Smoking ban reversal.

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ravinraven

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
803
Location
Brasher Falls NY
I'm not a great smoker. A cigar or two a week, maybe. I personally don't give a **** if I ever smoke again. However, I am sick of the gov't ramming it's nose further and further into the business of private individuals and groups. I am sick of the "health police" and their terrorist tactics.

A bright light appeared on the horizon last night and the bit passed before I woke up to what was being said. It seems that somewhere in Colorado a judge has reversed a smoking ban in some town or county. I think its temporary, but I would lke to hear from someone with more, maybe personal, information.

I have three friends [really!] who are so conservative they make me look like Lenin, or maybe even The Slickster's Wife, Hitlary. They yell about the gov't sticking their snouts into their lives, yet they go ballistic when they encounter a smoker in a restaurant. They try to get the management of the place stirred up about a smoker and so forth.

Smoking is dangerous, but I think that the lives that'll be lost when the Liberty Restoration Project gets into full swing will exceed the number of lives lost to second-hand smoke.

Another thing that seems a bit out of whack is the fact that we Americans [whites, at least] are supposed to be sensitive and celebrating the diverse cultures we are surrounded with. The Indians, whoops, Native Americans, gave us tobacco. Why are we throwing such a fit? Don't we appreciate what they did for us?
 
I "hate" smoke, especially when I'm eating.

I have no problem at all with someone asking a owner/manager of an establishment to make his experience at the establishment more more enjoyable, and the manager obliging. I only object if it is illegal for said manager to say "No" to such a request.

I don't need no stinking "health police" and I have no interest in taking away the choices of a free person to set the rules on his property. If it's too smokey for me, I'll find somewhere else to eat. If the business loses enough money because of the smoking policy, they will change their policy BY CHOICE, not by law. And that suits me just fine.
 
Being a native of the PRK, which bans smoking in all public places, I like the idea of banning it. I saw both of my parents die miserable, HORRIBLE deaths from lung cancer caused my smoking. I smoked for several years when I was 17 to 20 years old. It was was really tough to quit. You get hooked on cigarettes and it doesn't take long.

I had allergies my whole childhood because of my parents smoking. They took me to allergy doctors and tested me for over 400 substances, none of which I was allergic to. They did not think to test cigarette smoke in the 1950's. Mfeanwhile, my nose ran like a faucet and I lived on Benadryl.

If people want to smoke they can go for it. Just stay away from me and my family if you do.
 
Being a native of the PRK, which bans eating fast food, I like the idea of banning it. I saw both of my parents die miserable, HORRIBLE deaths from heart disease caused by obesity. I ate fast food for several years when I was 17 to 20 years old. It was was really tough to quit. You get hooked on fast food and it doesn't take long.

If people don't want to smell smoke, fine. Just stay away from smokers if you do.

---------

(I'm sorry about your parents. I hope I didn't come across too insensitive to their suffering)

I'm not opposed to smoking bans in "public" places, such as schools, libraries, government buildings, etc. But I am deeply concerned that we American citizens are allowing the government to crawl into every aspect of our life for "our own good", and to dictate what legal activities are allowed on private property. You may not care now, but when "your" favorite legal activity is deemed unsafe for the population, and private property owners are legally mandated to disallow it on their property, it may be too late to do anything about it.
 
Smoking is dangerous,
Click to expand...
So is kissing, eating, shaking hands, walking, etc. We don't need government criminalizing all dangerous activities. I enjoy some of them, and living in a bubble isn't what I'd call living....

However, I do reserve the right to not be kissed, avoid contaminated food, avoid shaking hands, etc., and that includes sharing a cigar, pipe, cigarette, or joint with somebody else. Let them pursue thier own pleasures without involving me, and we'll be okay....
 
Have you ever decided not to go to a resturaunt because you might smell smoke? If not, then you're not really all that concerned.

Why allow the government to do your dirty work? If you don't like smoke, vote with your wallet and get like-minded people to do the same. I'd join THAT boycott, I HATE the smell of smoke when I eat. But I simply can't support an idea that allows the government to nanny me [added] and takes away the rights of a property owner to set the rules for legal activity on his own property.
 
However, I do reserve the right to not be kissed, avoid contaminated food, avoid shaking hands, etc., and that includes sharing a cigar, pipe, cigarette, or joint with somebody else. Let them pursue thier own pleasures without involving me, and we'll be okay....
Click to expand...

Drunks on the road are dangerous too. But I doubt many people would support a LAW that made it illegal to drink alcohol away from home (at least not yet).

