Smoking Bans and why Republicans get elected

All politics is local. Most people (not the ones on DU) are disconnectd from national politics, and feel that they have no influence there.

They vote on local issues: development, taxes, etc.

Many of my fellow career firefighters vote Republican because
1) it's usually a Democratic city government that votes to freeze our pay or otherwise antagonize us - Republican areas are typically more rural and have fewer career firefighters and more volunteers
2) Democrats vote for dumbass intrusive laws regarding private property and the operation of private businesses.

It's pretty easy for a local Republican to point out the various ways local Democrats have intruded on your personal life.

Why is it that local Democrats feel the overwhelming need to ban smoking in private establishments?

If it's to protect workers, as is usually the claim, why don't they treat second-hand smoke like they do other industrial pollutants, and allow for engineering controls and respiratory protection? It's pretty hard to protect workers who are out of jobs because their restaruant halved their staff due to reduced business.

If it's to provide smoke-free drinking establishments for nonsmokers, why don't the loosen the reigns on liquor licenses, let a few more bars open, and let the nonsmokers take their business to to nonsmoking bars and restaraunts. Take note that, almost everywhere, restaraunts have banned smoking or relegated smoking to the back room. Smoky restaraunts lose business. Non-smoking bars lose business. (Yes, I know XXX report by the cancer foundation shows that they don't, and YYY report from the tobacco industry show they do. Well, my personal report from Montgomery County, MD shows that those bars are empty and close early, while the ones in still smoky DC are full and stay open late.)

Why do the overwhelming majority of Democrats feel the need to protect the public from themselves?

Sometimes it's easy to see why Dems lose, they bring it on themselves. No one is going to vote against someone for letting people smoke in bars. Plenty of people will vote against someone for taking away their favorite watering hole.

It might help to bring down rates of cigarette smoking. It seems a lot less intrusive than banning it.

I have a fairly large libertarian streak in me, and I agree with you. Cigarette smoking is bad, but I think the more pragmatic position is to tax it, and use the tax revenue for cancer research, an anti-smoking ad campaign, etc.

And anti-smoking ads make me light up. The double-tripling of the prices have me smoking cheaper and harsher brands or self-rolled cigarettes with NO FILTER. But I smoke as much as I ever did.

If they'd take the money and offer free replacement nicotine type things--which cost even more than the now overpriced cigarettes--that'd be one thing, but instead they use it to make little "look how activist we are!" useless, insulting ads.

Too bad for your lungs though.

In California, the anti-smoking ads have WORKED. Smoking rates among adults are DOWN since they began running.

In California, those of us who don't want to be harmed (and killed) by 2nd hand smoke are safe from the negligent actions of our brothers and sisters who are committing suicide by cigarette while they're lining the pockets of Repuke candidates with cigarette company campaign cash.

I LIKE living in a non-smoking California!

The $64,000 question is: Were smoking rates declining, steadily or otherwise, BEFORE the media blitz began?

How would you like living in a non-drinking California? Or a non-fast food California? Or a... you get the idea. A slippery slope indeed.

MojoXN

..you're not simultaneously pouring your libations down the throats of those surrounding you. When you eat fast food, you're not forcing food into the stomachs of those around you.

It's not what smokers are doing to themselves that I care about. It's what your habits do to my atmosphere and lungs.

Were left to the business owner? YOU could choose to not patronize said establishments, and I could choose to go there and relax with a cigarette or two. Or vice-versa. These nanny state measures are NEVER going to win middle America's confidence, simple as that.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH LETTING THE PROPRIETOR DECIDE?

MojoXN

What ever happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE?

If you hate smoke, stay out of establishments where smoking is allowed! If you smoke, stay out of nonsmoking places!

There will always be people who smoke too much, drink too much, abuse drugs, gamble too much, etc. despite efforts to the contrary. And guess what? Some people LIKE smoking & drinking.

You can't save people from themselves. You can't legislate morality. So don't try!

it's the air inside a privately owned building. I guarantee that you put more carcinogens into the air every year with your car than a smoker does with his cigarettes.

