SCREW IT...Moderators. PLEASE delete this thread. Thanks. n/t

We have some "completely non-smoking and proud of it" restaurants and bars around here, and they do pretty good business from people who choose to go there instead of the smoking establishments.

/15 year smoker, though I have quit a number of times, for up to 2 months, in that time.

the fact is, some of this smoking thing is actually designed to put the bars out of business. They tried that silliness here and a local bar owner took the city counsel to court and won. At the very least, getting "small government" conservatives out in force at the meeting will help the committee understand it's not just about this "moral nazi".

it was the "daddy's money" thirty-somethings that moved here from up North who pushed it....my advice to you is to try to recruit the bar owners into your fight...there are compromises that were made here in Florida....if a bar makes less than a certain percentage selling food(very low, maybe 20%)...then it can allow smoking...also, open air bars and restaurants are still allowed to have smoking.

Vermonters are hardly freeper fundies/moral nazis.

:eyes:

I lived.

in S. Texas by a 2/3 margin. It was overwhelming, made the pro-smoking faction look like fools because they were sure they would win. People want this.

Gone like a puff of ... well, you know. :D

And it did not start with the fundies.

It started with the same people who brought us seat belt laws, helmet laws, and a whole host of other 'Mommy' laws.

Guess who that would be?

Seriously, these bans eventually get passed, no matter where you are.

decide whether they would allow smoking or not in their establishments. It would probably be up to the city council or whoever to make sure that there are both types of establishments available in their cities. But this draconian no smoking anywhere is only opening the door for more bans.

Here in California they banned smoking in all restaurants and bars. Now the non smoking crowd are trying to push for no smoking in outdoor areas like parks and beaches. Their excuse is that children can pick up the cigarette butts, but wouldn't an ordinance about littering be better? I too am a non-smoker but I hate to see groups like these impose their rule on everyone.

They carry little covered ashtrays with them that they empty at home. It seems that a fine for littering would be sufficient as most smokers that I know are law-abiding and don't litter anyway.

If people are concerned about children picking up cigarette butts, strategically placed ashtrays seems like a reasonable solution. I'm with you on this.

Not only in the restaurants, but in the bars and bowling alleys too. Only the Indian Casinos are exempt.

I'm sorry, but if you want an honest discussion, you're going to have to take all viewpoints. I have nothing against those who want to smoke. But second-hand smoke has been proven to be quite dangerous. Many states in the US have already enacted bans against smoking in ALL restaurants, and some have extended that ban to bars that serve food also. The people who opposed the bans claimed that such a move would hurt restaurants, that nobody would want to go out anymore. Quite the opposite - studies have shown that business has actually increased after smoking bans were enacted. People realized that they could finally go out to eat, and not have to breath in someone else's smoke.

This has nothing to do with Freepers versus Progressives. If anything, it has been progressives who have been taking the lead on some of these issues. Bringing up the "adults only" store is a completely different matter, comparing apples to oranges. One is a "moral" issue, the other is a bonafide health issue.

SMOKERS ONLY. Did I mistype that sentence? It's not a bonafide health issue if you don't walk into a smoking establishment. Why is that so damn hard to understand?:banghead:

Obviously you have no interest whatsoever in an honest discussion, as you attacked someone earlier who pointed out that Vermont had such laws and wasn't a Freeper state. That person didn't even state if they were a non-smoker, but since they didn't say what you wanted to hear, you blasted them anyways.

and didn't want your input. The thread will be deleted. Thanks for your help.:eyes:

Boo-hoo-fucking-hoo...

All I did was merely point out why many states are enacting smoking bans. It has nothing to do with morality, it has everything to do with health! If you can't handle that, then why post on an open message board? And like I said, you attacked another person for having the temerity to disagree with you, without even knowing if that person smoked or not.

:banghead: Obviously, you can't read OR keep your anti-smoking opinions out of ONE FUCKING THREAD. I needed and wanted input from SMOKERS ONLY....not you. GEEZUSFUCKINGKRIST.

You call me a Nazi, and you're the one telling anyone who doesn't agree with you to "keep their opinions to themselves"?

This is a fucking open message board. If you want to have a circle-jerk, why not post your question on some pro-smoking website? I'm sure you'll find plenty of evidence that smoking isn't harmful, and plenty of other info to back up your argument. But by posting on an open message board like this, you're opening yourself up.

Trust me, I tried your little tactic a long time ago, when I only wanted certain people to respond to my post - it didn't go over very well with me then either. Funny thing about DU, some people just don't like being told what they can or can't do, what they can or can't say.

I asked, NICELY, for the opinion of SMOKERS ONLY. I already know how YOU think and it goes in one ear and out the other and is VERY boring to hear day in and day out. I'm perfectly calm. I don't let people like you get on my nerves. I've listened to your crap for more years than I care to count. Go ahead and keep posting on a dead thread. Enjoy your whining fest.

These things are hard to micromanage.

that electronic voting is OK.

Look - I have more problems from pollen than smoking

Good God. Learn to look at genetics instead of simple solutions (that don't work as long as your fucking car is clogging my lungs more than my fucking cigarette).

