You were always free to vote with your dollars and only go to establishments that didn't allow smoking. But no, being the whiny *ss soccer mom you are, with no control over your own life, you prefer to exert control over everyone else.

It just basically reinforces that smoking is cool because you consider places we smoke as desirable and you want to take them over.

At least we're giving you the option to either go to a smoking establishment or not. You're giving us no choice at all. Just another control freak.

Another completely misleading headline produced by MSNBC.

Get your head out of your @sses, editors!

Nosferatu, here is the problem with your arguement, and why these laws continue to be passed: Smokers make the conscious decision to smoke, and by making that decision to smoke in a public environment, you are then forcing non-smokers to endure the effects of your decision. To say that people can choose to go to non-smoking establishments is ignorant, as you are telling people that they have to make changes to the social habits to suit your decision to consume a product that is harmful to both yourself, and the people around you. I know the same arguement could attempt to be used for allowing smoking, however it does nothing to change the fact that smokers are the ones who decided to smoke, it is not necessary for life, and if you don't like it, then quit.

Do you people not understand the constitution FREEDOM,everybody is allowed the choice to smoke if he or she chooses,so if you don't smoke that's fine but don't judge people who do.

I actually agree with the "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" mentality, and I think it should be up to the owners of the establishment to choose if they will allow smoking. If they lose revenue because people stop coming, then they will quickly chose to be non-smoking establishment.

HOWEVER, the bigger problem I see is not with the owners or the patrons, its the employees. Many times these low-wage bartenders and waiters/waitresses have no other choice for employment (especially in small rural towns, where smoking is prevalent) so they do not have the choice to avoid the second-hand smoke. So perhaps the ban on tobacco should trump individual choice? After all, the government has already banned less-harmful substances trumping any choice we may have had. Additionally, the purported health improvements would save us all $$. It's a tough situation....I'm still on the side of choice for now, but I can see both views.

Eric - You obviously missed the point entirely in your drive to hand over choice to the government. The real issue here isn't the choice to smoke, it's the choice of someone who owns their own business to make it smoking or smoke free. They own the place, pay the bills, take the risk and if they decide they are willing to lose the business of those opposed to smoking, then that should be THEIR choice. You are advocating that the government take that choice away, that the government be allowed to dictate if a business can or cannot have a perfectly legal substance in their establishment. You just wait until they ban something you like or want. When that day comes and you want to complain, reread your post and remember you willingly, even gladly gave the government the right to take something away from you and thus complaining then will just demonstrate hypocrisy.

Dang, I thought the article would be about an end to smoking everywhere. I guess I will still have to run the gauntlet of smokers when entering or exiting an establishment. I will also have to look at the piles of butts to the sides of the doors, in the gutters and street and the beach will still be one giant ash tray. Additionally, I can smell the smoke when I am riding behind a smokers car on my motorcycle. Kinda makes me wish I had rights too!

Cygnus: "Hehe smokers are like NRA advocates. They'll support their cause to their deaths at the hands of their cause. Except smokers are addicts. Gun owners are just a-holes."

Wow, Cygnus. You have issues.

exactly right, those of us who don't smoke really couldn't care less about the smokers having to go outside or to designated areas. just keep that disgusting smoke away from us. it smells like burning @!$%#!

Actually, I'm a smoker and all for being considerate of those who do not smoke. I get it, you don't want cancer or whatever. I get you don't want people smoking around your kid INSIDE of a building (restaurant, whatever). I'm all for taking fifteen extra steps from the door to light up. I do not want that taken though. I should still be able to go outside for it. Outside (with required feet away from the door) should be free game.

Cigarettes cause lung cancer, marijuana causes short term memory loss and munchies, alcohol causes impaired judgment and kills off the liver. Hell, caffeine causes issues with brain stimulation. Everything we do has an issue. The government needs to regulate some of that less. -.-

If I own the building and all the equipment in the building, buy the food that is being served and hire smokers that prepare the food, post notice on the door that this is a Smoking Establishment what gives you or the federal government the right to tell me that I can't allow smoking. Just because the person at the front door is to stupid to read the sign it should not encroach on my rights as a business owner. By the way I'll be over at your house next week telling you that you can't have sex with your wife because there might be a chance of you passing along an STD.

Well-said, Santoshk. The intrusive nature of smoking makes it a danger to others, which is why bans are necessary. It's tiring to hear smokers act like a bunch of martyrs over it. They can still get their fix in private, or in non-intrusive ways (gum, patches, chew).

