Yeah, I don't get why it has to be ALL bars. Can't there be freedom of choice? I pretty much like hanging out in dives. Some places smoking should be mandatory. I went to Carlos' Beer Garden in Webster last night. I could not imagine it being "smoke free". It's just stupid. That's why the place exists. That's the lifestyle that it caters to.
sounds fine to me... I wish there were more bars that had patios/open areas for smoking... you remember Batman, when you came up to NYC, you had to leave the table to go out front and smoke. as the only non-smoker, I am often left at my table twiddling my thumbs waiting for my friends to return from outside. an open air patio WOULD solve the problem, and it would keep the neighbors of these establishments happy...go to Avenue B on a Friday night and look down the row, bar after bar with a group of smokers huddled outside, throwing their butts all over the streets and being noisy... then there are the waiters and waitresses who dont know if their party has left to smoke or if they dined and ditched... of course, there are still cigar bars and smoking themed bars that thrive, such as Circa Tabac in TriBeCa(they offer exotic tobaccos from all over the world)
110th: Yeah, I remember. I'm sure that's a drag. And the other problems (trash, noise, not knowing if someone's skipped a check) are a drag too, but those particular problems are a direct result of the ban. It seems kind of unfair to create that situation and then complain about it. Outdoor areas really do solve the problem I think, with the exception of severe winter weather. There is a great lot of time, particularly up here in the northeast, when outdoor drinking just isn't an option. The one disadvantage I can see with my proposed solution is that, on occasion, non-smokers might not be able to drink with their smoking friends if the smoking friends opted for the smoking bars. And vice versa. I expect the result would be that I would drink in non-smoking bars fairly regularly in order to hang out with my many non-smoking friends, but when hanging out with my smoking friends we would have the option of the smoking bar.
In the immortal words of Jime Rome: "I've never caught second hand man-boobs from a guy crushing a bag of Funyuns next to me. I've never had heart problems from second hand cholesterol at a McDonald's. I've never been assaulted by second hand fudge when I'm walking in a stairwell." One more thing, to call smoking a civil liberties issue is an insult to civil liberties. Smoking is no a right under civil or natural law. To say that people have a right to smoke wherever they want is the same as saying people have the right to play there music wherever and as loud as they want. It's the same as saying companies should be free to pollute wherever they want. And that's the big issue. Employees of these establishments that allow smoking have to undergo real threats to their health. It's no different than factory employees who are forced to choose between their job and chemical exposures the plant allows to happen to its workers. Bottom line, your desire to smoke cigarettes does not deserve the same level of protection that the general public's desire to reamin healthy does.
Actually, I wish they would let the bars and restaraunts decide what they're clientelle want. Why legislate it...must be running out of laws to create. DD
oh no, i am not complaining, i am witnessing the negative result of the smoking ban on bars, restaurants, and neighborhoods. the law opens itself up to many flaws, i admit. with your plan, i would have the option of hanging out in a smoking bar if it didn't bother me that much.... I agree with Bullard4life, the need for a smoker to smoke is not a civil liberty.
Cool, 110th. I'm sensitive about that stuff. Sucks to be forced out to a sidewalk in the freezing cold and then get dirty looks from the same people that put us there. I agree it's not a civil liberty. But it is an addiction. And, as such, it's not incredibly easy to just turn it off in the interest of politeness. I'm happy to not do it anywhere where it will offend someone. I'd just like to have one or two places apart from the often freezing outdoors to do it. Non's can have the other million places. I just want one or two.
My hometown of Texarkana, TX enacted a similar law earlier this year. I support laws like this for restaurants. On the other hand, it seems like a bar just needs to be smokey. Maybe places should create smoking rooms that are totally enclosed? The funny thing about Texarkana, TX banning smoking in restaurants is that Texarkana, AR did not do the same thing. AND, besides from the bars in restaurants, all of the regular bars are in Texarkana, AR. So the problem is kind of solved for me when I'm back at home.
anyone ever been into the smoking room at the Atlanta airport? * hack * oh my god, the place is awful, and I know from when I was a smoker... the walls are yellow, there is a poor ventilation system and an even poorer device that sprays some sort of mist into the air every minute that does nothing, the people look pathetic and desperate, and the smoke lingers out into the teminal...
However the argument has been made that a large part of health-care costs are largely due to complications associated with overweight people. As such, I can easily see the "morality" police will next target obesity after they finish off smoking. Its an easy leap and I already see it happening. They are trying to put children's weight on their report cards. Geesh! Yes it is. Take a look at the constitution. Americans are due life, liberty and justice. Go lookup the word Liberty and I'd be curious how you justify a 100% smoking ban isn't an infringement upon American civil liberties. I NEVER said people have the right to smoke wherever they want. I SAID I'm happy with our current rules that restrict smoking to certain areas. The new law in Houston says restaurants can maintain seperate smoking sections with proper ventilation. I think that is a nice COMPROMISE. To ban all smoking everywhere is no compromise and goes too far telling people what to do with their own lives. I don't smoke. I ALWAYS sit in the nonsmoking section of restaurants and feel the current conditions are not putting anybody at risk 99% of the time. That 1% of the time, the non-smoker can move. Its a non-issue for me that will cost small businesses a lot of money to install ventilation systems. I oppose a 100% ban because legislating morality is a fine line. I promote freedom and our constitutionally protected ideals whereever I can... even as a non-smoker... because next time the morallity police may attack something I hold dear.
rotflmao. moved back here from atlanta a couple of years ago (damn... doesn't seem that long). i was one of those people in that airport smoking room. heck yeah we're desparate... not pathetic though. just need our fix before a long flight. i'm glad this is only houston restraunts, my favorite wafflehouse is on west airport in stafford. can't have my cup of coffee with out a few cigs. phock smoking bans.
Per Dictionary.com, Liberty means: 1. a. The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom. 2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control. 3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. 4. a. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural. b. A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology. c. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes. 5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore. None of those to me make it clear that smoking is a liberty. The same argument one would use for it being a civil liberty could be used to argue you should be allowed to shoot people who cut you off on the freeway. As a former and current smoker (depending on the substance), I can certainly understand the "piss off" attitude. If I want to smoke, screw everyone else. But at the end of the day, I shouldn't expect other people to suffer because of my smoking just like I wouldn't want to have to sit through crap I find annoying - like crying babies in movie theatres. What's more, if you are so addicted to nicotine that you can't wait until you are either back in your car or at home to have a cigarette, you are pathetic.
Really? It is undue governmental control to restrict people from committing murder for traffic violations. Huh? If a private business wants to setup a seperate smoking section with seperate ventilation systems, that has no bearing on the non-smoking patrons. What business is it of the government to tighten the regulations beyond that? I guess you didn't read my post. I didn't say people should be allowed to smoke unrestricted. I said seperate smoking sections with seperate ventillation systems. Again...seperate smoking sections with seperate ventillation systems. Nobody would suffer. I don't smoke. But I do support an over-regulated society in a free America. btw, nobody was able to produce any statistics that said second hand smoke kills people IF THEY DON'T LIVE IN A HOUSE WITH SMOKERS. We know second hand smoke kills...but I'd be willing to bet virtually all those people that died lived with a smoker. I'm not buying into it that casual exposure to 2nd hand smoke can lead to death.