Not to mention the pollution from one's yearly electricity consumption. Just imagine the cries of "Foul!" if I were to suggest that anyone other than the Amish or other non-electric users was responsible for my health problems...

MojoXN

others. And when people live in a home with an alcoholic, their lives are harmed immesurably, and that includes physically.

I do not disagree that cigarette smoke is harmful. I have no problem whatsoever not smoking around non-smokers. But I just get so pissed off when non-smokers go around spreading the lie that drinking does no harm to others. It does; I know first hand because I grew up with an alcoholic father, and I cannot begin to tell the nightmare that was.

I totally support your right to be in a clean air atmosphere if that is what you choose. But please find another argument, or at least leave the "drinking does not harm to others" argument out of it. It's just not true.

..."drinking doesn't harm others." I said "you're not forcing those around you to drink what you are drinking."

And driving under the influence is already against the law.

They spent millions on that, initially as an attempt to stop teen smoking. Teen smoking increased despite their self-righteous proselytizing. Great use of tobacco settlement money that was.

screw people without reason.
Prices vary state to state, depending on the price of cigarettes in your state or at least they did a few years ago.
When they became OTC I had low income clients who wanted to quit and claimed they couldn't afford the nicotine replacement. I was shocked at the prices, I actually double checked it myself the first time I was told the price, I couldn't believe it.
One problem was you couldn't get a smaller amount at a time. You could get a pack of cigarettes at a time but the smallest package of the gum was 10 times+ the cost.
I think that was why I called the maker, it's been a few years. I was hoping they made smaller packages that our local store just didn't have. It was during that conversation I learned how they did their pricing. When I asked why it varied so much she said the taxes were much higher in some states, that determined it. Hello! I pointed out they don't tax nicotine replacement.
Then the conversation got less friendly and they were saying if you can pay a lot for cigarettes, you can pay that much for quitting. If they couldn't afford it they should just save their cigarette money for a week or two and then buy the replacement. OK, quit smoking for two weeks to afford the nicotine. Good sales pitch.
Our state got a lot of money from cigarette settlement. None of it goes for funding to help people quit.

Cigarette makers may be evil, but the high prices come from the tax on it. I think the nicotine replacement makers are just about as bad. They didn't have to invent the drug, it's so overpriced that it defeats its purpose.

And by golly, I don't think smoking buns are the reason behind lost elections.

n/t

Yeah this is the reason Democrats are in trouble. I can totally see it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

n/t

:popcorn:

Oh, wait - a Repugnican banned smoking in NYC.

Shortly after it was banned in NYC. And laws are typically passed by the legislative branch of government, not the mayor.

Regardless, its an inconsequential law for Bloomberg, it doesn't hurt him, and he gets to look 'liberal' to those who don't know any better.

hell if I know :shrug:

republicans use issues such as this and gay rights and Roe V Wade to get people to vote for them. They don't govern well at all so they have to use "hot button" issues to gain votes. Why else has Karl Rove been "successful"?

These "hot button" issues are only effective if the public perceives the economy is relatively OK and we are safe at home and abroad.

The greater the shitstorm on those two issues, the more the public will recognize the cynical bullshit Republican strategy for what it is...at least I hope so,

Hopefully sooner or later people will realize. That's why I don't think they'll do anything either way with gay rights or Roe V Wade. It's a perfect plan for them so they don't have to talk about their failures with the economy etc. I was earlier this evening watching a good bit of the documentary "The War Room" about the Clinton 1992 campaign and the Clinton team kept talking about important issues that people care about such as the economy (it's the economy stupid!) and health care and education while others kept talking about Clinton's "affairs" and everything. It's really amazing to watch.

:shrug:

The rightwingers LOVE to vote on perceived behavioral issues. Smoking=SIN=Get 'em!

The American Cancer Society? American Lung Association? American Heart Association? Washington State Council of Firefighters??

