So after Nov. There is a chance I won't be able to smoke in my own home

[johnnie]

There is a law to be voted on here in Ohio that will prohibit smoking in many places. I understand that people don't want to have smoking in certain places, but this law could possibly make it illegal to smoke in your own home.

From the proposal:

"Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence)."


I mentioned this elsewhere on DU, but some people seem to not have a problem with the government telling you that you cannot smoke in your own home. I have some other issues with this "law", but to me it blows my mind that people here would support something like this.

What will be next? No drinking alcohol in your home if there are children under the age of 18 residing there? Maybe banning X-rated movies or Playboy magazines from your home while children live there?

It just worries me that people like the idea of more government in my home.

It is state issue 5 BTW.

[MrCoffee]

1. If you're using your house as a day-care, you shouldn't be smoking inside

[seabeyond]

4. they shouldnt. also the parent dropping off their child can make the

decision, not our govt. a parent will know if a person is a smoker. they as parents will make the decision if they drop of their child,if they feel there is a risk.

[MrCoffee]

26. sure, it's just that easy to switch day-care

and that's beside the point. The point is that the law the OP is citing isn't going to stop him from smoking in his home unless he's operating a business there.

Sorry if you're female, OP. No offense intended.

[johnnie]

6. Well, that is true..lol

But this is any home business.

[MrCoffee]

31. so why should your home business be any different?

should it be somehow magically exempt because it's in your home? should you be exempt from OSHA regulations? what about worker's comp laws? should you not be able to be sued by an employee, or a supplier, or anyone else you do business with because it's in your home?

[Subdivisions]

66. You're contradicting yourself. In your OP, you said

"Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence)."

So it does not apply to any home business, as you're stating now.

I don't smoke and I don't like breathing smoke. I think smoking restrictions are a good thing, even if it means that a person can't smoke if they have a client in their home during business hours.

As for people who smoke, I can only offer my experience. I quit cold-turkey. Just decided I no longer wanted to play that particular game of Russian Roulette. I've seen lung cancer and emphasema in action and I decided I didn't want to work towards that goal.

I don't try to push people to quit. I just tell them, as I'm telling you, that I care about you and I don't want you, or your family, to go through what my loved one has went through before she died at just 46 years old. Best wishes for you.

[johnnie]

116. Oh sheezzz

Do I really have to type a whole friggin' book. OK, I'll add on the little bit that I mistakenly thought people would understand:

"But this is any home business with others involved".

Better?

[Mind_your_head]

19. The OP wasn't talking about Day-care centers.....s/he was talking

about their own home.

on edit adding: 'Talk about "taking something and 'putting a twist on it' ..... Geez" '

[MrCoffee]

25. um...re-read the excerpt the OP posted. the law is talking about

businesses operated out of the home, such as day-care.

ETA I didn't read anything at all that would prevent someone from smoking in their home, UNLESS they are operating a business (such as day-care).

[Mind_your_head]

29. Re-read the excerpt?

The OP doesn't even cite the original source.....which I would like to read from....the ORIGINAL CREDIBLE SOURCE.

The OP just "made it up????"

[MrCoffee]

30. here you go...doing the OP's job.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/oh/state/issue/5/#text

[johnnie]

47. Thanks for helping

Lol, I forget that a public declaration of a proposal isn't search-able.

[Occulus]

157. Does it also apply to businesses operating incidentally in the home?

Say, the cable guy, or someone in to look at your pipes?

That's 'business', and it could be argued that that's also conducting business (which, in fact, it is- the only difference is who is 'in business').

Hmm. I wonder if this law could permit such persons to refuse service to homes housing smokers....

[johnnie]

166. I don't think it does

But I'm sure that isn't too far off. As long as we have people who can't see beyond their own predudices, we are headed for even more policing of our homes. Look at how many people here even support this.

[Little Star]

2. First they came for.............

[windbreeze]

163. YOU sure have that right....this is called discrimination, period!!

I understand exactly what the OP is saying...and in my opinion, I agree, it's bullshit...

just like seat belt laws...imo....when I drive MY car...the only life that is endangered if I choose not to wear MY seatbelt, is MINE...it should be no one else's business, nor their concern..just like whether or not I smoke should be no one's business or concern...but MINE...

Now something I see a lot of people do, while driving, that IS a real threat to every other person on the road...is talking on a cell phone.....yet I can be stopped and given a $101 ticket for no seatbelt, which affects no one on the road but me...and the choice WAS taken out of my hands...by law...but my life is allowed to be put at risk by people yakking away as they drive...

Anti smoking laws are discriminatory laws...whatever happened to the right to choose?...when any of us are all gung ho, for taking away someone else's rights...then what does it say about us...It's gonna be one hell of a boring world, when we all do everything alike...because the law says, NO ONE IS ALLOWED to BE DIFFERENT...When a group, or any group, is targeted like smokers are...then who's next(what group)and where does it end??? (personally I'de like to see everyone talking on a cell phone while driving, fined)

There are people who have smoked and/or drank every day of their lives....never suffered one iota from either activity, and lived to be 100....then...there are those who never smoke and get lung cancer....(personally I think we need to ban all the preservatives and hormones in our food)

I may not smoke, but by god, I will defend your right to choose whether you do or not..
windbreeze

[MGD]

218. Bravo Bravo. Go smoke yourself into a coffin now.

Just do it somewhere where I don't have to smell it and don't ask me to foot your medical bills when you're suffocating in that hospital bed.

[windbreeze]

226. Sorry to disappoint you

Read the last line again....I DON'T SMOKE...and as far as medical bills....I pay my own....
windbreeze

[windbreeze]

227. and IF I get lung cancer....it most likely will be from

exposure to tricloroethylene or percloroethylene while spending 20+ years of my working life as a dry cleaner...and then might even have been helped along by working in a potpouri plant....handling dyed(from India and points all over the world)....plants and flowers that were dusty from being dried with who knows what process or chemicals? and dyed with dyes containing unknown chemicals...(See, I questioned the dyes...and my supervisor had no clue how the drying or dying was done or what with.....but weren't there supposed to be safeguards in the workplace that kept us all safe?...did they?....somehow, I think NOT)

Cigarettes are NOT the only thing that cause lung cancer...and many people over the years, in the course of doing their job, were exposed unbeknownst to them, to things that were harmful to their lives....and to their lungs...so how about you back off...

I happen to believe in freedom of choice for YOU...AND everyone else...I don't believe I have the right to tell YOU how to live YOUR life...and in return, YOU have NO RIGHT to tell ME how to live mine...nor would I condone withholding medical treatment from YOU, for any reason, if it were needed....
wb

[MGD]

230. Again, the right to smoke ends when it infringes on another's right

to breathe clean air. If you have the right to smoke in a crowded bar, than I have the right to bring in a can of bug spray to that same bar and disseminate it into the air.

[MGD]

229. There is no such right. Your civil rights end when they infringe on mine

Smoking in public infringes on my right to breathe clean air; therefore, you have no more right to smoke in public than I have to spray bug spray in a crowded room.

[gratuitous]

3. Do you operate a business out of your home?

Are non-relatives frequent business visitors in your home?

If not, then my reading is you have nothing to worry about. Oh, except lung cancer and heart disease. And high blood pressure. And emphysema. But besides lung cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure and emphysema, you should rest easy. Oops, almost forgot, vascular degeneration.

[seabeyond]

7. do you feel a bit of glee. maybe superiority. is your chest puffing out

cause that is what your post sends out

[johnnie]

14. It's typical

Never any mention of all the shit we shove down our throats and our plump children's throats every day that pass as food, it is all about tobacco. It is the only thing that has ever caused disease in the history of mankind don't you know.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

20. your food never second-hand enters my stomach, either. n/t

[johnnie]

24. Look up cancer causing carcinogens

The ones that come from cooking meat on an open fire. Yeah, my food on the grill might not enter your lungs and stomach, but as your sitting in your "smoke-free" restaurants, you are breathing in some really bogus shit.

Of course the meat industry isn't under attack..... yet.

[MGD]

88. I don't shovel 20-40 hamburgers down my throat a day either

and, what's more, my hamburger doesn't afftect anybody's health except my own.

[johnnie]

93. Here

This is for when you are sitting in your "smoke-free" restaurants.




Grilled Meat High in HCAs
Grilled meat yields some of the highest concentrations of heterocyclic amines (HCAs).6 These compounds form when a combination of creatine (a specific amino acid found in muscle) and sugars, which are both found naturally in meats, are heated during cooking.7 Grilling is particularly carcinogen-forming because the process involves high heat and long cooking times. Nearly all meats, including chicken and fish, produce significant amounts of HCAs when tossed on the grill.