If you believe that Fundies are the ones behind all these "smoking is bad for you" and "second-hand smoke kills" studies, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I believe "the easy way out" crowd is.

Good God, don't tell me that you believe EVERY THING YOU READ IN THE MEDIA IS ACCURATE?

:eyes:

BTW, people in Europe have been just fine. Smoking or not. Being around it or not. We, however, aren't because we're fat, McDonalds-eating pieces of crap. Put that in your pipe and don't smoke it.

There is a plethora of evidence out there showing that second-hand smoke can kill you. It's not really even up for debate at this point. The only people who are arguing against it is the tobacco industry and die-hard smokers who are still living in denial.

Saying that smoking and second-hand smoke isn't harmful is just as delusional as those who try to say global warming isn't real.

is delusional.

I had a friend die of lung cancer WHO NEVER SMOKED and she was 28.*

None of my family has died of cancer - all smoked or dipped. It's genetics! Duh.

You're putting all your eggs in one basket - the wrong one. I'm sorry you believe studies used to put down the masses.

*Neither did her parents, whom she still lived with at the time.

Please tell me that you aren't seriously saying that? Are you on some tobacco company's payroll?

Does everyone who smokes die from cancer? Of course not! Are there those who die from lung cancer who have never smoked? Of course! What does that prove? Nothing, except there are always exceptions! There are some people who eat red meat every day, and will never have a heart attack - does that mean that eating red meat is healthy?

But it passed. I am glad, half my family died from lung cancer. I hate smoking...

Starting on January 1, all Louisiana restaurants will be smokefree. The Louisiana Senate gave final legislative approval Friday to a bill that also requires offices, government buildings, malls, retail stores, indoor sports arenas, schools and a host of other public buildings to be smokefree.

think it's an issue of personal choice and business owners' rights.

From someone who lives in a state where approximately 25% of all expectant mothers continue to smoke throughout their pregnancy because many of them don't "believe" all those stoopid scientists.:eyes:

We're way past the belief stage, folks, ALL cigarette smoke is toxic and harmful to your health.

expression of a business owner's right to use building materials of their own choice.

If only the alcohol companies had gotten out in front of the DWI laws and promoted the idea that drinkers should oppose such laws on grounds that they infringed drinker's rights.

substances they expose their employees to.

It's bad science and bad policy, no matter how you look at it.

because waitresses who had to work for hours in smoke-filled rooms had high cancer rates. Smoke-free restaurants and bars are just great. Many people -- including many children -- don't smoke. You can't really have a smoke-free restaurant if anyone can smoke.

All public buildings in California are now pretty much smoke free. It is wonderful. A few years ago I walked into a women's restroom. Someone had been sneaking a smoke in there. The stench was horrible. It made me really appreciate the smoke free building law.

Think about all the many people who don't smoke and who don't want to smoke along with you. Think of all the people, like my husband, who have asthma or other lung conditions and who really can't tolerate your smoke. You can step outside to smoke and then step inside to eat. Nonsmokers can't step outside to eat. Your smoking ruins their meal and for some, their health. If you want to smoke and eat at the same time, you can smoke and eat on the restaurant patio or at home.

If you want to kill yourself with tobacco, that's your right, but you don't have the right to kill others -- such as the waitresses who have to breathe in second hand smoke hour after hour.

I don't like the smell of 2nd hand smoke either. I don't even smoke in my own house or car (with the occasional exception in my car), as I'm sure my dog doesn't like 2nd hand smoke as well.

However, I'll restate what I said in my earlier reply: I think it's better to let market forces decide. If that many people prefer 100% non-smoking establishments, then the proprietors can designate their own establishment as such and draw that clientele to increase their business. Just like if someone wants a vegetarian meal they'll go to a vegetarian restaurant, if they want a meal where they can smoke while they eat they can chose a smoking allowed restaurant.

then print out the results and take that with you. The business owners will be on your side.

on edit - this link breaks down the numbers and busts the myth that it's good for business.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html

i'm a smoker and i love my cigarettes, the only time i get bothered about having to go outside is at bars...it's a bar! come on...

i do believe that NYC's indoor smoking ban does allow exemptions for family owned bars/restaurants, i think. even if that's not the case, owners should be able to file for exemption from the law.

and there's no smoking indoors, period, in all of california

Now they want to ban it outdoors too. C'mon.

a few months ago, sitting on a bench against the side of a building, smoking. some guy walked up and asked if i would put out my cigarette so he didn't have to smell it cause he wanted to also sit on the bench. i guess i gave him a look that made him say to me "well i can't wait for the day when san francisco finally bans public smoking"

nutso...and on that note, i'm going outside for a smoke

I hate cigarette smoke, but hey, don't put me in a straight jacket! (Well, maybe that would be fun...)

But I have to tell you that where I live there has been no smoking in resturants for about 10 years or so, and the bars for the past few. It is wonderful. The smokers always take over the outdoor areas, but dinner without bad smells is heaven. The latest effort is to ban smoking on the beaches...not because of the smoke, but because of the nasty cigarette butts left everywhere.

So take it easy. You'll love smoke free living. Fight for the sex, not death by second hand smoke.