Yeah, those dirty Freeper bastards :eyes:

Yes 63%
No 37%

If they made the ban immediate, I'd go out for a drink to celebrate :beer:

:hi:


I wasn't referring to any specific agency supporting the initiative. Just lots and lots of local Repubs spearheading it in my area.

I'm personally glad it passed, but I think you missed my point about Repubs using "sin" initiatives to rally their other causes. And btw, how often do "The American Cancer Society? American Lung Association? American Heart Association? Washington State Council of Firefighters??" get behind grassroots groups attempting to stop MegaCorp polluters?

My grandma (dad's mom) and two of his sisters are Christian's and smoke. :eyes: My grandfather was an elder of his church for twenty-seven years and a long time ago smoked. He had a heartattack and stopped after that. Last July he ended up dying of lung cancer. Smoking is a personal preference and choice. With me I think as long as there are smoke-free areas that's fine since smoke bothers me personally (my eyes water up and everything).

besides missionary between a man and a woman isn't unecessarily intrusive? People will vote FOR the right peeking into their bedrooms, as long as they keep carcinogen-riddled smoke billowing around the mouths of non-smoking food service employees and patrons?

The dems keep losing because of perception problems caused by a blantantly biased media: ask most people and they'll fervently deny the label "liberal" or "Democrat," but ask them their feelings on an issue-to-issue basis and they'll identify strongly with liberal policies and issues.

Something that might happen: government keeping me from fornicating with someone. Especially if I stay out of Lower Piddlefart, Kansas.

Something that happens all the time: Local and State legislatures determine how best to run a private business: NYC, NY State, State of Delaware, Montgomery County, MD, Prince Georges County, MD, Washington, DC (PENDING).

When the debate becomes "keeping the government out out of private business," it's just a hop, a skip, and a jump away from allowing corporations and huge multinationals to pollute, expolit, and wreak havoc with impunity...I'm sure on the local level there's problems that can be sorted out, but if people in rural areas choose not to see that the republican controlled FEDERAL government is fucking them royally, then may god help them find the eyesight necessary to distinguish forests from trees. In other words, if they can't see that there's larger problems afoot with enormous (bad) consequences down the road because they're too busy fighting for uh, smokers' rights, there's little you, I, or anyone else can do. That's their problem, not ours.

Just like they make smokers pay a huge tax on cigarettes. IMO that tax should go to pay for public health messages and to pay for MC costs for cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc.

I've got NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with them taxing cigarettes such that their external costs are paid for by the guy paying for them.

they sure as hell have the right to set cetain standards for air quality in buildings, including restaurants. Voters OVERWHELMINGLY approved a ban on smoking in restaurants here (in Texas) not long ago. Smoking bans are great; I wish they would ban them here in bars as well but it is only a matter of time until they do. A smoker's rights to pollute end with my lungs- any arguments comparing second hand smoke to car exhaust are pathetic. Apples and oranges, really. I am not really arguing about the dangers of second hand smoke to the patrons but I think it is a question of health and safety for the workers. Anyway smoking around food is just disgusting.

Very Republican and very strict smoking restrictions. Probly less backlash there due to the high Morman population.

Some establishments in Tempe have been adversely affected. Long Wong's, a Mill Ave. institution for decades, closed it's doors a couple of years ago and it was attributed to the smoking ban. But other places, usually large restaurants, report no decrease in business.

Is their primary function the sale of alcohol? For those establishments which are primarily bars, indoor smoking bans hurt profits IMMENSELY. Was Long Wong's a bar? If so, you're inadvertantly backing my contention.

The decision to allow or disallow smoking in a particular establishment should not be made by government, it should be made by the business owner.

MojoXN

let business owners decide whether to allow indoor smoking and if they want this, license them for it, just like for serving liquor.

It's pretty much win-win. The private business owner can make an independent, not forced, choice, the customer also gets to choose, and the licensing fees and enforcement penalties can fund anti-smoking campaigns.

Let the drug dealers make the decision about supporting the deadliest, most useless drug of them all.

Hmmmm, let me think...