I don't want to be nannied, I want to be free. In a free society there are some risks. At least with second hand smoke, without government intervention I can choose to exercise free choice and leave or not frequent a place that's too smokey for my perceived health.

Get those creepy crawley fingers of invasiveness out of my life and let me take care of myself.
 
Smoking cigarettes isn't dangerous. Smoking 40 cigarettes a day is. I can't think of too many things you could put into your body 40 times a day that wouldn't be dangerous.

Addictive shmadictive. I know too many people who quit cold turkey and said it was no big deal. I lived with one of them. It's a habit which is difficult to break, but it isn't addictive.
 
Pueblo, Colorado tried to pass the smoking ban. It was halted in its tracks by a petition drive.
Last word is that the local .gov is going to come up with a 'compromise.'

As for allowing or banning smoking in a privately owned establishment, that's a blatant violation of property rights, as far as I'm concerned.

If you don't like the smoke in a place, you're certainly free to leave. Also, bear in mind that the dangers of second-hand smoke have been exaggerated to the point of idiocy.

But like someone above said, don't get the government to do the dirty work.

Oh, and for the record, I smoke maybe 3 times a year, usually a cigar.
 
There is a difference between asking the manager of a restauraunt to move a smoker and banning it by law. If a property owner, or his agent, asks me not to smoke, then the cigarette gets snuffed out on the sole of my shoe and the butt goes in my pocket (or the trash). That's it. If I don't want to comply, then I leave.

What many people fail to grasp is that the reverse is true as well. If I demand that you stand on one foot, balancing a chair on your forehead, while singing "Yankee-Doodle-Dandy" on my private property, then you'd better do it if you want to stay. Otherwise, I'll show you the door.

If I choose to allow smoking in my bar, restaurant, store, etc., it is my choice to make as a property owner, or the empowered agent of the owner. I have effectively made it a condition of your continuing presence on my property that you be in an environment of tobacco smoke. Don't like it? Again, I will gladly aid you in finding the exit. Legislating smoking in MY establishment is an infringement on my rights as a property owner, plain and simple.

I do agree that a smoking ban in public buildings (post offices, courthouses, etc.) is appropriate, and that the government does have the authority to regulate it in those places. You don't even need to go into the health effects of smoking. Smoking indoors can easily be compared with littering indoors even without having to clean up cigarette butts. It's a rather messy habit, and it doesn't smell all that great.

As for outside on public property... A ban in such a place doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not only would it be almost impossible to enforce based on the number of smokers (something like 22% of the population last I heard), but you'd be chasing down smoke trails that end up leading to private property. It's simply uncontrollable. The most common complaint I hear about smokers outdoors in public involves people standing on a streetcorner waiting for the light to change or some such event. That kind of thing makes very little sense. Whine and complain about the evil man with the cigarette while the cars around you spew carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Next time a poorly tuned car drives by and blows exhaust on me and makes me cough, I'm going to sue the manufacturer and the driver and see to it that cars are banned in public places.

As for blowing smoke in somebody's face... I'm guessing that there is some kind of assault charge associated with spitting on a person, and I suspect that this falls under the same category. It is an assault of sorts, but comparable to firing a weapon at you? One presents a clear and immediate threat, the other one presents a possible (considering how many carcinogens you take in during the course of your day, I would say remote) threat that is not immediate in any sense unless you have a dangerous asthma condition. This is why one is attempted murder (at least), and the other is a misdemeanor (unless you know the person has some kind of condition, but you get the idea).

I have also heard the argument that smoking should be banned because of cigarette butts littering the streets... This argument uses the same logic as banning guns because there are deaths associated with the use of guns. Ban the act of littering? Sure! They already did that. Ban the posession and use of potentially litter-causing objects? You've got to be kidding!
 
OHHHH Noooooooo Another smoking thread.

Anyway.

I think the idea of banning smoking in ALL public places is a good idea. The only thing I ever liked about working in California is the bars.

I know it is private property but there are already restrictions on private property that no one here would ever try to object to like zoning requirements. No right is absolute. I believe that the public can decide others property right based squarely on the constitution using something like the due process clause of the 14th ammendment.
 
GregoryTech,

Skating pretty close to a personal attack I would say. Why not share some more of your amazing wit with us?

Russ
 
Skating pretty close to a personal attack I would say. Why not share some more of your amazing wit with us?

Russ
Click to expand...

It wasn't meant to be. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

[edit to add]

(was that amazing enough?)
 
I think it is rather funny that NYC has banned smoking in bars.
One can sit behind a cross town bus and suck in diesel fumes for a good hour but heaven help us if we are in a bar with a smoker.