Meat that is grilled, fried, or oven-broiled often produces large quantities of HCAs.8,9,10 The longer and hotter the meat is cooked, the more these compounds form. The major classes of HCAs include amino-imidazo-quinolines, or amino-imidazo-quinoxalines (collectively called IQ-type compounds), and amino-imidazo-pyridines. Within these families, MeIQx and PhIP are the members most abundantly found in cooked meats.

High meat intake has been correlated with increased risk of cancer, particularly of the breast and colon.11 While the fat in meat is most commonly associated with cancer risk, HCAs also play a role. As known mutagens, HCAs can bind directly to DNA, cause mutation, and promote cancer initiation.12

Because HCA concentration increases with heat and time, it would be expected that well-done meat would increase the risk of cancer. This is exactly what researchers have found. In a recent review of 30 epidemiologic studies investigating the link between well-done meat consumption and cancer at various sites, 80 percent showed a positive correlation.13

http://www.cancerproject.org/media/news/fiveworstfoodsreport.php

[MGD]

99. Ya know what? I have to eat but I don't have to breathe poisonous fumes.

at least I shouldn't have to.

edit: furthermore, I don't see too many people admitted to the hospital for eating hamburgers but I do see a hell of a lot of smokers coming in with any number of grossly metastatic malignancies.

[johnnie]

105. You have never seen anyone with clogged arteries?

Colon cancer? High cholesterol? Prostate cancer? Or any other coronary artery disease? All being tied to a high fat diet.

From all of your posts, it seems like you believe that no one else gets sick except from smoking. The problem is, if everyone quit smoking, you would be out of a job because no one would ever get sick.

[calico1]

176. You can make yourself unhealthy by

making poor food choices, true. But you can't make anyone else unhealthy. With second hand smoke you can. People have a choice to eat greasy burgers or not but they don't have a choice whether to breathe or not. So you are comparing two things that really can't be compared.

[johnnie]

189. How about children

What do you feel about parents feeding their children McDonald's every day? Do the kids have a choice?

And my post above was directed at a nurse who seems to be trying to say that she/he rarely sees anyone coming into the hospital due to poor eating, it is mainly people who smoke.

[calico1]

198. As I said in another post, there are many

stupid parents out there. And yes, a lot of them feed crap to their kids. All you have to do is go to the supermarket and look at some of the garbage some parents fill their carts with. But that's a whole other thread. But a stupid parent feeding their kids McDonald's doesn't affect other people that are not eating that junk. The thing about second hand smoke is that if you are in a room with smokers you can't just hold your breathe until they stop. You have to keep breathing. Many people who choose not to smoke resent having to second hand smoke. Unlike not opting for the greasy burger it would be something they can't control if exposed to it in a situation where they couldn't just leave. And it is also a matter of good manners. Lighting up in front of someone without asking if it's okay is disregarding that person. Aside from the second hand smoke issue I think it's also rude to simply light up without regard to whether it's okay with the company you are with. And yes there are a lot of other things people do that are rude. Defending smoking because there are a lot of other bad things out there is something I hear a lot from smokers. But it's just not a strong argument in my opinion.

[johnnie]

200. Well, I remember smoking anywhere

I think we have really come a long way in this. I used to smoke at work, in any restaurant and I remember people smoking in the supermarket. Hell, I had a smoking lounge in high school. My problem with this issue is they are bringing it into my home. That is the main thing for me. As I have said, first it is smoking, and that will leave the door open for more things they will want to control inside your home.

[calico1]

204. Again, you are talking about it as if they were

making you stop smoking in your home, PERIOD. This is exclusively for people who have home businesses! If you don't have one it doesn't affect you. And if you do, it's no different than if you were working in an office somewhere. If you are running a business, don't you think your behavior during business hours should be a little more professional than off hours? I like to lounge in my pj's sometimes but if I had a home business I wouldn't think to greet customers in my pj's. Or my underwear. Would you? Running a business from your home means trade offs. And there are a lot of those. Permits, certain lighting, ramps. Depending on what the business is they can be many. It comes with the territory. I totally agree that if you are in your home minding your own business then you should be able to do whatever you want. But that isn't what we are talking about. If you are running a business from your home then it is no different than going to work in an office as far as how your customers should expect to be treated. Now, the day they say you can't smoke in your home on your own time, then I will totally agree with you.

[johnnie]

211. Well, I really don't know how to express my feelings on this anymore

It is just my personal feelings and my opinion on what this proposal is opening up. There is no right or wrong answers, and nothing anyone here says is going to change my opinion on the fact that included in this proposal is one of the first initiatives to come into my home to police my residence. I have said it has nothing to do with smoking over and over and I really have no other way to make my feelings known.

[spoony]

159. Pointing out other dangerous things

doesn't negate the danger of smoke. It isn't a very strong position when all that's left is diverting attention to other poisons, is it now?

[johnnie]

167. Yes it is

My OP was pointing out that the do-gooders are now starting to come through your front door and this thread was almost automatically turned into a second-hand smoke issue. My main point is that one small segment of the proposal and people didn't get it.

I wasn't diverting attention, I was pointing out something that is just as harmful but overlooked by the pro-life anti-smoke crowd. People have been directed to only think of the smoke issue while scores of people are developing cancer and other life-threatening diseases from red meat and the cooking of red meat.

Usually I would say "good try" on a poster that tries to shoot me down, but your attempt wasn't even "good".

[spoony]

197. It's hard to shoot down something that never left the ground

And the issue remains unchanged despite your bizarre attempts to argue that we're ignoring every other threat to our health just because we recognize your behaviour as the threat it is. But do ramble on, by all means.

[johnnie]

203. "bizarre attempts"?

You must live an exciting life. :eyes:

[spoony]

206. Another stunning rebuttal

That eye-rolling smiley has completely toppled my logic.

[johnnie]

207. Kick mud

[Clark2008]

89. No - but your car's pollution is twice as bad as a couple of

passers-by's cigarettes.

I'm in the process of quitting (down to one or two a day) because I suddenly found out I was pregnant - and smoking can cause low birth weight (but, it took me about three weeks to quit with my last baby and he was late and more than 10 pounds, so I'm figuring that I was OK).

However, even when I quit, I certainly hope I don't become one of those holier-than-thou types. Groan. I hate people who bitch and moan about a habit that is as hard to break as heroin (and probably doesn't cause NEAR the cancer as the pollution in our atmosphere, but is scapegoated because, well, it's easy to do and because blaming individual behavior is MUCH more "in vogue" than blaming polluting cars - which nearly everyone drives or rides in - and large corporations who pollute our air).

[seabeyond]

91. hey..... congrats. i want one and my hubby says no mo...

now to be fair after my last i told him to never let me do it again and he snipped snipped...... (wont finish my story cause i dont know you that well)

congrats.... enjoy

[Lindacooks]

100. And it causes SIDS.

How many places that you frequent have car exhaust blown directly into the air?

What a ridiculous argument - logically fallacious, of course.

[johnnie]

112. What causes SIDS?

:shrug:

[spacelady]

133. You know, lung cancer is the #1 killer cancer, a hell of a lot of people

who are nonsmokers & not living with smokers suffer from the disease as well. We are all people, with all kinds of events that may kill us. Try to be more kind, openminded, lest we become what we despise.

[woo me with science]

181. It raises insurance rates just as much though. nt

[woo me with science]

182. but what about the CHILDREN??????

Many fat people scarfing hamburgers are also feeding these monstrosities to innocent CHILDREN!

[seabeyond]

42. i hate booze. everything about booze. i dont like any type of drinking.

my problem. i have drunks in my family. i have family that have died of booze. we have a line of alcoholics, we dont know what they naturally die of.... everything about booze sends me in a tither. i also recognize because of my experience i approach boze in a totally unreasonable manner. i keep that forefront when interacting with others

and i have never talked to an addict the way people talk to a smoker, because i know it would simply be hurtful, encourage a heavy drinking, disuade any reasonable discussion about the situation the person is in. i KNOW that when people speak that way it is for one reason only and it is not out of kindness.

[elehhhhna]

48. Damn! Another parallel.

We have so much in common it's getting weird.

Very well said, btw.

[seabeyond]

57. i know elehhhhna....

not surprised at all.

happens in life.

[Lindacooks]

97. Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of disease.

Not accepting that fact means you're in denial, which isn't surprising.

[jbnow]

165. I heard a rumor

that nonsmokers also die at the end of their life, but don't tell them.