If a business allows smoking at there business and you don't like it don't go to that business. You know Boycott it. And maybe if the business does not like the amount of lost business from the business boycott, there's a good chance the business would put in place a "This IS A NON-Smoking business" to increase the loss of business. then that would be there business.

JLM - Keep saying that to yourself and when the government decides to ban something legal that you like, say peanuts or milk or butter or cologne, then just remember, you can still eat those things and smell nice in private - until they use the power you are giving them to take it out of your house as well. Remember, MA has already tried to do that too.

Just don't take away my peanuts folks, and we'll get along fine.

I actually agree with the "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" mentality, and I think it should be up to the owners of the establishment to choose if they will allow smoking.

This idea works in theory, but in reality, it relies heavily on advertising and the enforcement of individual establishments. How do you know if an establishment is smoking or non-smoking? It's a hassle to go somewhere, get seated, and then discover the rules. Smokers would have fits when they were told not to light up, after ordering their drinks. Many non-smokers chose not to patronize restaurants at all, for fear of smoke. It's common for smokers to disregard no-smoking signs, and puts tremendous stress on the wait staff who are forced to confront an unruly smoker. It's a lot easier when there is a universal ban with the law behind it.

When our community passed the no-smoking ordinance for restaurants, ALL restaurants reported an increase in business. They gained the confidence of non-smokers, but didn't lose the smoking clientele. (Smokers could have stayed home, but apparently the ban wasn't a big enough deal to create that kind of backlash. So it has been an economic boon.)

I'm always amazed at the people that are against smoking in bars because its not good for you yet they will go to said bar, drink too much, pick up a total stranger for the night as if THAT's not hazardous to your health.

Personally, I don't want Uncle Grundy in anything else at all. He's got too much power as it is.

The problem with making the "no smoking" ban voluntary for restaurants is that this reinforced smoking for a long time. Once upon a time, restauranteurs thought that they would lose money if they went non-smoking because smokers are a vocal bunch (they tend to be more aggressive than the average individual--which is one reason why they smoke).

Back in the day, smokers would light up wherever they pleased--no smoking sign or no, no smoking sign. I had many dinners and nights out ruined by smokers who lit up as they pleased and would literally blow smoke in the face of people who complained. The bans were put in place because of noncompliance by smokers--who really used to be a nasty bunch because there were no ramifications for their choosing to ignore signs (perhaps there are fewer such people these days--I don't know)--now they can be individually fined. Back then, the restauranteurs did nothing because they thought it would cost them money.

However, with smoking bans, restauranteurs were shocked to find that their revenues went UP. What they did not know was how many people were avoiding their establishments because of the smoke. These days, I think that people who own restaurants actually would stay non-smoking rather than going back to having smoking and non-smoking sections because it is too hard to control smokers who won't comply with requests.

You see--it's a little hard to point out to restauranteurs that you AREN'T going to their restaurants. You don't go; they don't see you. There are only so many seats in a restaurant--and if they are all filled with smokers, then the restaurants get the idea that only smokers go to restaurants. So, there was a kind of default where smokers could go out to any restaurant they liked--but nonsmokers stayed at home.

The reverse is now more the case--and restauranteurs are doing just fine. I think that, given the fact that their restaurants are staying cleaner and they have to replace their furniture less often, that they might actually stay non-smoking. But, they had to go nonsmoking to find out that more than enough people were nonsmokers who would show up.

It kills me that everyone wants to have a "fat tax" on people because of the lazy obese people (who make no impact on you--any claims about them costing more money are bogus); but if someone wants to smoke (which does in fact impact those around them), all of a sudden it's an issue of freedom. Obese people and smokers, both, die younger than most people--which means that they plow money into Social Security and Medicare, but rarely pull much of it back out. The government makes 30 cents on every pack of cigarettes. They make a similar amount on obese people who die young. So, obese people only affect one's sense of aesthetics, while smokers affect other people's health--but cost is not a factor either way.

So, anyway, I'm a bit blase about this now--since restauranteurs would actually realize that it is in their best interest to stay nonsmoking, I think there would be a sufficient number of nonsmoking establishments for people like me to select from. Back in the day, they didn't exist; I had to just stay home because of the extremely nasty smoke which gave me bronchitis.

I don't really care if some restaurants have smoking--I don't care if bars do, as I have no interest in going to bars and children don't frequent them. If a restaurant wants to have smoking, it just has to become "Members Only." That is, it has to be not public. I'm not sure what they'd have to do in terms of employees--but there has to be a way to handle getting employees for a restaurant where there is smoking. Perhaps it just has to stay very small (small businesses are not generally affected by such laws).