Nope, doesn't pass the smell test. Bars are support groups for alcoholics...not the most rational source for decisions about public policy.

The reason for smoking bans is that smoking kills ALL people who are exposed to the smoke. In fact, the person getting the 2nd hand smoke from the barrel of the beast are more likely to suffer harm than the one who sucks it in through a filter.

PS: the restaurant ownwers assoc. in San Francisco bitched and moaned about a smoking ban that passed recently. They said business would swoon if smokers weren't coddled. Net result after the smoking ban on the restaurant business -- NONE... It's a bullshit argument...

that scares people out here in America from voting for good democrats.

In fact, the person getting the 2nd hand smoke from the barrel of the beast are more likely to suffer harm than the one who sucks it in through a filter.

In fact, we both know that is not true.

You have gone off the deep end with that one..... But many of your statements are off the deep end on this topic. You are really insulting a large number of people here with some of your comments inc "Bars are support groups for alcoholics", and (paraphrasing) all/most people who stay in bars until closing time don't VOTE??? And are REPUBLICAN??? Boy--you don't get out much, do you?

:nopity:

:nopity:

My dad just underwent chemo for cancer from, you guessed it...smoking.
So I have just a little bit of bias against smoking. And I love our smoke-free bars. They're doing fine here.

Some of us are fully aware of the risks assocated with the decision to smoke, and we just DON'T FUCKING CARE!!!

Would you force business owners to ban smoking, even if ALL of their customers and employees smoke? And, yes, I DO know of places where that is exactly the case. If your answer is yes, I want to know why.

Anecdotal "evidence" doesn't count for shit, but...

My Grandfather smoked a pack of unfiltered Pall Mall per day for 65 years, and he doesn't have a SINGLE health problem, smoking related or otherwise. Chew on that.

MojoXN

Read that again. I didn't have a GODDAMN FUCKING CHOICE for 18 years of my life. So I'd like to enjoy nights out (I do go out) without my allergies acting up, my clothes stinking to high heaven, and a goddamn headache ripping through my head.

So you'll excuse me if I have a father in the hospital, just this side of getting his entire voice box removed from a habit that he tried desperately, so fucking desperately to quit, even though the cigarette companies deliberately raised the nicotene levels for fucking decades.
So you know, I don't give a fuck about anecdotal evidence. 'cause it isn't work SHIT in this instance. Not to me. The cancer is fucking real. And it still could kill my father.

Chew on THAT.

May he recover soon. But the fact is, not all smokers suffer as a result of their habit. I would NEVER smoke around children, but that is MY decision. I don't feel that the state should have the right to impose that decision on me. If you are so vehemently opposed to smoking, then why don't you support letting the business owner decide what he or she wants for his or her establishment?

If you do, I apologize. In any case, what the hell is wrong with letting proprietors choose their target clientele? I'll tell you this, I personally won't go to ANY bar that bans smoking, and obviously, YOU won't go to any bar that permits it. So what's the big fucking deal? Never the twain shall meet, as far as I can see.

MojoXN

As much as it sickens me to see people smoke around their children, there is nothing at all I can do about it, other than try and convince them.

Perhaps you'd like to make a moral decision on the properness of some folks to raise children as well? Those who disagree with your view of the universe? Those who disagree with your view of marriage?

I will not stand to let my government decide who is fit and who is not, nor will I stand to let them determine what I do to my own body.

Going into bars where smoking is permitted is granting permission to be smoked around.

health dangers-fine! Do WTF you want, but why should the person that does care suffer? Someone next to you who does care-why should this person be exposed to second hand smoke? Gee, some people do care about their health, and just cause you don't, why should they risk their health?

They do like to shoot off their mouths a lot - I have found them to be conservative, Republican, non-voters, pretty much parroting Limbaugh, Reilly, et al. People who stay in bars till closing tend to have drunk a LOT and aren't too coherent. Just the kind of people who, if they DID vote, would vote on one self-centered issue like whether they could smoke at a bar or not. I do know some very strong Democrats who, although they acknowledge that smoking is bad for their health, are just unable to kick the habit. However the nicotine has not affected their brains to the point that they would ever dream of voting against a Democrat candidate because said candidate supported banning smoking in public places.