You could tell them that though you risk your physical health you are at least taking care of you mental well being. Perhaps they could google nicotine and neuro-protection, a finding surprising researchers. drug companies have been trying for years to find something that duplicates the action of nicotine on the brain. Retrospective studies show that as a smoker you will have a far lesser risk of Parkinson's and the longer you smoke the more you minimize that risk. Tourettes, Alzheimer's, neurogenic pain and several other problems are a lot less likely to hit you because you smoke.

Sure you might not smell fresh, maybe you will cough more, you do take risks...but you take those risks because you care about having a well functioning brain, good for you.

As an aside (and btw all of that was true) it seems that about 80% of lung cancer is not from the act of smoking but due to the Calcium Phosphate based fertilizer used in growing tobacco, leaving the tobacco full of Polonium which is radioactive. Really. Phillip Morris papers from decades ago show they were aware of it decades ago but felt it would be too expensive to switch fertilizers.

I have no idea why this is allowed. When used in foods, especially nuts, it is also problematic, it is bad for the workers in the factories and the field...but there is nothing like smoking it.
The recent pot smoking studies that showed there were not serious lung problems associated with it caught more scientific attention because pot SHOULD be worse for lungs than cigarettes, even with the lower amount smoked. More are realizing the fertilizer issue.

I don't smoke but obviously get irritated by how people judge it...and how poorly it is regulated as far as safety. Between the additives they kept secret for so many years (many that aren't allowed in food, but they let people smoke them) and them allowing this fertilizer...hell with suing the tobacco companies. Sue the government.
Our cigarettes sold here are not the same ones sold in other most other countries. They don't allow them, they have to make it differently to sell them there.

OK, this wasn't what your post was about either. I just got irritated by the responses.

[gratuitous]

28. No . . .

I'm not very gleeful about someone contracting lung cancer or emphysema, or having a heart attack.

But after interviewing about 250 persons in various stages of death or dying from smoking, taking their health histories, speaking to survivors and orphans, and finally quitting myself, I'm kind of anti-smoking. And after managing the exhibits for a lawsuit that's currently at the Supreme Court for a case against Philip Morris, I got a firsthand look at the tobacco companies and their record of deception and duplicity with the smoking public, the government, and the scientific community. This record of corporate misconduct was noted and copied by pharmaceutical companies, global warming deniers, auto manufacturers, and our own government to create false doubt in the public mind about the connection between their misconduct and the detriment of the public health and environment.

So I don't feel superior, just sad. What I feel mostly, though, is anger toward the fucking tobacco companies, and wherever I can I encourage people to quit giving their money to Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco and the rest of them. If you can quit, then by all means do so. If not for your own health and longevity, then to deprive tobacco companies of your money. Use every trick you can think of: patches, gum, hypnosis, rubber band around the wrist, carrot sticks, hell even electro-shock. If one doesn't work, try another. If you almost make it and go back to smoking, try to quit again later.

I don't know anyone who's gleeful about horrible, lingering death. Mostly, I'm agin it.

[seabeyond]

40. and in all your wisdom, that post encourages a person to quit

smoking? that is really what you felt would be a productive way of encouraging someone to quit smoking.

thank you for the information you share though, but i call b.s. on the first post.

[johnnie]

12. Thanks for worrying about my health, but I do OK

As for your other inquiry, I have worked from home before with people here. A shitload of musicians. If I decide to open my studio up again for business, I will have to tell them all that they are not allowed to smoke in my home because the government tells me I am not allowed.

[Mabus]

33. Here's what you do

There's a difference between inviting friends over to jam (non-business) and scheduling a time for a rehearsal session (business). The distinction is the intent. Are the musicians there to have fun or work? In the alternative, allow them to smoke during the time that your residence is not operating as a business. Close the business down for half an hour and have a long break.

My husband and I work out of the house most of the time. My husband has an office here and one in KC so he can meet clients in a more formal setting and for client convenience. More than once we've had clients who ask if they meet at our house because they wanted to smoke while we were working with them.

[edwardsfeingold08]

34. Can't they smoke outside?

I work at a recording studio and people take smoke breaks--the artists and the engineers. It's not that big of a deal.

If I were paying you to record at your studio, I wouldn't want you smoking. If I were an engineer working for you, I wouldn't want the bands smoking.

I struggle with smoker's rights arguments. I'm in the middle of moving from my apartment because the guy next door to me smokes so much it has made my apartment smell like an airport smoker's lounge. I wish there were laws against smoking in apartments because moving is a hassle.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Beside those minor problems can you name anything really bad?

Oops. Impotence, maybe?

[MGD]

87. don't forget pancreatic cancer, throat cancer, lip cancer, bladder cancer

kidney cancer, esophageal cancer, liver cancer, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer and probably breast cancer, cervical cancer, and ovarian cancer.

[Toots]

192. Don't leave out supporting Republican Party

All tobacco pac money goes to Republicans and that is a tremendous sum. I can't believe there are people here actually defending smoking in a place of business, or for that matter smoking period..

[LSparkle]

5. I agree generally -- that's why I'll never BUY a condo

Only a single-family dwelling, because too many communal buildings can impose that stupid kind of law on you ...

[liberal N proud]

8. Study finds that sex leads to smoking in adults

That is why the republicans are so against sex.
:rofl:

[johnnie]

15. Never thought of that

Does that mean if I hire a prostitute and do business here, we have to step outside afterward to have a smoke?..lol.

[TheCowsCameHome]

59. Sex leads to adults, actually.

[nini]

9. if you're using your house as a business then I can see it

If you're not.. you're ok.

[johnnie]

17. There are many people who work out of their homes

Take a person who runs a landscaping business from home and has employees. Technically, they can't smoke in their homes during business hours.

[Matariki]

44. is there any reason his employees should be subjected to 2nd hand smoke

just because he doesn't rent an office? i don't get what the problem is here.

[tyedyeto]

46. Not all home based businesses have employees

In fact many never have a client or supplier in their home. In the 3 years my s/o has been 'home-based' self-employed, there has never been anyone in our home who has come for business reasons. But we would still not be allowed to smoke in our home if we wished to. Why should the state be dictating to us what is done in our house?

[Lindacooks]

102. Which is why the law says it only applies when non-residents are present.

"Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence)."

Sheesh - can't people read? Or understand what they read?

[spoony]

199. They can read but they prefer indignation :) n/t

[Lindacooks]

213. Boy, if that isn't true!

[johnnie]

214. Interesting.. I read it as..

"Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence)."

Involving non-residents. Are you saying that a bar owner can smoke all day in his place during business hours as long as he doesn't have an employee there and there are no customers in the bar?

[Lindacooks]

215. I sure do have the right people on ignore.

Every one of my posts in this thread have been replied to by someone I'm ignoring. Probably the OP of the thread.

Sad to see how addiction makes some people into rabid defenders of their filthy drug.

[johnnie]

224. LOL, funniest post on here

Yeah, you don't know it's me. :eyes:

"Every one of my posts in this thread have been replied to by someone I'm ignoring", not counting this one, you have *two* posts on here. :rofl:

Oh, I know you will click off the ignore to read this because you can't help yourself. So... I only ask two questions of you and you put me on ignore? That's friggin hilarious.

Oh, and who are you?

[the other one]

10. Join the pot-smokers.

Pot smokers can't smoke legally anywhere. I will defend cigarette smokers rights when they defend mine.

[johnnie]

18. I don't smoke pot

But I have always defended their right to smoke.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. first, they came for the pot smokers....

[Union Thug]

22. Agreed. My habit is prohibited ...

in my house, on top of a mountain, or anywhere else you can name in the US.

I won't tell on you if you don't tell on me! :-)

[spacelady]

137. I got your back on that! It's Our HOME.

[garybeck]

11. the bill makes sense to me

if you operate a business out of your home, it is not just your private residence. when you open it for business you sacrifice some of your rights. you have to have safety inspections probably, dependeing on what type of business. so i have no problem with this bill. if it were just your private residence and not a business, it wouldn't be affected.

[calico1]

13. It says if you use your home as a business.

That seems reasonable to me. The title of your post makes it sound like they want to ban it in private homes, period.

[johnnie]

21. My title says I might not be able to smoke in my home

If I have a business in my home and people come here, I can't smoke.

[garybeck]

134. if you have a business in your home, then don't smoke when customers

are around
is that so bad?

I agree with the bill.

I hate cigarette smoke and I think people should not smoke in public places. Your business is a public place. It doesn't mean you can't smoke after hours. But while you're open, if I'm a customer I shouldn't have to walk into your smoke. just have a little respect for your customer's right to breathe clean air if they want to. you can breathe in smoke if you want but do it where other people aren't going to have to breathe it also. okay i think i gave my 2 cents there. peaceout.