So, why don't smokers just create their own restaurants that are "Members Only" and allow smoking? One can become a "member" at the door. If this isn't legal, then I would say that it's a problem, but as long as it would be legal, I don't have an issue. Is this legal or not? Why don't smokers do this?

Andrew - Then I guess you would support a 300% tax increase on your car since even more people are killed in automobile accidents - and yes, if they were a smoker, their automobile accident death is counted as smoking related as well. This isn't about a slippery slope, we are already sliding. NYC bans transfats in restaurants right now. They're trying to regulate the amount of salt you can use in various places. The FAA is considering banning nut products on flights. Wake up and smell the coffee - oh wait, that's under attack right now as well. Get your wallet out Andrew because you will get what you asked for.

JLM,

I'm hoping you don't believe that argument is persuasive. I agree that smoking in restaurants is irritating. It's a pet peave of mine to be in a closed in environment, trying to eat, when I'm suddenly hit with smoke. However, bars are another story. And there is no getting around the reality that a restaurant owner should be allowed to allow smoking. Restaurants are not required for survival and, therefore, if you don't like it, don't go there. Public Transportation, Workplaces, Grocery Stores are all places where your decision not to patron them could be considered as placing an undo burden on people.

Having said that, if people want to keep pushing until the only place you can smoke is in your house, then they need to get some stones and push to get rid of tobacco period. Of course, that means missing out on all that revenue that states have traditionally funneled into roads and schools; the kinds of things that either help dissuade smoking or cover the health care related expenses associated with smoking.

The restauranters are not doing fine. Their places are empty and they are going out of business faster than they can get established, because other than the special occasion crowd coming in for dinner, their main clientele were people eating dinner and then sitting at the bar afterwards drinking and smoking. So the non-smokers got their way, but at least you'll always get a seat!

Bean@Home - So your argument boils down to since it's inconvenient for you to ask if the place allows smoking before you go in and sit down and because some people didn't obey the rules (i.e. smoked despite no smoking signs) and again it was too inconvenient for you to tell the owners you would not support their establishment if it continued - therefore the government should ban it. Great. So, let's ban cell phone use except in your home because that radiation just might be causing me (and the user) harm. Let's ban music because it is distracting and it causes hearing loss and accidents. Lets ban sex because it causes the spread of disease and it's SO inconvenient to ask if someone has an STD before you get undressed and get in bed with them.

Texas1Proud,

If I own the building and all the equipment in the building, buy the food that is being served and hire smokers that prepare the food, post notice on the door that this is a Smoking Establishment what gives you or the federal government the right to tell me that I can't allow smoking"

Not surprising that this statement comes from the land of excesses! Speed limits of 85, 5 pound Steaks, Obesity is cool, and not to forget "shooting people in the back is OK on your private property". Thank goodness you are not a welfare state. You do contribute to the federal government more than you take.

However realize this, the minute your lifestyle becomes a burden on me, such as is the case with the deep South, then I have a right to stop it all and save paying taxes to take care of your bad habits. Do you agree? After all you are now imposing on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Are you not?

I want BBQ's banned! The smoke from them is WAY more cancer causing than cigarette smoke. Also, to the motorcycle rider above, I want loud pipes banned and your exhaust regulated, it damages my hearing and puts out too much cancer causing exhaust!

I'm all for having private places where smokers can smoke and not intrude on none smokers and the air we share, but for any of these none smokers to come in and say its for your own good and just get your fix with gum or patches like JLM puts it. Get stuffed. None smokers nor the government has the right to take away or think you can take away our choices to do things good or bad to ourselves. Also Cygnus with the gun issues must have been pistol whipped or something with a gun at one time. The day the US government tries to take that right away and say guns are illegal is the day revolution will happen.

JJMurray, good point. I love all these fantasy stories where people are clamouring back to restaurants because there isn't any smoking. It totally ignores the national trend to eat out more and cook at home less. A trend that started way before smoking bans started to take effect.

I have a question for you pro-ban folks:

When was the last time, honestly, that you were forced, against your will, to be amongst smokers in a bar or restaurant? I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that it has never happened... unless you are a minor in which case it becomes a parenting issue and nothing else. As an adult you ALWAYS have a choice. If you don’t like being in a smoky bar then leave or don’t come in the first place...duh! But NO! A world full of self-righteous a-holes has decided that any place they might potentially patronize should be pre-tailored to their own personal tastes. What is so wrong with the owner of an establishment deciding for him/herself whether they want to run a smoke-free bar or not and letting the public vote with their wallets? If there is, indeed, such a strong demand for smoke-free bars and restaurants then surely the supply will come along to meet that demand right? RIGHT!?