As to city govts. which are Democrat and cut budgets or freeze salaries re firemen, the majority of these cities are so predominantly Democrat, that if every fireman there voted Republican, Democrats would still get elected. Local politics go with what the majority of their constituents want, and the majority wants smoke-free restaurants and bars. The anti-smoking bans aren't protecting the public (you) from itself(yourself). They protect all of us from your secondary smoke.

You know it's cutting about ten years off your life to smoke, and it certainly hasn't made you a happy camper, so why don't you try to quit?

and the majority of restaurants complied long before there was a ban. OTOH, the majority of people who go to bars smoke. I live 5 minutes from montgomery county, a smoke free place. People who want a smoke-free bar can go there - but they don't.

They tend to be apathetic when it comes to politics and voting because all they hear are both sides spouting how much they "support families" and it's all about "the children"...blah...blah...

Single people are the largest growing demographic in the US. Single households now outnumber married ones. That still means there are more married people, but still. We are blowing this, big time.

The people I go to bars with, single and professional in their 20s, 30s, and even 40s, are NOT necessarily conservatives and it's a big mistake to assume they are. Matter of fact, they tend to be pro-choice and pro-gay rights. They're not happy about the war or the * administration. The Democrats need to wake the hell up and realize that there is a huge swath of the population that is not in a nuclear family situation and isn't necessarily enthused with the entire country being turned into some Disney-fied and sanitized kiddie park. We could get to these people if we'd stop being so frigging obsessed with trying to win over Joe and Suzie Soccerparents.

The issue isn't smoking per se, as most peoople don't partake in the habit and don't object to bans on it. But the OP is absolutely right about what a lot of people do see as intrusive and paternalistic legislation.

(As for your blanket assumptions about people who go to bars, I can only surmise that you either don't know what you're talking about - typical of people who have been married nine hundred years and rely on vague memories of going out- or you ARE a denizen of the late night drinking scene. If so, what kind of bars do you go to anyway?)

they run down the budget that your city relies on to get you, your salaries and equipment

So when the Democrats get in, they have no choice, perfect example here in San Diego, after 10 years of Republican leadership this city is broke. They ran it on the cheap... and now everybody is facing pay cuts, and yes my husband is a police officer. The city unions did not endorse either candidate, one said taxes and we need to cut salaries so we can get a hold on this mess, the other, who gutted the retirement fund to begin with, said no new taxes and we will privatize everything

Care to tell who is the Republican and who is the democrat?

Oh and by the way, keep voting against your interests with this issues, they love you fer it.

Oh and smoking bans in california have proven not to have reduced business and has protected the workers, who are no longer exposed to those chemicals. Those are the same kinds of laws that force you to war that Scott Air Pack, which protects you from the worst, but there are still some old school fire fighters who go, why should I wear that, real men don't.

By the way brother was a volunteer medic for ten years in a developing country and I understand the job... very well.. of course I had some added risks that you will most likely not face or as often, like be there for the DV with no police back up.

Go figure? The ban is not to protect people from themselves but to allow people to enjoy a place without having to breath second hand smoke. If you want to smoke, go outside. Smoking in a public place in very selfish in my book.

I've been on the job almost 28 years, my son just got appointed to another department not too far from mine. There are guys in my station who listen to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and Liddy every day. They spew all the right-wing talking points on every subject. It drives me crazy to know they shoot themselves in the foot and vote against their economic and job related best interests because of a Repugs stand on guns or smoking. It just makes no sense to me. I don't know how long you've been on the job but if it's anything like it is here you can't get hired unless you're a nonsmoker. By the way, some of those dumbass intrusive laws you speak of have helped save fire fighter lives, for example the Two in / Two out provision, the requirement that hazardous chemical manufacturers tell us what we're dealing with when we arrive on scene. So it may seem like an intrusive law to you but to me it means more of us will go home at the end of our tour.

