Smoking Bans

[Cyclonepride]

The simple fact is that people are always going to look for ways to control the actions of other people, particularly if they do not agree with what they are doing. I think limiting smoking inside a building is a perfectly legitimate and necessary solution. If you complain about smoking outside, I would submit that you are a hypochondriac, and someday you will die of something, regardless of how perfect you are. However, all you crusaders better not have a bad habit, because you might be next on the agenda.

[cyclonenum1]

Personally, I find the "if you don't like to breath second hand smoke then just avoid smokers" argument laughable.

Stuck in traffic, getting to breath the smoke of my fellow commuters? Check.
Standing on top of the highest point in the lower 48, another hiker walks up and lights up? Check. Although to be fair, I was more amazed than annoyed.
Getting to walk past the smokers congregated outside the entrance to the building I work in? Check.
Riding past a pack of smokers (pun intended) during a mountain bike race? Check. But, they were in front of me!

But I suppose I could find a job that allows me to work from home, and stop doing things that I enjoy in order to avoid the smokers.

Why is it "laughable" to think you can avoid second hand smoke. I have racked my brain and I honestly cannot recall the last time I remember breathing second hand smoke.

Stuck in traffic and you're breathing second hand smoke? I am often stuck in traffic and I don't like the fumes...but it is not from second hand smoke.

I don't believe I know what the second highest point in the lower 48 is but would it have been that tough to either politely ask the person to refrain or just walk a few feet away?

There is only one entrance/exit to the building you work in or there are smokers at each entrance/exit? I commonly avoid this and I am in and out of office buildings often. I find most buildings have one designated area and I just avoid the entrance/exit by that area. At worst, I have held my breath for a few seconds as I walk through the pack...but again I cannot recall having to do that anytime recently.

You really felt the effects of someone else's second hand smoke as you rode past them on a mountain bike...I find this hard to believe...almost laughable!

I have a job that puts me in many different environments nearly every day and as I said earlier, I do not recall the last time I felt bothered by second hand smoke.

[cyclonenum1]

Personally, I find no redeeming value in smoking. Given that belief, anything that reduces smoking is fine by me.

It's no surprise that California has probably the most restrictions on smoking along with a very low smoking population percentage. Someplace like Kentucky has very few restrictions along with a very high percentage of smokers. I've got to go with California on this one.

The personal liberty, owner choice argument just doesn't hold up. Would anyone even think of setting foot in a restaurant that operated with absolutely no government regulation?

A smoking ban is simple and would not involve excessive paperwork and red tape to enforce so the big brother argument doesn't apply. Our government isn't always perfect, but does a pretty good job of responding to the majority while protecting the constitutional rights of the minority.

How noble of you..."I don't like smoking so do whatever you want to limit the personal liberties of those Americans that do want to take part in this legal activity"...wow...I hope for your sake that the government never tries to restrict an activity that you do find to have some redeeming value.

Feel free to move to California if you like...no one is stopping you!

This is clearly a personal liberty issue and you believe that smoking Americans should have their personal liberties infringed upon...plain and simple.

You don't have to have "paperwork and red tape" to have "big brother"...if the government telling people what they can and cannot do and telling them where they can and where they cannot do something that is legal is not "big brother" then what is?

Personally, I believe our government and all of its regulating bodies are way out of control!

[iceclone]

Does anybody care about this issue? Do you support smoking bans in restaurants and taverns?

To answer the original question: This thread has created more responses than any other thread since the creation of the political cave.

I guess the answer is yes.

[Steve]

How noble of you..."I don't like smoking so do whatever you want to limit the personal liberties of those Americans that do want to take part in this legal activity"...wow...I hope for your sake that the government never tries to restrict an activity that you do find to have some redeeming value.

Feel free to move to California if you like...no one is stopping you!

This is clearly a personal liberty issue and you believe that smoking Americans should have their personal liberties infringed upon...plain and simple.

You don't have to have "paperwork and red tape" to have "big brother"...if the government telling people what they can and cannot do and telling them where they can and where they cannot do something that is legal is not "big brother" then what is?

Personally, I believe our government and all of its regulating bodies are way out of control!

You do an amazing job of waving the personal liberty flag while ignoring the merits of the specific case - banning smoking in restaurants. Every proposal concerning regulation should be decided on it's own merit rather than inflamatory rehtoric.

This proposal has merit just as many other current policies and regulations that impact the public when visiting a restaurant such as:

...anti-discrimination

...inspections than promote safe food handling practices

...wage and hour laws

...rest room facilities that accomodate the establishment capacity

...handicap access

...fire exits and suppression equipment in place and working

...safe electrical and plumbing installations

...restrictions that control access to alcoholic beverages

There are many more, but these and most others are for the public good. The public would not stand for it if all of these controls were wiped out and propriators could do as they please with no regard to employee welfare and public safety. It is not a stretch to claim that every one of these regulations was protested against by business owners who cried about losing personal liberties.

There are, however, places where businesses are not very regulated. They are known as third world countries or anarchies. Feel free to move to such a location if you don't like the way we collectively choose to govern ourselves.

[Wesley]

We have a local smoking ban in all restaurants and I am extremely happy for it. I personally can't stand the smell, I desire to keep my two kids away from all smoking and my wife's asthma is bothered by smoke. So to answer Alaskaguy's original question, Yes, I fully support any and all smoking bans.

I agree.

Smoking is gradually being banned in Omaha. Just a few places have smoking, but they are being phased out.

[Cyclone62]

Quick question: Are we discussing banning smoking in restaraunts, or outside like Cali does?