So whats the problem Mary, too fat to walk outside and have your death stick? Just because your not allowed to smoke at a restaurant means your not gonna go anymore? I mean we go there to eat, not to sit and smoke a hookah with your friends thats what a hookah bar is for. If people that have a public establishment want to be a smoking vacility, then make your bar a private club.

This arguement is the same kind of arguement that southern restaurants had during the civil rights movement. "We have the right to refuse service to anyone." The government put a stop to that, did you all disagree with them on that?

Captain Original- Thank you for being considerate. I agree with what you said and know alot of people that dont smoke around me because they know it bothers me. I am all for free choice and if you want to smoke than thats your choice, as long as your not affecting my choice to be a non-smoker.

Barkingshins- Any non-smoking bartender would disagree with you. What is the big deal with you smokers going outside to smoke? The point is, if its non-smoking everyone is willing to go in to the place of business. If its smoking, only smokers would want to go there.

The same argument you use is still in effect with the smoking ban. Everyone has the basic choice to go there or not.

Uh, SmallTownPete. You're seriously equating the decision of a restaurant owner to allow smoking in their establishment with the decision to refuse service based on race? Cause they are even closely the same thing? So, the government preventing restaurant owners from allowing smoking is paramount to government preventing restaurant owners from refusing service based on racism. Yeah, no matter how I say it, your proposal sounds as ridiculous as it is. Not to say your position is wrong, just that you really need to think about how irrational your argument is.

I am a smoker and I am sorry I ever started. It is an addiction which has been made very easy and convenient to satisfy. I know I need to put my mind to it and stop this senseless habit. I wish they would ban cigarettes all together. I doubt that will happen though.

I am considerate of others though. I hate someone elses cigarette smoke going in my face and I am a smoker so I can't imagine how nasty it is for someone who doesn't smoke.

The other addictions they have made very convenient is Big Pharma Drugs, and they do have ill effects on others besides the addicts themselves. For every little physical or mental pain their is a pill. Then there is the gambeling addiction, and that too has ill effects on more than just the addict. This too has been made very convienent to the public. Any bad habit or addiction has ill effects on more than just the addict.

I have to say, as a smoker. I have no problem whatsoever with a ban on smoking inside buildings. I do not smoke in my home, I do not smoke in my car, I hate when people eat and smoke at the same time, I dont go to peoples homes if they smoke inside. And really can you not go an hour or 2 without a cig that you must be able to smoke one instantly after you put that last bite of food in your mouth. I agree smokers can be inconsiderate, I try not to smoke even at certain outdoor places like fairs, carnivals, etc, unless I can find an out of the way spot that people arent walking thru my cloud, I get it. And I agree with it.

However, if I am standing clear of an entryway to any establishment enjoying my cancer stick, then do not walk within 6 inches of me and then complain that you just breathed in my second hand smoke, that is where I find the problem. In a wide open area and you choose to walk right thru the smoke and then complain like you couldnt have walked a foot in the opposite direction.

Hey if you agree its the right of the establishment to choose, why are you stopping at just smoking.

Totally with you MelBel. However, I think the real issue here is whether the government should be able to place restrictions on a privately owned establishment. As in, it's someone's restaurant or bar. They should be able to decide whether they allow smoking or not. Unlike a grocery store, work place, or movie theater where there are either additional consequences to consider (food tainted in a grocery store, fire hazard in a theater). Or, a place someone must go to provide a living such as a place of work. Restaurant and bars are luxuries that, if you don't like it, you don't have to go. A restaurant or bar owner should have every right to ban smoking or to allow it; depending on their preference and clientelle.

'Hey if you agree its the right of the establishment to choose, why are you stopping at just smoking'

Um, ok, I'll bite Pete. What are you suggesting we should be for allowing? Although, and please don't go into a diatribe about illegal or controlled substances/activities because you'll again be making an irrational argument.

JJMurray, only about 115 people on average die daily in the U.S. while driving. The low end being about 50 a day, all the way up to about 250 a day. Over 1200 die daily to tobaccoo related illnesses.

It would only take just over a month of smoking related deaths to equal an entire years worth of driving fatalities.

Roughly 37 to 40 thousand deaths a year from driving and more than 400 thousand a year from smoking. That's just in the U.S.

May want to research that a bit more next time.

All this arguing over a product as legal as Pepsi but only sold to adults. Why is the government aloud to say that this particular drug can be sold while it is killing 400,000 people a year in the US?

They know it kills so isn't that murder?

More deaths than any recent war, I would imagine.

Oh, wait, that's right, since about 3.50-4.00 of my over 5.00 pack of smokes is taxes I guess the drug dealers in Washington can only regulate where you use it not "that" you use it.