[mark414]

54. it's still your private home

business or not

[calico1]

81. But when you use your home for business

purposes you cannot act exactly as if you were just using it as your home. Aside from having to comply with certain zoning laws, codes,permits and whatever else you need to get permission to open for business your behavior should also reflect that it's your place of business. If you had a home business would you have customers over while you were in your underwear? Or be drinking beer or cocktails? There is a certain trade off to having your business in your home and part of it is you can't always act exactly as if you were just hanging out at home. Since a lot of people do not like to be exposed to second hand smoke I also think it would be bad business to light up in front of customers, at least not without asking if it's okay. Sure, a person could say if their customers don't like their smoking tought and they can go to hell. But I think they'd be shooting themselves in the foot with that attitude.

[cushla_machree]

120. thats because smokers are always in hysterics

How dare we try and stop them from slowing killing the rest of us with their second hand smoke.

It's because their arguments are always so lame, that they tend to hyperventilate about anything smoking related. This law seems pretty straightforward to me. If you are a business out of your home, you cannot smoke while you have non-residents in. That would include things like daycare. Sounds kinda like a no brainer to me. If you are open to the public, then you cannot pollute the public air.

[seabeyond]

193. someone has car window open and their smoke came out the window,

back three cars and into my window and touched my nose, while i sat at the intersection. HOW DARE THEY.... allow me to get a whiff of smoke as i sit sucking up all the car fumes,.....

right, it is the smoker that is hysterical

pot meet kettle

[cushla_machree]

216. Unless that car

Exhaust pipe is hooked up and pumping into the restaurant i am eating at, your point is moot. Being outside in the open air is much different than being inside an enclosed public space.

No one would sit at a restaurant where the smoke from the kitchen was being filtered across the restuarant, so no one should have to sit in a restaurant while smokers get their drug fix. Go outside in the open air, problem solved and you are only hurting yourself.

[spacelady]

139. Smokers who have a home business do not necessarily have to

do business with nonsmoking clientele.

[Zhade]

23. If children are present, I support the ban.

I don't feel you should be allowed to endanger children's health with secondhand smoke.

[johnnie]

27. Although it sucks, it is a parent's decision

No matter how wrong it can be. As i stated above somewhere, the food that people feed their kids is probably doing a hell of a lot more damage than the second hand smoke.

Having your child ingesting that McDonald's crap should be considered child abuse. But as long as people support these sort of laws, it might not be long before feeding your children junk will be punishable by law. As well as it should be in my opinion.

[calico1]

32. The problem with leaving it up to the parents is

that as I am sure you know, there are a lot of idiot parents out there. I am in favor of laws that protect children.

[seabeyond]

194. i think we ought to take kids away, put parent in jail and kids in

prtective service.

[MrCoffee]

35. It's NOT the parent's decision...

if you're operating a business, and i come there for a business purpose with my daughter, and you're smoking a cig while we're negotiating a contract, then it's not my decision, is it? it's your decision. you wouldn't be able to do that in an office building, where i could bring my daughter, so why should you be able to do it in your home office, where i could bring my daughter?

how is that my decision?

[Oeditpus Rex]

37. You decided to patronize that business

And you decided to bring your daughter inside it.

[johnnie]

53. Because it doesn't even give me the choice to do business with you

Well, I mean I can choose not to do business with you, but I still can't smoke.
It's like the corner bars that the owners make their living off of a bunch of their old buddies that come in the to tell war stories and smoke and drink, but they won't be allowed any more and it will put the little guy out of business.

You know the self righteous, whiny smoking nazis aren't gonna go to Grandpa Joe's bar because they won't have latte. But fuck the little guy, grandpa Joe can kick mud.

[DTinAZ]

103. Aha! So this isn't REALLY about your home...

...sounds like you're pissed that you won't be able to smoke at "Grandpa Joe's" bar. That's a whole different issue....I'm OK with smoking at bars....see? Some of us aren't "smoking nazis" and I've never had a latte.

DT

[johnnie]

113. It's nice that YOU are OK with smoking at bars

But this will stop that too.

And yes, it is about by home. This is called a discussion board, and sometimes during a discussion, other topics get discussed. It really isn't hard to comprehend, but I thought I would help you out a little.
:thumbsup:

[GodHelpUsAll2]

63. Why

would you bring your daughter when negotiating a contract? Do the people at your daycare smoke?

[spacelady]

141. Don't bring your children to a place where secondhand smoke is an issue.

[spoony]

160. You mean the outside world?

You can go anywhere and chances are someone is fouling up the air. And even if you're going into a "nonsmoking" place you have to walk through a fifty foot gauntlet of smokers hanging out right by the door, like it doesn't waft in through the open door into the entire first floor, elevators, etc.

[seabeyond]

195. i would give the responsibility to the parent, myself. but then so much

easier to have a state of nannies making these decisions for all of us.

[napi21]

38. This is the section that bothers me the most.

(C) "Place of employment" means an enclosed area under the direct or indirect control of an employer that the employer's employees use for work or any other purpose, including but not limited to, offices, meeting rooms, sales, production and storage areas, restrooms, stairways, hallways, warehouses, garages, and vehicles. An enclosed area as described herein is a place of employment without regard to the time of day or the presence of employees.

I can understand a place of employment can be a person's home. I also understand, though disagree with, laws against exposing employees to smoke. I cannot accept the part "with or without regard to thetime of day or the presence of employees."


If it is YOUR HOME, and the work day is over and all employees have gone for the day, it's REALLY overkill to STILL forbid smoking!!!!!!!

[kiahzero]

114. You're misreading the law

The law only applies to private residences during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence

The clause you're citing doesn't change that exemption. From what you've quoted, it means that you can't smoke in building that is covered by the law, just because the building is otherwise empty, or it's late at night.

[Booster]

39. After Nov I won't be able to afford to smoke here in Calif. they're

going to tax them that they will be over $7 a pack, and you know everybody will vote for that.

[johnnie]

50. That's why I make my own

They haven't nailed the roll your own yet. Plus I don't support "big tobacco", I get tobacco made by a small business. That should shut up the "supporting the big tobacco" yappers, but it doesn't.

[EstimatedProphet]

41. That is ridiculous

Nanny state government.

On edit: don't let all the negativity in this thread get to you.

[johnnie]

49. Oh, it's fine

It doesn't get to me. I just don't understand how people love being told what they can and can't do in their own home. People let this shit go until it finally gets to something they do and then they whine that they are getting their rights taken away.

This has nothing to do with second hand smoke and all that other bullshit, this is people trying to make you do what they want you to do in your own home. It's a foot in the door.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Did You Misunderstand The Meaning Of The Word Exempt?

Or did you read it accurately and are upset because you run a business out of your home and can't smoke in it during public business hours?

[johnnie]

45. Exempt for you residence

Unless you use your home as a business where other people will come to your home.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. Yes. So There Is Then Absolutely No Difference Between That And A Ban

on any other business. During the times that a home is used as a business, with public non-resident people present, it isn't a home, it is a business. I really don't see a difference between a law covering that or a law covering a ban on smoking inside businesses. Same thing.

I'm not really in agreement with a wholesale ban on smoking within business to begin with, I just don't see any distinction between an in home public business or a stand-alone one is all.

[johnnie]

55. Because it is entering your home

It is one more step closer to being told what to in your home. It is bad enough that people support the idea of government telling you as a bar owner that you have no choice to have a smoking establishment or not, now they are coming into your home.

I understand people don't want their second-hand smoke, but to tell me and my clients that we all can't smoke here is bullshit and the start of the next step.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. I Disagree.

During those times it isn't a home, it's a business. We obviously disagree on this point, but I see no difference. They aren't saying you can't smoke if you have non-smoking friends in your home. They're saying that it is not allowed to smoke in a business during business hours, including if that business is in a home. It is simply a law against businesses, not against what you can do in your home.

Like I said, I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying there is no difference here between the law of a regular business or the one including a business in the home, and therefore this doesn't make it seem any more risky at all that they are that much closer to telling you what other things you can't do in your home, etc...

All it's saying is that you can't smoke inside of businesses during business hours. That's it.

[EstimatedProphet]

52. See, this is what people aren't getting.

If I set up a home office where I wrote stories, that would constitute a business, and I wouldn't be able to smoke there. Forget the fact that I would be working alone, so there's no second-hand smoke issue. Forget the fact that I wouldn't have children around. Forget the fact that I wouldn't have ANYONE around. It's now a business, and I wouldn't be able to smoke.