[alaskaguy]

I have been advocating banning smoking in the workplace to protect employees from the dangers of second hand smoke. The ban should include restaurants, taverns, and casinos.

I have linked an article on second hand smoke and casinos.

Link: http://www.wmitchell.edu/tobaccolaw/...nts/casino.pdf

A few conclusions from the linked article follow:

The fact that second hand smoke exposure is a significant public health threat is beyond dispute. The World Health Organization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Surgeon General all concur that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke.

Casino employees-like employees in any other workplace-need protection from second hand smoke.

Mandating ventilation standards is a poor alternative to going smoke free.

[Cyclone62]

Should we ban radioactive materials in nuclear power plants to protect the employees as well? It seems to me, that if you work somewhere, you should have the accountability of realizing the workplace's hazards yourself.

[cyclonenum1]

You do an amazing job of waving the personal liberty flag while ignoring the merits of the specific case - banning smoking in restaurants. Every proposal concerning regulation should be decided on it's own merit rather than inflamatory rehtoric.

This proposal has merit just as many other current policies and regulations that impact the public when visiting a restaurant such as:

...anti-discrimination

...inspections than promote safe food handling practices

...wage and hour laws

...rest room facilities that accomodate the establishment capacity

...handicap access

...fire exits and suppression equipment in place and working

...safe electrical and plumbing installations

...restrictions that control access to alcoholic beverages

There are many more, but these and most others are for the public good. The public would not stand for it if all of these controls were wiped out and propriators could do as they please with no regard to employee welfare and public safety. It is not a stretch to claim that every one of these regulations was protested against by business owners who cried about losing personal liberties.

There are, however, places where businesses are not very regulated. They are known as third world countries or anarchies. Feel free to move to such a location if you don't like the way we collectively choose to govern ourselves.

The owner of a restaurant should be able to decide what is allowed or not allowed on his/her premises with regard to second hand smoking. It is called property rights. If a restaurant allows smokers and you don't like second hand smoke...don't go. If a restaurant says no smoking and you want to smoke...don't go. Limiting the personal liberties of someone that is partaking in a legal activity is just wrong...whether you personally like that activity or not.

Do a little research on Dubai...you will see that limited regulations and taxation do not equal a third world country. Equating limited regulations with a third world country does just not hold water. In fact, many of the third world countries are that way because of off the chart restrictions imposed by a government of dictatorship.

[cyclonenum1]

Quick question: Are we discussing banning smoking in restaraunts, or outside like Cali does?

Look at some of the posts on this thread...complaining about second hand smoke from others cars while driving as well as while riding a mountain bike...the "anti-smoking Nazis" want to limit the personal freedoms of those that do something they think is wrong...no matter where it is.

[cyclonenum1]

I have been advocating banning smoking in the workplace to protect employees from the dangers of second hand smoke. The ban should include restaurants, taverns, and casinos.

I have linked an article on second hand smoke and casinos.

Link: http://www.wmitchell.edu/tobaccolaw/...nts/casino.pdf

A few conclusions from the linked article follow:

The fact that second hand smoke exposure is a significant public health threat is beyond dispute. The World Health Organization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Surgeon General all concur that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke.

Casino employees-like employees in any other workplace-need protection from second hand smoke.

Mandating ventilation standards is a poor alternative to going smoke free.

Last I checked...casinos, taverns, and restaurants were not able to enslave their workers. The employees at these establishments are well aware of the environment that they choose to work in. People that don't want to be subjected to second hand smoke can simply choose to not work in these places.

By the way, I have been to casinos recently and frankly don't recall any bothersome second hand smoke. These places have very sophisticated air conditioning and filtering systems because they know that although some patrons like to smoke...many do not. By the way, my wife, who is even more keenly aware of second hand smoke hasn't complained at a casino either.

The studies from the sources you quote are certainly biased. Getting your information from these bureaucracies is kind of like getting your racial perspective from Jesse Jackson...he is always going to claim racism because it furthers his agenda. These organizations all have an agenda and they produce studies that will further that agenda.

[Schriner]

Look at some of the posts on this thread...complaining about second hand smoke from others cars while driving as well as while riding a mountain bike...the "anti-smoking Nazis" want to limit the personal freedoms of those that do something they think is wrong...no matter where it is.

Once again, you've missed the point. The anti-smoking ban contingent argues that all one needs to do is simply avoid the smoke. My response was that this is impossible, unless one never leaves home. Thus, it's not as simple as avoiding the smokers. Didn't say this smoke was bothersome, didn't complain, merely making some observations. Now I'm a Nazi. If one subscribes to Godwin's law, you've just lost the argument.

[alaskaguy]

The studies from the sources you quote are certainly biased. Getting your information from these bureaucracies is kind of like getting your racial perspective from Jesse Jackson...he is always going to claim racism because it furthers his agenda. These organizations all have an agenda and they produce studies that will further that agenda.

So you consider the World Health Organization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Surgeon General to be biased sources of information?

[cyclonenum1]

The studies from the sources you quote are certainly biased. Getting your information from these bureaucracies is kind of like getting your racial perspective from Jesse Jackson...he is always going to claim racism because it furthers his agenda. These organizations all have an agenda and they produce studies that will further that agenda.

So you consider the World Health Organization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Surgeon General to be biased sources of information?

Absolutely. They all have a vested interest in seeing their particular budgets increased and hence they need to provide evidence as to how important their work is. Frankly, I believe these bureaucracies are totally unnecessary.