Smoking is a no brainer. everyone knows its bad for you.

But, I like to drink, eat grilled meats, fattty food, and sleep late. Sometimes, I like to chase wanton women. On occasion, I ride my motorcycle, or go rock climbing. All of these things could kill me.

As for the second hand smoke argument: this from the CDC
An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and more than 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke.6

I would guess that #1 most of these people lived with smokers, and #2 they really have no idea. Just like all the highway deaths attributed to 'speed'. #3 How many of those coronaries were in overweight people, or people who had high cholesterol, or failed to exercise.

Bars aren't public places. You don't HAVE to go there. You can find a non-smoking one. As for the workers, they could be on the other side of a pane of glass, or behind an air curtain, i don't care.

Absolute power corrupts. I don't like giving this power to my government - whether run by Dems or Reps or whomever.

When the county government buys a lot and erects a bar, they should feel free to prohibit smoking in that place.

Bars aren't public places. They are privately owned establishments. People go there of their own free will. They don't 'need' a license to operate - the license only guarantees that the government won't shut them down, protection money if you will.

The original poster is a firefighter. If everyone quit smoking, there would be a drastic drop in fires, and he would lose his job :evilgrin:

:sarcasm:

I hate smoky bars. Why not let people chew tobacco and spit on the floors if you are going to allow smoking?

As the people in my county (Ohio County, WV) have been affected by the idiocy that is known as the (almost)uniform smoking ban. The only place that serves liquor AND allows you to smoke is the local racetrack and "gaming" resort. And guess who enacted this ban? Unelected Democratic appointees. Guess who's going to get tossed out on his ass next election? The idiot county commissioner (or whomever) who appointed these assholes. And rightly so.

Great Post, dcfirefighter!

MojoXN

A business owner should be free to decide if he/she allows smoking in THIER OWN establishment. Likewise, people are free to quit working in smoke filled environments.

Land of freedom? Is that still in effect?

That toxic smoke added so much joy to going out to eat at a restaurant and I miss it so much. It made the food taste so good! It's so sad now that the smokers need to wait an entire 45 minutes or so before they finish dinner and leave the restaurant before they can light up.

You know, UTAH that blue state full of liberal elitists.

who don't mind telling others how they should live.

On this side of the country, maybe.

and they vote against that.

I'm just calling it like I see it. The times, they are a changin' a bit, more people are seeing it otherwise.

I still don't want my Dems protecting me. Seems kind of assinine to Joe six pack that dems are pro-choice when it comes to abortion or sexuality, but anti-choice when it comes to smoking in bars.

Can you smoke in the FireHouse?

I used to work as a safety specialist. The OSHA laws are much weaker than what is industry best practice. They merely give the employers an affordable and legally acceptible level of protection to provide.

Much better than OSHA is unionization.

NIOSH and ANSI aren't laws. Neither are NFPA or ACGIH. All of which are much more stringent than OSHA. OSHA is a joke.

No, I can't smoke in the firehouse, it's a public building and I'm on their time, it's their prerogative.

Spin all you want, but you have standards that are in place to protect you on the job. (2In -2Out)

Service workers have the same right to workplace safety.

As for OSHA protecting employers, lol
When is the last time you heard OSHA fine a worker?

Thankfully, and due to my local, our standards greatly exceed the OSHA standards.

Service workers have every right to workplace safety. They operate under the same laws as everyone else. Why do they need a special law for them? Given the proper equipment, I work in atmospheres much more hazardous than which occurs in an operating bar. Why not give them proper equipment - rather than take away the patron's right to smoke?

OSHA protects employers by allowing them to meet a minimum standard - a standard that is largely set by industry. For example, the OSHA standard for exposure to carbon monoxide is several parts per million higher than the ACGIH standard. The ACGIH standard is the 'gold' standard, and industry only has to meet OSHA.