I don't envy you a bit on this.

[johnnie]

56. People have been brainwashed so much...

That they will throw away their own rights without even knowing they are doing it. It's smoking this time around, but other issues will eventually come into play and then these same people will be freaking out that they won't be able to eat what they want, talk the way they want, drink what they want, watch what they want and so on, in their own home.

I mean, they are already trying to get rid of that one type of fat used for cooking in New York. It may be bad for ya, but why can't I use it to cook in my own home?

[OhioChick]

58. Hear, hear! n/t

[MGD]

84. This is a referendum. The Government isn't doing anything to you

[MGD]

69. It 's not an ammendment like issue 4; so issues like that are fixable

If issue 4 passes, there's no fixing anything. We're stuck with the law forever as it's written until another constitutional ammendment passes that repeals it. Furthermore, I doubt the fire marshal will be visiting you in your hypothetical situation. Issue 4 is evil.

[Codeine]

74. Not really.

As I read it, it only applies to businesses operating with people who aren't residents of the private home. If it's your business and nobody enters when it's a business, I read that it's OK.

[tyedyeto]

77. So...

what happens when a client comes to your house once a year. Or perhaps never? These home based businesses will be told that because of this law, smoking is never to be allowed in your home.

[JerseygirlCT]

79. Only if your writing involved non-residents being in the place

of business.

"Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences(except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence)."

[Starlight]

111. Can you read? It only applies if OTHER PEOPLE are in your home for your

business. :eyes:

[johnnie]

119. It says if your business involves other people

It doesn't quite say they have to be standing right next to you. From what you seem to be saying, an owner of a restaurant can light up if it is a no smoking establishment as long as no other employees are there. I don't think that's true.

[Starlight]

121. Are you intentionally trying to be dense?

[johnnie]

123. Do you intentionally keep your head up your ass?

Read it again:

(except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence)."

What does the word "involving" mean to you?

[Starlight]

125. www.dictionary.com

[johnnie]

127. The red bird has one eye

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plains.

[tyedyeto]

60. Not all home businesses have employees or clients ...

that come to their house.

But they would still not be allowed to smoke in their homes. Writers, medical transcriptionists, designers, etc.

[Lurking Dem]

62. .

(except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence)

[tyedyeto]

67. So smoking in one of those houses should be banned...

just in case someone should show up at some point in the future?

My s/o has a Corp-S registered at our home address. Not one client has ever been here during 'business hours' or otherwise. But according to this law (if we lived in the state being discussed), smoking would be banned because a business is operating there? Doesn't make sense to me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. It Doesn't Make Sense To You Because You Are Interpreting It Wrong.

Under the circumstance you listed above, you could smoke just fine.

If your business entails non-residents either working there or coming there for business, then you cannot smoke there. If it doesn't, and though technically a business does not include any additional people except for those who live there, then there is no problem. You are misinterpreting the statement.

Fact is, the law applies exactly the same for a non-residence business as it does for a home business. There is really no distinction between the two in my opinion.

Personally, I'm against the flat-out banning of smoking in every business to begin with. I just recognize that this is an identical issue that doesn't impede personal rights any more than the business ban does. It's just the same thing.

[tyedyeto]

92. No...you have it wrong.

If only one person/client per year (or every 2 or 3 years) showed up at a residence that is a home-based business, then that home would be included under that statute. It wouldn't matter if you never expected a client ... your home is included in that scenario.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. No Bub, I Don't.

If you had a business where the clients were by appointment only, then only on days where the business was open for the arrival of those clients would it not be exempt from the smoking law. All other days of the year that business would not be one open for business for non-residents. You are being either quite disingenuous by making that assertion or you simply are grossly misreading the exception clause.

The only way it would apply in that sense is if clients were expected every single day and were expected to show up whenever they wanted without appointment, such as typical customers entering a business. In that case, even if the business was run like shit or just simply sucked, and customer's/clients never came, smoking would still not be allowed because the business was open for them to arrive in hopes of them arriving. But that would be the same 'sucks to be you' that would occur even for a non-residence business that had no customers due to bad business, but was open to them anyway.

But if it is a home business, with no non-residents as part of it, you can smoke there just fine. If it is a business that rarely will have a client enter, but they do so by design, intention and appointment, then on those days you technically couldn't smoke. On all others you could though, especially since you could declare your business "closed to non-residents" at all times except the specific appointment times.

So no, I'm not wrong. You have simply either misinterpreted the law or are grossly stretching it out of proportion.

[onenote]

145. you are right, of course. But some folks seem to have either

a problem reading or their own agenda...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

149. Agreed.

I'd add a third, however, and that would be the inability to be objective when holding an emotional stake in the issue.

I'm currently a smoker, and am resentful in certain ways towards what I consider to be some loss of rights via legalities. Not all of them, but some of them. But no matter what my personal feelings on something are I do my best to maintain objectivity when trying to see the true facts of the matter.

So in this case, I think some are either incapable of understanding the context, understand it fine but the truth doesn't fit their purpose so they stretch it in order to try and make it fit better, or the third, which is the technical ability to have understood the context but the inability to have absorbed it due to a lack of ability to maintain objectivity over emotional opinion.

[johnnie]

122. I disagree

The point is, they are now bringing their crap into your home. If you have a business outside the home, such as a bar or restaurant, you also have other codes and guidelines that you have to adhere to while you are in operation. If it is a leased building, the place isn't technically yours anyway and so they have more control.

Now they want to control what you do inside your own home. To me there is a big difference between your home and a building you are operating out of that is zoned for commercial use. Just think of all those poor women who do Tupperware for a living..lol. No more smoking at the Tupperware parties! They are gonna be pissed.

[calico1]

83. They should make exceptions for those type

businesses. If you are a medical transcriptionist you have no clients coming to your home so in that case it would make no sense.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. In That Case, As Per The Direct Statement In The OP, It Wouldn't Apply.

It doesn't make sense because it doesn't exist.

[johnnie]

94. I think it is more for people who have people in their homes

[MGD]

64. Voting for issue 4 is voting to let RJ Reynolds kill Ohio Children

It is an ammendment to the Ohio state constitution that, if passed, will immediately void local referendum laws in 22 Ohio cities which limit smoking in certain public places. It will also forever prevent residents of cities from voting to limit smoking in public places. Furthermore, it is not government interference in your private life when a majority of the citizens vote to disallow something. It would only be government interference if the state did not vote for it. This is an example of a corporate special interest, Big Tobacco, disingenuously attempting to affect state legislation in order to continue peddling death to Ohioans. What's more, it's part of a larger Big Tobacco campaign going on in several other states all designed to dothesame thing.

[johnnie]

68. How is it killing children?

[MGD]

71. Because it empowers the tobacco industry indefinitely.

[johnnie]

76. No

The people of Ohio are empowering the tobacco industry.

[MGD]

82. That remains to be seen. I think the people of Ohio are wiser than that

I would like to hope so at least

[TheCowsCameHome]

73. self delete

[TheCowsCameHome]

78. .

[SidDithers]

65. Perhaps you should give up the business home-use deductions...

then the government won't be meddling in your affairs. But if you're deducting part of your mortgage, heat, hydro, phone, internet, water, insurance etc., and you have employees, then your "home" should be treated just like every other business, during business hours.

Sid

[johnnie]

70. So then following that train of thought

Parents should give up their deductions for their children or they should let the government tell them how they should raise their children? :shrug:

[MGD]

72. The government isn't telling you anything, the people of Ohio are

edit spelling

[johnnie]

75. Good

Then this issue will probably not pass.

[MGD]

80. Pretty selfish on your part IMO. We may as well legalize child abuse

while we're at it.

[johnnie]

90. Ever see how people treat their children?

As I have stated over and over, check out the diet kids are eating these days. Obesity has skyrocketed in children the last decade or so. You think you are seeing people suffering now because of smoking? Wait until these children today get older. They will be rerouting veins and valves like they are working for the highway dept.

Don't spin that "child abuse" crap concerning this. Children should not be hanging out in bars and pool rooms. There is nothing wrong with having the owners of establishments such as restaurants and bars decide if they want to have smoking in their places ot not. If you drag your kids to those places, then you should be charged with abuse, not me.

No one is telling you to take your children to places that are known to be dangerous to their health. Don't put the responsibility on me to keep your kids healthy, learn to raise them yourself.

I don't smoke in places that you can't smoke in, but if I want to let someone smoke in my house then I don't want you telling me I can't. Clean up your own backyard and quit pointing to everyone else about how bad people are fucking killing the children.