If you do - long enough to be "polluted" by second-hand smoke?

Then you're going to die from liver disease before second-hand smoke.

Get fucking REAL!

just by sitting next to someone who's drinking a beer, without actually drinking one yourself? Get fucking REAL! Because that's the case with cigarettes: a smoker is exposing those around him to the harmful effects of his cigarette (besides the cancer issue, there's also the general air quality and smell issue). If smoking only affected the smoker (no cancer, no smoke in the air, no rank smoke smell penetrating every fiber of clothing), then your reply would actually have some bearing on reality, but a person drinking a beer--or eating a huge plate of cheese fries--is not affecting those around him in the slightest way, whereas a smoker is.

Sitting in MacDonald's will not get you fat or raise your risk of heart disease. It is your choice whether you want your health to be affected by the fat.

Sitting in a bar will not get you drunk or raise your risk of cirrhosis of the liver. It is your choice whether you want your health to be affected by the alcohol.

Sitting near a smoker, however, will affect your ability to breathe, and will raise your risk of getting lung cancer. It is the choice of the drug addict, oops, I mean "smoker," whether he wants to affect your health with his cigarettes.

Smokers have no special rights whatsoever. I don't care if it's outside in a public park. If someone lights up upwind from me and refuses to put his cigarette out when I ask him to, I'll put it out for him, and fuck him up if he resists--just as if someone came up to me and started choking me.

There is no right to smoke, and a smoker who refuses to put out his lit cigarette when someone asks him to deserves to be beaten, as he has already assaulted the health of the other person, and desires to continue doing so because it makes him feel good, or because he's a drug addict.

There are some things best done in private or with only consenting adults. Smoking is one of them.
It's not allowed to harm other people's health. If your village is banning smoking in private homes, then that's another thing, and that should be opposed (it seems your post is improperly headlined, because it is not banning all smoking in the village, is it). But most communities have these kind of restrictions. It is a matter of workers rights, as well. No one should have to work in a poisonous environment.

The restaurant part I can see, but bars too? So OK you don't want to smell like smoke or inhale others when you slam back a couple and drive off in your SUV yeah, that makes sense.
As for the lingerie/toy/movie store a friend of mine worked for one for years. Every time they opened a new store there would be similar protests, none ever worked. Usually the protesters would resort to sending in someone under-age to buy a movie as I said never worked and in one case backfired badly. The fundies wound up explaining why they were having kids buy porn LOL and good luck.

Oh well.

NAZIS had to get their 2 cents in...as usual. Screw it. I'll ask real people what I need to know. I should have known better. They can never just keep their damn opinions to themselves. Let the thread die. I've alerted on it and ask the mods to delete it. Apparently they're all in bed. Just let it go.

:popcorn:

You have to figure out what was going on. :)

In his village. He claimed that those who were trying to ban smoking from restaurants and bars were doing so solely for moral reasons.

Furthermore, he stated that he ONLY wanted to hear from smokers (and evidently only those who agreed with his position), and he didn't give a rat's ass for any non-smokers' opinions.

I've never been one for self-congratulatory circle-jerks.

to hear it for the 100,000th time.:eyes: You're the people I intend to fight.

Do you think when I report on something Kerry's done I'm actually looking for "Fuck him!" for the 100th time?

It comes with the territory. You're indeed better off talking to folks face to face.

I think I'd need tranquilizers. :D

I think the science on the health hazards from second-hand smoke is dubious. BUT, and this is a big but, whether or not the cancer risk is neglible the fact remains that many people are allergic to smoke period and no one should have to work around it. That's just insane. And I've got to say, I *love* being able to go to restaurants and other places and not have to be continuously breathing smoke. So even if I think the science might be questionable, that doesn't change the fact that it's still an air quality issue. I really think the state has a right to make decisions regarding air quality in public places and places of business.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Environmental_Tobacco_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

A few highlights:

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.

New research indicates that secret research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades

It doesn't even matter whether or not secondhand smoke is carcinogenic. It's an air quality issue right from the get go. I don't know, but I'd bet if you were to measure the particulate concentration in a smoky bar it'd be many times higher than what is considered a minimum level to issue a smog alert in most municipalities. The tobacco companies and other special interest groups are making it about the cancer risk and it's a non-issue when there are so many reasons to argue for smoking bans without resorting to arguing the controversy, which is what the tobacco companies and the lobbyists want. You don't need to play their game.

Seems like I've watched this happen several times in my area:

Town A government debates banning smoking in restaurants and bars;
local paper prints interviews with bar owners complaining it will put them out of business.

Town A government passes ban on smoking in restaurants and bars;
local paper prints interviews with bar owners in adjoining town B rejoicing at prospect
of increased business from town A smokers.

Three to six months later:
Local paper prints article on how restaurants and bars haven't gone out of business yet;
restaurant and bar owners interviewed say business seems to be up a bit, new customers
include more families with kids and elderly.

One year later:
Local paper prints statistical survey of restaurants and bars showing business in town A increased 10%
since smoking ban went into effect, sidebar notes 10% DROP in town B.

One year and three months later:
Restaurant owners in town B start lobbying town government for smoking ban to try to regain
business lost to town A.