Can anyone direct me to the studies that show second hand smoke to be so dangerous. I mean they must be available if people keep quoting them. Is anyone aware of studies that contraindicate the myth of harm from second hand smoke.

Smoking is harmful to the self. Second hand smoke smells bad.
Avoid places where smolers hang.

How many smokers inhabit gin mills? Why does the government try to control our behavior in all facets of life?

Folks, they don't want just your guns they want your freedom!
 
Never liked the smell of smoke. However, I hate government interference a lot more. So I'd be on the side of all the smokers despite not liking the smell.

Smoking should be legal in restaurants and stores and everyplace else, except perhaps for government offices. The logic being that I can avoid all other venues if the smoke obthers me or causes health problems. I would expect that I could find at least one non-smoking store in my area if necessary.
 
GregoryTech,

Thanks. Yes that was amazing enough! No hard feelings.

Russ
 
ravinraven...

I have the information on the Pueblo CO smoking ban you asked for...

Our illustrious City Council took it upon themselves to pass a ban on smoking in all public places, including within 20 feet of an entrance to any public place. The ban took effect Jan. 1, 2003. A group of local business people formed a group and along with two prominent attorneys who volunteered thier time, started circulating petitions to stop the ban and to recall the 4 city council members who voted yes (the vote was 4-3).

On the first petition, the group turned in over 10,000 signatures (they needed about 3,300). Last week the smoking ban was rescinded. (One of the council members said that they wouldn't stop the ban, no matter how many signatures were collected. Shows you the mentality of these people, they h\don't have a choice in the matter now.)

The recall petitions aren't due until the end of February. Opinion on the recall seems split, with some of the people wanting it, and the rest wanting to wait until the elections to oust these guys.

Personally, I'm against the ban. I don't think we need government to keep us safe from ourselves. As a business owner, I feel that I have the right to say what is allowed in MY building. If I want to chase off customers by smoking in front of them, that's my problem, not City Council's.

On a side note... Several of the restaurants and bars that were forced to be non-smoking for 10 days haved stayed non-smoking on their own after the ban was lifted.
 
Unlikely that the courts will strike down anti-smoking ordinances. Landmark case on public regulation of private property is Munn v. Illinois (1877) Ira Munn, owner of a grain elevator, challenged an Illinois law, lobbied for by the Grange, establishing the rates grain elevator owners could charge for grain storage. He based his case primarily on the 14th Amendment's due process requirement, and that state regulations infringed on the Congress's commerce regulation authority.

Munn lost. Supreme court held that when private property has public use, it is liable to public regulation. Also stated that the legislative process provides "due process" protection (like the recall effort mentioned by Ashcraft) and that absent Congressional regulation, states were free to do so. A chain of subsquent cases has refined and confirmed the basic ability of government to regulate a wide range of private business activity and property.


I agree with those who feel it should be up to the individual business owner to decide smoking policy. Have no sympathy for people who want to control the policies of every establishment, regardless of whether or not they will ever actually patronize them. Have no sympathy for those who choose to smoke and end up getting sick, like I have no sympathy for myself who chose to ignore proper diet and ended up with clogged arteries and a bad heart. It is natural selection in action. If I dont want to be around smoke I go to another establishment or avoid that type of place altogether, just like if I want to avoid fat and cholesterol I chose to no longer go to my favorite greasy spoon. Life is about choices, and addicts, be they hooked on coffee, tobacco, alcohol or heroin, made choices about what they would believe based on the same pool of info and common sense as those of us who chose to avoid same. The way it works is that if you make a really bad choice, you die. We all die eventually. Personally, I am not willing to remove choice for the sake of safety.

My adult daughter chooses to smoke. She knows the facts, knows her mom and I disapprove, does it anyway. Life is tough.
 
nualle, with all due respect, there is a higher
'degree-of-harm' to your health from being exposed to the by-products of gunfire than from being exposed to second hand smoke.

So I certainly wouldn't consider exposure to second hand smoke as an 'assault', but rather as a consequence of living in a free country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
from today's Cato Daily Dispatch (www.cato.org)
Replies
1
Views
329
Art Eatman
A
2
  • Locked
Next: No Cigs In Your Car
Replies
18
Views
803
Cosmoline
C
2
  • Locked
UN envoys fume over New York smoking ban
Replies
5
Views
712
Waitone
W
J
  • Locked
The Chicago Delegation to the Illinios General Assembly Wants to Ban Everything
Replies
15
Views
761
Lupinus
L
M
  • Locked
Nanny state, part I
Replies
5
Views
677
XLMiguel
X
Back
Top