smoker??

I wonder where your daughter got her asthma??

Take a L@@k in the mirror, buddy!

Gheez.................

:smoke: & :beer:

[KerryOn]

51. I'm a smoker...

I don't go to the extent that you do but I am very courteous of others around me. I'm courteous to others when out doors as well. I will not smoke in large crowds, but will find an area away from the people. But there is one thing that gets under my skin. Example:

I was at an out door arts festival a few years back. They had an open tent set up for a concert. (No walls on the tent.) There were only a dozen people or so under the tent. I sat in the last row at the very end of a row, so I could smoke. No one was within 50 feet of me. I sat their smoking and a woman came up and sat in the chair directly in front of me and then started complaining. She could have sat anywhere else in that canopy, but no she chose the seat right in front of me. I had the feeling that she did it on purpose, because she started complaining as soon as she sat down. I think she felt that her rights out weighed mine, and it was as if I were breaking the law or something. That pissed me off, and I told here that I had rights as well and she could just move her butt to the other side of the tent or breath the smoke for all I cared. End of story.

[leesa]

52. That's very considerate. I am not allergic, but inhaling it makes me

tachycardic and a little queasy...even when my husband or a neighbor would smoke outside.

[Lorien]

58. I'm extremely allergic to cigarette smoke

I've even gotten sick sitting net to a smoker on a plane (who, of course, wasn't smoking at the time). I can't go into rooms where people are smoking. I don't know how common an allergy it is, but unlike being allergic to peanuts or pets, the only way to avoid cigarette smoke in public buildings that allow it is to leave the building-which is often difficult in the middle of a meal.I appreciated those who are thoughtful enough to take it outside.

[Neil Lisst]

59. I smoke, but never around non-smokers

I don't like to be around the smoke of others, and don't expect others care to be around mine. I smoke only outside, only away from walkways and places people walk or pass by. Cigarette smoke stinks, it's nasty.

Here's the one comic I wrote and published on smoking.

[sepia_steel]

66. I quit after ten years a year and a half ago.

and i used to WISH they'd make smoking illegal. Then i'd HAVE to quit.

My husband still smokes, and the fact that he goes outside doesn't help me much. I think his breath would make our future newborn choke. He washes his hands and removes his jacket but it's really not enough.

[MarsThe Cat]

67. I am a non-smoker.

and i Do NOT support smoking bans. and it's not always true that anyone who smokes can step outside- there are such things as weather, for instance...and the employees of a bar or restaurant may not have the choice to go outside- but they do have a choice as to where to fill out a job application.

[TiredOfLies]

169. I am a non smoker but

everytime we let the government put one more law on us, whether good or bad, depends on whose opinion it is, you're that much closer to a police state, it's time we decided what is best for us, not the government. cigarette smoke makes me sick, but i still have choice to stay and smell the smoke or leave, i don't believe smoking sections ever killed anyone.

[ShrewdLiberal]

69. Between gas prices and cigarette prices...

I don't know how some people do it. Everything is rising in prices--food, clothing, tuition fees, soft drinks, alcohol, electricity, water, etc. Throw a pack of smokes and $3.00 for a gallon of gas every day on top of all the inflation, and, well, it gets pretty dire.

I use to smoke when I was seventeen. I quit when a pack of cigarettes was $1.85 a pack. That was on January 10, 1989. I have friends who tell me that they pay over $5.50 a pack here in western New York. Some go to indian reservations and pick up whole cartons for $15.00 or so. Indian reservations can sell them tax free. Governor Pataki abandoned his attempt to try to tax sales on indian reservations after the tribes went ballistic.

Anyway, I don't agree with all the draconian smoking laws being passed at the local, state, or Federal level. It seems like piling on to me. There should be a place for workers and people in general to go in a work or public place to be able to smoke in peace--no pun intended.

[thinkingwoman]

74. My husband was like you

when he smoked...he was always courteous about it.

He quit smoking cold turkey 9 years ago. It was the best present he ever gave to me and our children.

Good luck with quitting. You can do it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. I'm a smoker and don't smoke around people who object.

But, most people are free to avoid places where there are smokers. Unfortunately, the self-righteous puritans seem to dominate the anti-smokers, and the politicians are always eager to milk sin taxes out of the populace.

[Fox Mulder]

84. As a nonsmoker who is allergic to smoke, I thank you.

Too bad there aren't others as considerate as you. :(

:thumbsup: to you.

[Cetacea]

89. what about perfumes? hair spray?

Many people have chemical sensitivities, while many really don't like smelling someone else while they are swallowing.
And then there are automobiles. I doubt there have been any public studies linking auto exhaust and lung cancer and many other cancers/diseases.

[Blue Diadem]

167. lawn chemicals and pesticides too.

If only people realized all that they are exposed too. Smoking is the easy one because it's so visible.

[rfkrfk]

112. smoking v non-smoking, sections of a restaurant, my recomendation

assumeimg you are not going to die
a week from now from asthma,

even for non-smokers,
consider the smoking section...

reason, that is where the adults are,
the wait staff knows this

on the other hand,
if you enjoy others crying,
or are fond of interior-decoration approriate to
an elementary school cafeteria --> non-smoking

[EmmaP]

138. They don't work

In most establishments, non-smoking areas are a joke.

A non-smoking section in a restaurant/bar is like having a non-peeing section in a swimming pool.

[B Calm]

203. I share an 18 wheel truck tractor with another guy who smokes.

I drive on the day shift and the smoker drives on second shift. I drive around all day with the window down trying to air out the stinch that his smoking has embedded in the upholstery. Not only does the truck stink, there are little white ashes all over my clean floorboards and dash. Now that colder weather is coming, I don't know how I'll be able to air out the truck. I hate to say anything and then be labled as a whiner, so I keep my mouth shut. Thanks smokers!

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

235. Hey, why have this fight once

when we can have it twice!

[laureloak]

262. I wish smoking was banned everywhere.

It's just not worth it to smoke. I hate to see anybody controlled by damned killer nicotine.

[kestrel91316]

299. When CA banned smoking in bars a few years ago

there was a HUGE fuss, but I saw it as an issue of workplace safety for the employees. People who work in smoke-laden air for years can expect to suffer consequences, and if this is how they have to support themselves, it's NOT OK. OSHA doesn't let factories make employees work in toxic air - why should entertainment facilities (that's what bars are) be allowed to?

Everybody is used to it now. We have no smoking in restaurants, bars, or any other places of employment (cigar shops excepted) and over time I am sure we can expect lower costs to the taxpayer for medical care for smokers and their second-hand victims.

Most restaurants and bars now have patios where the smokers can sit outside and pollute to their hearts' content.