But the OSHA argument is moot, because it is in fact the argument I support. We already have OSHA laws, why do we need new ones to protect service workers. Why don't we fix the OSHA laws? This is a county level mandate - the county doesn't have any other OSH laws. Ergo, this is not a worker safety issue. This is a 'because we can' issue, and I don't support candidates who take that view, regardless of party.

for every private business?

Is it a worker safety issue or not? Your first and last paragraphs conflict each other.

e.g., if you allow smoking, you have to keep particulate matter bellow xxx ppm in the workplace, just like every other industry does. I wouldn't make them wear an air-pak, but perhaps put an air curtain btw the serving area and the patrons. The expense would ensure that many places went smoke free.

Use market choice to provide smoke-free options for patrons, not the tyranny of the majority.

Asking smokers to step outside to light up is not the world's greatest imposition, smoker hyperbole and histrionics to the contrary. Here in California, with a statewide ban, four things have happened:

1) The smokers have survived,
2) the bar owners have survived,
3) The California Democratic Party has survived, and
4) You can actually go to a bar and not come home with your clothes all smelling like dog ass.

Are you attacking dogs?
:-)

Dog ass?
:-)

Is dog ass carcinogenic? You think DOG ASS CAUSES CANCER?
:-)

Okay, so this whole post is a waste of time. Sorry you read it, but hope you had a laugh.

Do you not see second hand smoking harming people around as intrusive... no? While it's ok to tell people how and with whom they have sex with. What world are you living in?

Science backs the claim that second hand smoke harms people. That's not even up for debate. There is a health issue regarding the ban.

But it's ok for the GOP to ban same sex? That's not intrusive... no.

Give me a break, dude. Nice flame bait BTW.

I really didnt see any effect after the smoking ban in MoCo. I've shut a few places down in Bethesda too (been there till closing time i mean). Theres always a group of people huddled out front of the place smoking their cig. Good for them. Maybe they'll realize how stupid smoking is when they're outside freezing their ass off while I'm upstairs dancing with thier girl.

Maybe you dont see some of your smoking pals in MoCo anymore, oh well. I'm so glad MoCo banned it, and now all the counties around it are banning it as well. This will kill the "people will go elsewhere" idea, since everywhere else will be illegal as well.

I went out in DC this past weekend. There was maybe 10 smokers on the floor we were on. Thats out of at least 150. Somehow I dont think those 10 are gonna affect a club's bottom line. I also have seen places accomodate smokers by having an outdoor patio type thing where they can go smoke, which is sealed off from the rest of the bar/club.

and in calif it was a repug governor that banned smoking in public places..same with fla!!

NJ it is still smoking in bars and restaurants...

fly

My problem with smoking bans is very simple. There is no compromise. It's simple a command from pharoah that no one can smoke in the bar. Where's the compromise in that?

If secondhand smoke bothers or worries you, avoid it. I do the same when I see people weaving on the highway.

I hear nonsmokers tell me that, by removing a smoking ban, their choices become limited. Welcome to my world. The only detriment nonsmokers would suffer would be limited choices. So what? Your choices are inherently limited anyway. So you lose a few options...what's the big deal?

Freedom doesn't only mean the ability to make good choices, it means the ability to make bad ones too. Removing the bad just cheapens the good and eventually makes it worthless.

So, WTF you care that you can't smoke in a bar? So, you lost a few options. What's the big deal?
As for making bad choices-great-make them for yourself. When you smoke, people who don't want to make a bad choice have no choice but be exposed to your bad choice. Yet, you insist on being selfish even if it can damage the health of people who didn't make that choice for themselves.

Don't go to smoking bars. Seriously, I fail to understand why that is so hard for nonsmokers to comprehend. If you don't want to smell the smoke, stay home or find somewhere else to go. What's the problem with that?

It seems that all liberals would want maximum individual liberty, but this is not always the case.