They are going to have a hell of a lot more problems in a few years than my second hand smoke coming out of the leaks in my house.

[MGD]

95. It all comes down to the fact that RJ Reynolds is going for an ammendment

that will overturn existing referendum laws in 22 cities that prohibit smoking in certain public places. RJ Reynolds et al is using their power, money, and influence to overturn laws already written in order to increase the sales of their toxic product. Issue 5 can easily be legislated later to fix problems. The ammendment, however, is carved in stone. Once it passes, there's no flexibility. Passing it is a mistake. Furthermore, as a major victory for the tobacco industry, it will empower RJ Reynolds and the like to continue hooking younger versions of yourself on their poison. I'm not laying anything at your feet, I'm laying it at the feet of big tobacco. And, finally, we can blame computer game systems for obesity as much as McDonalds.

[johnnie]

109. Issue 4

"Issue 4 will improve our environment and protect the health of Ohio's minors by banning smoking in over 90 percent of businesses. At the same time, it will allow the owners of adult-only venues to allow smoking if they so choose."

That's reasonable.

Issue 5 will take away the choices of just about everyone who owns a business. Issue 4 leaves room for people who are adults and don't need a bunch of tight-assed do gooders telling them what to do with their body. It's simple, if a bar has smoking, then stay out. If you want to go to a strip joint, then you will know there is smoking in there and you can go there or not.

Almost all restaurants I go to have no smoking, or smoking in a whole other part of the building (in the bar).


As for hooking younger versions of me, I have 5 nephews and one niece who are all teenagers and not one of them smokes., They hate it and get on my case even if I walk outside to smoke. Which I do btw when they are all there. They have a choice, and they have all chosen to not smoke. Surely my nephews and niece aren't the chosen ones, I bet there are other children that can make decisions also.

[DTinAZ]

96. I think I smell a bit of a...

Libertarian here, and this is Democratic Underground, not Libertarian Underground. Your argument is entirely unconvincing, in that this obviously has to do with protecting people patronizing and working in businesses...yes, even HOME businesses. I actually READ the full text of the proposed law...it sure as hell doesn't sound as if you did. I saw this phrase a lot: "public place or place of employment." Is your HOME a "public place or place of employment"? If it is, and you allow smoking, then yes it IS about second-hand smoke.

Get a clue!

DT

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

110. There are lots of people here that are a "bit of a Libertarian."

Provided you endorse Democratic candidates, then they are welcome on DU. I'm pretty Libertarian on some issues, this being one of them, but I am also a registered Democrat and I support Democratic candidates. I'm not sure why you are questioning whether the OP belongs on DU or not, unless they are working against Democratic candidates.

[DTinAZ]

151. Sorry, but Libertarians are only out for themselves

A Libertarian is the *epitomy* of a selfish brat. We're all sharing this crowded, polluted planet, and if we don't wise up and start acting more like socialists, rather than libertarians, we're dooming all of the future generations. Smoke in your house if you must....smoke in a bar if you must....but when the smoke starts getting into MY lungs or those of my family, then I take action to stop it.

An example: during the stupid "cigar fad" of the 90's, I took my family to the annual New Years Eve Block Party in Tempe, AZ, and there were cigar booths every 100 feet or so, and the air was filled with the thick smoke. We're Tempe residents and should be able to enjoy and outside event targeted at all ages without breating in other people's unnecessary pollution. I complained to the city, as did others and told them that a lot of families wouldn't come back until the cigars were gone. They wised up and did away with the cigar booths.

DT

[seabeyond]

168. it has got to be all or nothing. it isnt libertarian selfish, or wise up

to being socialist. what you are suggesting is the same as what the right suggests today with their religious beliefs. by gosh,.... people had better follow our religious rules, cause the bible says so and i am gonna save everyone.

whatever happened to reason

whatever happened to win win for all.

why do you feel good that those that enjoy a cigar in the outdoors and probably had wonderful memories are denied

why wouldnt the better solution be to have cigars relegated to one area. maybe some seating. off to the side. then they can enjoy their day. you can enjoy your day. and no one is being deprived. everyone wins.

why wouldnt that be the goal in solving the problems of today? why do we refuse to see from the other person perspective? why must there be losers in order to have the winners, when it is not necessary? i would suggest, that is truly the socialist way.

[spacelady]

144. HAARRUUUUMPPHH!

[DTinAZ]

152. Clearing the smoke-caused phlegm out of your throat? n/t

[spacelady]

153. Yeah, that, but also emulating pomposity. AAAHHHEMM!

Damned Goldenrods too.

[DTinAZ]

155. Guilty as charged

But then I'm extremely anti-Libertarian....and support reasonable restrictions on my "freedom." I'm very anti-gun, for example, and I see the proliferation and abuse of guns in our country as a big problem, so I'll support reasonable restrictions on the "freedom" to be armed to the teeth. I support the enforcement of speed limits, because I don't want anyone I know to be killed by people who think they can drive however fast they feel like. I live in a neighborhood with houses full of young renters (university students), but there darn well better be some restrictions on their freedoms to party loudly in their back yards, and restrictions on their freedom to litter the neighborhood with trash and let their yards go totally to weeds. Society needs to have reasonable restrictions on people's freedoms for the greater good.

DT

[spacelady]

156. Fair enough. I think you are a good thinker. :)

[johnnie]

169. You are overlooking the issue

This isn't about non-smoking, it is about coming into my house and telling what I can and can't do. You might be "anti-Libertarian" but you reek of pro-fascism. You make no point in your post above that even relates to my OP, speed limits, loud parties by "young renters" and weeds, what does that have to do with the inside of my home?

You are missing the point totally here, but I know you already have it twisted around inside your head to fit your "me me me" attitude.

[Lurking Dem]

185. If you operate your home as a public business

then it is, simply put, no longer your private home during those hours you operate said business.

I'm very sure that whores aren't going to bother telling their clients, "no smoking" but, then, they aren't getting tax exemptions on their bed.

[johnnie]

162. .

"I think I smell a bit of a Libertarian here" Then maybe you should wipe off your upper lip.

This is about people telling me what I can and can't do in my own home. If you don't want the second hand smoke then don't come over to my home business, I don't want your business. The issue is people like you who thinks the world spins around your ass and are deciding what I can and can't do. Smoking is still legal, and I think if someone decides to let people smoke in their house, you have no right to tell them otherwise.

If you feel comfortable about having people telling you how to live your life, then be my guest and bow down to it. This is my home, my business, my tax dollars I pay and my lungs. They don't need to put this part in the proposal, but they know that many people like you don't give a crap about what happens to people's small businesses and our little bit of freedoms in our own homes because you have been suckered into believing all the bullshit they fed ya.

Sorry, you don't impress me with your spinning of issues. And trying to classify me as someone who doesn't belong on DU because I don't agree with you is lame. It looks like over half the people on this thread don't agree with you, so maybe it is *you* who might be in the wrong place.

[Midlodemocrat]

202. Yeah, johnnie's a libertarian. And, I'm a car.

:eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

101. There are few things DUers love more...

... than moralizing about/forcing people to not smoke.

They especially love doing that just before heading to Starbucks in their 12mpg SUV.

[MGD]

104. Smoke all you want , just don't do it where I have to breathe it.

[BlooInBloo]

106. Fair enough! What you *choose* to do is your own business of course...

[Starlight]

117. ITA. I'm THRILLED that NJ no longer allows smoking in bars & restaurants.

Now I can finally go out and enjoy a meal or drink without having an asthma attack. :toast:

[spoony]

161. Hear hear! And

you can actually taste the food instead of Joe Bob's Marlboros.

[calico1]

177. CT too. And it's been wonderful.

And contrary to what many smokers had warned about, I see the bars just as busy as they were before.

[DTinAZ]

107. Smoke in bars all you want to...

...but the OP is mistaken, confused, or a Libertarian. I drive a Volvo...not an SUV.

DT

[BlooInBloo]

108. I would LOVE to! Unfortunately you people....

... have taken that away... Refusing, in your moralizing heavenliness to go to *your own* nonsmoking bars, and let smokers have theirs. Instead you people took ALL the bars for yourselves. So much for freedom of choice, at least as far as antismoking DUers are concerned...

[Starlight]

124. Moralizing? No, I just prefer to be able to go out for a drink or dinner

without making a trip to the ER due to smoke induced asthma. It won't kill you to go a couple hours without smoking, but your smoking could kill me. So, no, your freedoms don't extend to taking other lives. :nopity:

[BlooInBloo]

130. I have NO problem with that! You go to your nonsmoking places...

... which you and all whiners are freely able to make, and I'll go to my non-smoking places, which we smokers SHOULD BE freely able to make.

