Please explain how Western Europe smokes more, more potent tobacco, and has nothing resembling our rates of illness 'from smoking' (much less second hand smoke). Your stubborn refusal to make any substantive answer indicates you've 'made up your mind' and won't take the blinders off to consider an alternate viewpoint. Oh well.
As I asked Deckard, shouldn't nonsmokers unite and try to change the marketplace BEFORE you unite to banning by law? Would it be ok with you if we had BOTH smoking and nonsmoking establishments? I'm not sure why that isn't optimal.
No one said it was absolute, Max, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. However, just because it is absolute does not mean its not a 'rights' issue. Just as laws against yelling fire in a theatre don't mean there is no 'right' to free speech.
I'm not asking you to feel bad for me. I'm asking y'all to give me a freaking option other than a blanket "smoking is bad" so we're going to eliminate smoking in all enclosed places. I thought we had smarter posters here.
I'm with you. I think that designated smoking areas with effective ventilation should be enough. I quit smoking in '02 and don't have any problem with being in a bar or restaurant that allows it. I think it should be up to the business owner rather than the politicians. I would support reasonable regulations to ensure a smoke free environment for nonsmokers, but this is just an example of the majority using their numbers to restrict the freedoms of the minority. America is supposed to be about MORE freedoms, not less.
What other option do you want? You can still smoke: ANYWHERE OUTSIDE in your home in your car in a friend's relative's home if they allow it friend's relative's car As it stands now, you can't walk in to target and light up....or Toys R Us for that matter. The ban is simply going to eliminate it in places where it probably should be eliminated. I'm all for having a cigar at a bar while watching a game...I enjoy it...but life doesn't end if i can't do it there anymore. I just don't understand why the fuss? Some of you act as if they are banning the sale of cigarettes altogether.
the same can be said for the other side of the argument......as in now I have the freedom to go into a restaurant or bar and not breathe someone's smoke
As I stated TWICE in my post, I would support reasonable regulation to ensure a smoke free environment for nonsmokers, but an outright BAN is not reasonable to me.
As I stated before, it will not end here. We have to say enough is enough. California is RIGHT NOW proposing a ban on Cigarette smoking in people's backyards. Sure, it sounds ridiculous to us now. But then again, so did California's original ban on smoking in public places when it was introduced. Mark my words. If this passes, 5 years from now, y'all will be arguing FOR banishment of cigarettes in backyards, also. Y'all have already taken the LionShare of places I can't smoke. LEAVE IT ALONE!
As has been stated MORE THAN TWICE in this thread....this is not an outright BAN....its a ban in restaurants and bars.
It IS an outright ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. I would support reasonable regulations regarding ventilation, separate rooms, and air scrubbers to ensure clean air, but it should be up to the BUSINESS OWNERS to decide whether their establishment is smoking or non-smoking. A ban is not reasonable regulation, it is a ban.
Except that you're saying you should have the freedom to go into ANY and EVERY bar and not breathe someone's smoke. I'm saying you should be able to go into bars where there is no smoke, and I should be able to go into bars and smoke. Which of us is talking about MORE freedom and which is talking about LESS freedom for everyone? And this doesn't even touch on the fact that you're saying your freedom to do as you wish trumps the OWNERS freedom in this case. That is silly. YOU don't own it or have a right to go in a private establishment! Much less dictate policy for private property. (and no, property is not an absolute right, but we're not talking about a toxic waste dump in my backyard either). Amen, Andy. Well balanced post. We can all have what we want without a ban. And I wonder how people would react if we said 'blacks are only 12% of the population(as opposed to the 25% that don't support smoking bans), so their view really doesn't matter and shouldn't be accomodated.' Or if we said 'white people are 3/4's of the population, and this is the way we we're going to do it. We don't like Latin Music. Those horns hurt our ears when we go to the Latin Bars. So we're going to pass an ordinance that you can't play Latin Music in Latin Bars (you can still do it at home or in your car or at a friend's home if they allow it). After all Latino's at what 11...12% of the population?'
I tend to doubt that second hand smoke is any where near as dangerous as they would like us to believe. Especially compared to the other crap that is being pumped into our air. You have to question that whether what they tell us is true for everyone. I refuse to believe that they know exactly what causes cancer and yet they can't actually cure cancer. I pretty convince that they really have no idea what causes cancer. At this point in time it's all guesses and theories. You how every few years egss are bad for you and then later they're good for you again. I did find a site devoted to debunking junk science. I admit that I haven't really read through most of it, but it is food for thought. I'm at work and can't really spend any time there (or here), but I'll read more later. Since no one else has provided any links that support what FFB is saying I'll provide these links as a good place to start. The main site: http://www.forces.org/index.php The part that claims that second-hand smoke is not dangerous (or as dangerous) as they would lead us to believe: http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm If they haven't already, Penn and Teller should do a Bull****! episode on this. Have fun.
If it wasn't unhealthy to be in a smoke filled bar/restaurant for those who smoke....AND those who do not, then it wouldn't be an issue. No one is saying that you can't wear a green shirt....or you can't drink beer unless you order meat...or regulate how many women you can hit on before you have to give up on getting laid...its about being health concious...for the employee and the patron.
You are ignoring my contention that we can please EVERYONE with reasonable regulation as opposed to an outright ban.
And you are ignoring the fact that no one is banning you from the bar or restaurant...simply get up, walk outside, and light up. If its raining...bring an umbrella.
I don't smoke, but I support the freedoms that we are supposed to have in this country, freedoms that include, in my mind, the right of a business owner to cater to their clientele. If their customers want to smoke, then it is not the place of the politicians to ban it. At most they should enact legislation that ensures that these establishments have both smoking and smoke free environments.