Some existing anti-liberty DLC/DNC/etc. positions:
1. Am I allowed to own any mechanical machine I want to build or own, without restriction? The party platform says no. A machine gun is not allowed, even if it is *never* used to hurt a single person, animal, or plant, or even some inanimate dirt.
2. Am I allowed to consume any substance I want? The party platform says no. I am forbidden from using or posessing a fairly large number of plants, including Cannibis, Psilocybin mushrooms, Peyote cactus, etc.
3. Am I allowed unrestrained freedom of speech? The party platform says no. I am forbidden from saying, doing, or printing and distributing things which might upset or offend or incite other people.
4. Am I allowed unrestrained freedom of business? The party platform says no. I am required to follow all sorts of laws and regulations because of the commerce clause (and other regulation), and resulting laws intended to protect the populace.
5. Am I allowed unrestrained freedom of information? The party platform says no. I am required to only purchase, or aquire, and consume, information which is deemed "acceptable".

I could keep going on and on, but the party platform isn't exactly ACLU approved. Those seeking insight into the problem should probably read up on the concept of "nanny-state", and Jefferson's writings on his vision of the party... sometimes, in order to protect, or help, the populace, we inhibit or annoy the populace.

With regards to the OP, they're a *firefighter*. Understanding their culture is a bit tricky, but my little brother is a firefighter, and he knows that he will likely die of lung cancer... and he's a non-smoking Mormon. I'm not surprised that in DC, democrats freeze the OP wages, but in red states and cities, republicans would freeze their wages. Same issue with blaming the democrats in blue cities (such as DC) for making firehouse culture into a new, PC, version.

As far as bans against smoking in public places, perhaps we should outlaw public and private transit, BBQ cookouts, fireplaces, and all the other sources of daily carcinogens, just to *really* piss off voters. :)

Edit: Spelling, smiley to indicate sarcasm.

If it's to protect workers, as is usually the claim, why don't they treat second-hand smoke like they do other industrial pollutants, and allow for engineering controls and respiratory protection? It's pretty hard to protect workers who are out of jobs because their restaruant halved their staff due to reduced business.

This one really gets me riled, since the same people who make the 'pro-worker' argument speak as if there are no other workplace pollutants. And the people who talk about wanting 'clean air', well, I grew up in a place where the air wasn't all that clean, and there wasn't much I could do about it.

a statewide ban on cigarette smoking in bars and restaurants.

I'm not sure that our Democratic mayor was behind the ban--but he surely didn't disapprove.

He just got re-elected with 90% of the vote.

Edited to add: Why are you posting at DU if you're a Republican?

I mentioned that my coworkers vote Republican - and their reasons are that 1) Democrats are the ones who (almost laid us off / kept us without a contract for 6 years / froze our wages for 5 years / don't let you own guns / close the bars / ban smoking / etc.)

If you hate those Democratic policies so much, why don't you vote your convictions?

I was just pointing out that our Democratic mayor hasn't suffered from the smoking ban enacted during his first term. Do you have any real statistics to support your claims?

I hear this bull from people I know that vote Rep... Yet when I tell them we have a Governor who is Rep, and that the ban was started under him, they look at me as if I had just told them Santa was fiction. It's all bullshit. And a stupid issue to get all crazy about. I was a smoker and had no problem with this legislation at all. Also... most businesses thrived because of it.

I don't need statistics. I don't think government should be in the business of making decisions for individuals, their private property, and their businesses.

Folks claim the external harm argument, but the potential harm occurs on private property to people who voluntarily place themselves there.

I don't like the argument at all, just like I don't like arguments against homosexual relationships, abortion, etc.

I DO vote my convictions - Democrats meet them better than Republicans, but there is room for improvement.

I'm saying that many 'average' americans vote republican because of the maternalistic intrusions of Democratic officeholders. Sure, Republicans do it too, but the Dems get more press on it.

I don't get which party enacts this type of legislation.....i'm a Liberal and i believe in the freedom of choice. and I detest being nanny-stated. so i do understand where the fireman's coming from.

Smokers (except on the DU) are so shallow that they couldn't care less if their country goes to shit as long as they can light up.
I don't buy it. I'm not a smoker, but I sure don't think most smokers could ever be that hopelessly addicted or that selfish.
Atleast, I hope not.