Oh - but no - the nonsmokers actually insist on having it all. Greedy bastards.

You don't like the smoke? Don't make US stop - make your own goddamn nonsmoking places.

I suppose next is vegetarians who can't stand seeing the "immorality" of animal death around them. So rather than letting us meat-eaters eat in our own restaurants, and vege-whiners in theirs, they'll follow the GENIUS lead of the nonsmokers - just outlaw the other side.

[calico1]

183. Unfortunately for you and others smokers

the trend now is to ban smoking in more places and restrict it more. Yet many smokers continue acting as though they somehow have the upper hand. "You don't like my smoking, then don't breathe it," etc. This type attitude sure doesn't help you get much sympathy. :eyes:

[johnnie]

129. Don't you know that they will live forever

With all of us smokers cowering in our sewers, the non-smokers will live to be 250 years old. And they will only die because our smoke filled-corpses will be permeating their air as we rot.

[BlooInBloo]

132. And they're too lazy & greedy to make their own nonsmoking...

... establishments. Fuck them.

[johnnie]

140. Yeah no shit

Let the smokers build them, then kick them out and reap the rewards.

Lol, it's like the Cleveland ballparks. They built them on "sin taxes" and then said "no smoking". Bunch of bastards they are. Now they want another tax on cigarettes here to put into the arts. Now I get to pay more money for the arts for buildings I can't smoke in to look at a bunch of art done by people who smoked their brains out on booze, drugs and cigarettes..LOL

[OhioChick]

175. So ironic.......

I remember that damn "sin tax" on cigarettes for (what was it......the Browns stadium/Gund arena?) Can't even smoke there in the first place. They should've hit up the drinkers on that one. Oh.....and did that sin tax ever disappear once the stadium was built, as I don't remember prices ever dropping thereafter.

[spacelady]

154. Don't they know we are sacrificing ourselves so they can actually

get their Social Security? Talk about ungrateful.

[johnnie]

170. No kidding

And on top of that we build them nice football stadiums, football stadiums and museums, and they don't even say thank you.

[DTinAZ]

148. Who people?

Your accusation is false...I already said that I'm OK with smoking in bars. BTW, I know you're a smoker and so that's why you're "duking it out" in this ill-fated (and seldom nominated) topic, but on your archive page where you talk about your smoking experience with irresponsible mothers in a bar:

http://punditician.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_punditician_archive.html

you talk about a "wicken meeting." What the heck is that? Were you perhaps talking about a "Wiccan meeting"? (as in Wicca)
Smoking apparently not only stunts growth....BTW, here's the tagline from some effective anti-smoking commercials here in AZ:

"Tobacco: Tumor-causing, teeth-staining, smelly, puking habit."

DT

[spoony]

164. Lol

It isn't a moral question. We just don't like choking on your pollution. I don't get what's so authoritarian about that. Smokers are far, far to quick to compare themselves to persecuted minorities struggling for their rights. It's a ludicrous line of argument that belongs alongside PETA's "chicken holocaust."

[BlooInBloo]

191. You all keep saying that.... lying the whole way....

If that's all the issue was, you people should have NO problem letting individual establishments make themselves smoking or non. With all of this OBVIOUS demand for nonsmoking (drip drip), there would be a jillion places to cater to you people.

But you don't. You people don't leave smoking places for smoking, and create your own nonsmoking places. Instead you take. You take smokers' places, and remake them in your image. Why? Because you people are too lazy to make your own nonsmaoking places, and leave smokers to their own places, and because you people are too greedy to allow any places for smokers - you insist on having it all.

It's amusing how you people so staunchly pretend to not see the fact that they're basically just lazy greedy thieves.

As to the genius remarks you specifically made: I don't think I've compared smokers to persecuted minorites anywhere. I've only accused nonsmokers of being lying, lazy, greedy thieves.

[spoony]

196. While your sputtering rage IS amusing

It's also entirely wrong. I couldn't care less if you have "your" places to smoke. Do you really think nonsmokers are in on some nefarious plot to rob you of your liberties? If so, are you currently seeing someone about that delusion? The issue really is as simple as I stated it: I don't want to choke on your pollution. None of us do. That's it. Really. Stop insinuating smoke on people who don't want it, and everyone's happy.

(edit: well except for you, I doubt anything can make you happy, but wish you luck nonetheless)

[BlooInBloo]

205. It's not delusional if it's true. You can keep saying otherwise...

... but the laws on the books put out by lying thieving whiners tell a different story.

And what does the phrase "insinuating smoke on people" even so much as MEAN?

[spoony]

209. Alright

You got me, we're all out to get you. And insinuate is a verb which means to introduce, assert, or infuse.

[kiahzero]

115. I dunno about anybody else, but I drive a 60mpg motorcycle.

However, I am known to drink a Frappuccino from time to time. On the plus side, my vice doesn't kill innocent people.

[spacelady]

146. Do you think there may be support for a Smoking/Nonsmoking forum?

So I don't have to keep beating my head agaist the wall?

[BlooInBloo]

208. lol! Only one way to find out.... :)

[woo me with science]

180. LOL nt

[asthmaticeog]

118. I love how this thread went from poorly-written laws

to "OMFG SOMKERS AER WORS THEN TEH HITLER" in five seconds flat.

Why do you want to kill the children in your day care, johnnie? I thought you were a nice guy.

[johnnie]

126. Well, I don't want to kill them ...really

I only want to roll them up and smoke 'em.

[kiahzero]

128. The government's in your business, not your home.

If your home is a place of business involving non-residents, the parts of it so used become a public accommodation.

[johnnie]

135. It's pushing it too far in my opinion

Let's say you own a landscaping business. You operate out of your home and you have a few people who work for you. During your hours of operation, your home is your business. You are out on you job and your wife is home and she isn't allowed to smoke. Of course that is a bit far out, but it can be the law.

Then after that, you will not be able to smoke in your landscaping truck because it is part of your business. To me, this is just a ridiculous part of this proposal and no matter how anyone wants to spin it, it is just one more step to tell you how to live your life.

I think it is going over a lot of people's heads here. This has nothing at all to do with smoking, it is about them trying to get laws on the books to start invading the inside of your home. But so many people are so filled with the crap they have been force fed that they don't care about the Constitution and our rights to privacy, as long as it keeps the smoke out of their face. And I can bet you that hardly anyone here will ever come to my studio and get killed by my smoke.

Just look at how people are reacting. I bet that part of this issue will never effect hardly anyone here because A) they don't live in Ohio B) they don't do business with people in their home in Ohio and C) They won't even come to Ohio, but it makes no difference to these people. As long as they think they are winning the war on smokers, they can give a shit about people telling other people what to do in their homes.

[spacelady]

131. OK, say you are running an arts and crafts business out of your home,

a potential client sticks their head in the door & smells cig smoke, don't they have the right, nay responsibility! to back right out & mosey somewhere else? If a businessperson is willing to risk losing the nonsmokers' potential spending, IN THEIR OWN HOME, is not that their right and freedom?

[johnnie]

138. No

It doesn't matter to the anti-smokers. It isn't about choice, rights and freedoms, it is about winning the "war on smokers".

[spacelady]

147. Well CRAP! Where has my Murka gone?????

[porphyrian]

136. It would only be selectively enforced.

Like so many other well-intentioned shitty laws on the books. It would only come into play if a cop came to your door while you were smoking, or if they decided you were a criminal they wanted to arrest, but could find nothing else to bring you in for.

Yes, people often make stupid decisions that seem obviously stupid to others.

[johnnie]

142. I wonder if they passed a law like this in D.C.

Is the White House a place of business? Damn.. Clinton would have had even more of his ass handed to him on a platter for those cigars. Not only with Monica, but lighting them up. :)

[johnnie]

143. Ok

Time for bed. Thanks for the discussion everyone. Night.

[spacelady]

150. More power to ya, johnnie. Too sad so many are willing to surrender

their rights and freedoms in, of all places, our HOMES.

[nolabels]

158. They don't allow you to shoot up smack or puff on hooch there either

The problem is clearly that of the government wanting you to stay in reality. They want you to stay in reality while they are all busy tripping on some real good shit on everybody else's tab. What else could explain any of this stuff that is going on in the peoples name?

Remember it's not about what happens, it's about who gets to say what happens :shrug:

[mmonk]

171. While I think such laws are intrusive and Orwellian,

I'm a smoker that doesn't smoke inside my home. I smoke in my garage or on my back porch. Believe me, it won't be the end of the world if the law passes.

[johnnie]

172. Once again, this isn't about smoking

It is about them slipping in the key to our front doors of our homes using the dreaded second-hand smoke demon. I just don't feel comfortable with this, and it is weird that so many people do not give a shit about it as long as it starts with smokers.

The thing is, I can understand many of the laws against smoking in a lot of places. I have no problem not smoking in a restaurant, shopping center, movie theater, other people's houses that don't like smoking, schools, city buildings, public buildings, bars that choose to have a non-smoking policy and just about anywhere else these days.

What I do have a problem with is private business owners being forced to make business decisions by people who probably will never even go to these places of business. And even though I disagree with that, I see it happening all the time around the country and it looks like it won't stop. But now they are entering my home and that is where the line should be drawn in my opinion.

[mmonk]

173. I agree about the issue of home. It should be your refuge

and castle. I'm only saying your life will go on.

[Jed Dilligan]

174. People are fed up with the War on Drugs,

But it employs too many people--I should say too many people and too many lawyers.

So the whole Prison Industrial Group (PIG) is looking for its next "War."

Like all coercive legislation the new "War" will affect poor and marginalized people disproportionately. It will not stop executive clowns from repairing to their finely-paneled cigar rooms. It will put a new generation of young poor people on the black market.

Increasingly, the black market is the only place for true capitalists to go. They've squeezed as much profit out of us as they can, legally.

Illegal tobacco could be the biggest scam in the history of rigged government. It will make bosses as much bigger than Pablo Escobar than Pablo Escobar was bigger than Al Capone.

And the herd of saliva-brained ninnies that our whole society has become will bray in chorus, Well thank GOD something is FINALLY being done to protect the CHILDREN.

[johnnie]

178. There ya go

At least a few people get it. "Saliva-brained ninnies"...lol.

There are some posts on here basically screaming "The children..won't somebody think of the children?"

I agree with your post 100%, but sadly many people don't see they are being played....again. The "big money" is once again using the herds of dimwits to forward their plans to cash in. It is no difference than prohibition. They used the morality issue, the health issue and the religious issue to stop the sales of booze. A bunch of wild-eyed do-gooders fell for it and made a fortune for the black marketers and big money politicians.

They are doing the exact same thing and using the same kind of people to score it big on the black market tobacco. Just look at how many people they have right here on DU that are helping their agenda.



This is from Wikipedia, but it can be found in a lot of other places. Check out the similarities.

"The prohibition or "dry" movement began in the 1840s, spearheaded by pietistic religious denominations, especially the Methodists. After some success in the 1850s the movement lost strength. It revived in the 1880s, with the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party. After 1900 many states, especially in the South, enacted prohibition, along with many counties. Hostility to saloons and their political influence was characteristic of the Progressive Era. Supported by the anti-German mood of World War I, the Anti-Saloon League, working with both major parties, pushed a Constitutional amendment through Congress and the states, taking effect in 1920. From 1920 to 1933, the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol was prohibited in the United States. However, the private possession and consumption of alcohol was not prohibited. Nationwide prohibition was accomplished by means of the Eighteenth Amendment to the national Constitution (ratified January 16, 1919) and the Volstead Act (passed October 28, 1919). Prohibition began on January 16, 1920."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

[woo me with science]

179. There are a lot of potential fascists in the Democratic Party, it seems.

On the threads yesterday they were talking about mandatory re-education of Christians and outlawing other political parties.

I am hoping these are trolls or just dumb kids a little overexcited with their first political awareness, because i can't believe some of the things i'm reading here.

[Bridget Burke]

184. So--don't run a business from your home.

Because, when you're "working"--no smoke.

Boo Fucking Hoo.

[johnnie]

186. Thanks you for your thought provoking input

:eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

210. Just trying to convey my compassion....

Whining does not inspire me.

[yasmina27]

187. I am so sick of the non-smokers

pounding on the smokers. I have had numerous family members die of cancer, none of which can be directly attributed to smoking.

1. My 48 y.o. cousin died of breast cancer. She led the healthiest lifestyle one can imagine. No smoking, social drinking, active lifestyle - she exercised, had a large social group, had everything to live for, including a new granddaughter, etc. , and cancer still got her.

2. My father - a smoker - died of esophageal cancer last Dec. Yeah, the heavy smoking probably had alot to do with it. But he also was addicted to fatty, unhealthy foods AND he worked in a steel mill for most of his life. I am convinced that much of his disease was caused by the chemical additives in the foods he most loved and ate constantly.

3. Other family members - mostly non-smokers

IMHO, cancer is a crap-shoot. If you are genetically or otherwise inclined toward getting it, you will, regardless of your personal lifestyle.

Many of you won't like my opinion. That's OK. Second-hand smoke is at least unpleasant, at the most, I don't know - studies differ depending on which you read.

I could go on and on, but will get off my soap box now.

Yes, I am a smoker.

[spoony]

221. You engage in the same fallacy as the OP

Your argument boils down to: lots of things can hurt you so, screw it, I'm going to poison myself and anyone standing near me.

It's silly. Just because other things cause cancer doesn't mean that smoking doesn't. It's like when smokers point to their one great grandfather who smoked all his life and lived to 102. As if that negates all the proven damage from smoking.

Yes, lots of things are harmful. No, that doesn't mean I want any additional risk of harm from sucking in smokers' exhaust, thanks.

[focusfan]

188. I don`t smoke and hate beathing the stuff

non smokers shouldn`t have to accomadate smokers,why not just quit smoking look at all the money you will save.

[johnnie]

190. Accommodate me in my own home?

I don't get how non-smokers are accommodating me in my house. :shrug:

[BlackVelvet04]

201. The left's hysteria over "second hand smoke" and it's willingness

to have government invade privacy and legislate "safety" is equivalent to the righties willingness to give up freedom to protect them from terrorists. Everybody wants the government to keep them safe from something. I see absolutely no difference in the two positions. And let's not forget "it's for the children." The same reasoning the righties use to want to ban homosexuality from public eyes.

Quite frankly I'm disgusted with both sides who are so willing to live in a nanny state.

[MGD]

217. How are we giving up freedom if we vote to regulate smoking?

It is every state's right to regulate itself in matters of public health, welfare, and safety; furthermore, this is a referendum issue so it is in no way the government doing anything to anybody. The people eitherare or aren't doing this all by themselves. The legislature has nothing to do with it.

[BlackVelvet04]

219. The people are using the government.....

same thing. Just like the fundies want to use the government for their referendum against gay marriage. If you don't see the danger, what can I say?

[spoony]

220. Lol, so cutting down on pollution

will somehow lead to the loss of all our civil liberties. Well that's a convincing argument. So do you also argue for businesses' "rights" to violate EPA standards? I mean how dare this nanny government say that you can't pour all the emissions you want into the environment!

It honestly is amusing how unhinged smokers are about this. They all seem to correlate their not being able to smoke anywhere anytime with the end of all freedom in America. It's ludicrous.

[SOteric]

212. I can see a point on both sides.

Sure, if you're operating a Day Care or maybe an Accountant, a Consultant, or a Counselor who sees clients in a home office, that sort of thing. I can understand how exposing some more sensitive members of the public could be an issue.

But, on the other hand, if you're stuffing envelopes or designing web graphics or some such, telling one they cannot smoke in the comfort of their own home is rediculous.

For the record, I don't smoke and I never have. I think the hysteria over second-hand smoke is unnecessarily exaggerated. I'd rather the public generated an interest in legislating the overuse of cologne.

[FujiZ1]

222. That's awesome!

I'm so happy to hear it! You must be excited about your home not stinking like shit now! Good for you!

[johnnie]

223. Thanks for concerning yourself about my home

:hi:


BTW, I don't have people like you in my home anyway, so you will never have to worry about the smell. :thumbsup:

[Swamp Rat]

225. George W. Bush is officially the Dictator of the United States of America

George W. Bush is officially the Dictator of the United States of America

George W. Bush is officially the Dictator of the United States of America

George W. Bush is officially the Dictator of the United States of America

[Vinca]

228. If you have an office in your home and I walk in to do business,

I don't want to be subjected to second hand smoke. If your attitude is "fine, go elsewhere," I think you're being short sighted, but it doesn't hurt me, it hurts you.

[RC Quake]

231. I worked in a Drs. Office where everyone smoked

Granted, it was in the late 80's and he had a family owned private practice, but sheesh! All the staff, including the Dr., would smoke from 8:00-10:00 before the office officially opened for patients. Then, as soon as the doors were locked, they would light up again. Thankfully he wasn't a Cardiologist...that would have been ironic. I guess since he was a Gastroenterologist, he was full of ****.