It is also interesting to note that this same anti smokers club will be singing an entirely different tune when I start gagging and choking when forced to sit next to their mother's God awful perfume stench on Easter Sunday. How about having a cologne, deodorant and perfume free section in all public restaurants for ten or fifteen years , then slam the door on it with an all out public ban. What's next for you control freaks ? Mandatory jail time if caught passing gas. ? Your stinking perfume causes an immediate asthmatic reaction in millions of people and we politely excuse ourselves to get away from the poison that threatens our lives without causing any embarrassment to ourselves or the offending party. Everyone is just so darned afraid that somebody is infringing on their precious rights today. Man up a bit !

MSNBC: Another 10 states have laws than ban smoking in workplaces, bans or restaurants, but not in all three venues.

Oh no, not a ban on bans!!!! Bans are my favorite places to smoke.

Quality Control, MSNBC, Quality Control....

The hypocrisy of this thread, and the comments by all the sanctimonious control freaks who feel the need to express their delicate, overweight opinions is quite demented, and typical of American self-righteousness. Bloody disgusting. Worse than gay porno.

I do agree that in public establishments that children have access to, there should be some regulation and prohibition. It is unfair, however, to impose those regulations on a privately owned business. It is a person's own decision to enter a privately owned business, such as a bar, and it is also the person's privilege to enter the establishment, not a right. The best way for a person to speak loudly is by not going to those establishments that allow smoking. The almighty dollar will speak up enough. I think it should be up to the business owner to regulate his or her own establishment. I am a former smoker that was disgusted by the smell of cigarettes, while I smoked. However, the right of a privately owned business to decide if it will allow it's customers to smoke should be up to them,not the government. If it is a public establishment such as a library, city hall, police station, courthouse, or any other government building, then those can be regulated. It's like the bills in KC, MO that do not allow touching or nudity in a strip club. WTF!!! I don't go to strip clubs because I think it is a waste of money, but I think the whole point of a strip club is exactly what the name describes.

NYMike,

I appreciate your point. However, I must point out that those numbers are skewed like no statistic ever created. Basically, if you smoke and die from a condition that has been attributed to smoking, then your one of those 440,000. Now, that includes the overweight guy whose dad, and his dad's dad, and his dad's dad's dad died in their 30's from heart disease; even though Jr is the only one on the list that ever smoked. And, the 70 year old coal miner who died of lung disease. I'm sure we can isolate the cigarette as the cause of death and not the coal dust he'd been sucking in for 40 years. That said, it's a long way from 440,000 down to 40,000 attributed to car accidents.

A couple years ago Black Hawk, CO halted all smoking in casinos. Some cried foul that business would fall. But alas, if anything it increased. Now both smokers and non alike can gamble side by side in cleaner air.

Now that we're in Arizona (across from Laughlin) I'd love to see that happen here.

Thank God I NEVER smoked in my entire life.

Amen.

Every casino in Vegas that has tried to go non-smoking has either gone under or changed their minds right before they went under. Colorado is a liberal stronghold so what works there wont work in normal cities. Just wait until the legalized lib pot heads are demanding their "freedom" to get high anywhere they want (and they will win) while still crying about cigarette smokers.

Nosferatu wrote -

You were always free to vote with your dollars and only go to establishments that didn't allow smoking. But no, being the whiny *ss soccer mom you are, with no control over your own life, you prefer to exert control over everyone else.

It just basically reinforces that smoking is cool because you consider places we smoke as desirable and you want to take them over.

At least we're giving you the option to either go to a smoking establishment or not. You're giving us no choice at all. Just another control freak.

The sad truth is that some municipalities have even banned smoking outdoors, even on your own property! Some allow smoking only in closed car with the windows closed. Of course, you can leave the engine run and pump exhaust into the air.

This has degenerated into no-win debate. There will be no satisfying the antismokers, becuase they will find a new cause (plenty available, usually involving OTHER people's behavior) for their problems. The good news is that they too will die. The bad news, they are teaching others the same intolerance.

To Bean@Home...

I agree with what you say, I am a smoker (stupid, I know), but I hate it when someone would light up in a restaraunt. I hate having smoke blowing in my face as much as the next guy. I can't understand why someone has to light up while they are eating or just afterwards. They can wait and go outside or when they are back in their car. And I am sure the establishment will be glad to have the table freed up. I do think, however, businesses should be given the choice to non-smoking or not. There can be a big sign on the door to let you know as you enter; DINER BEWARE!!! And the areas should be separate. Just my opinion, thanks for yours.

I know this guy, me, that loves to smoke his fine Dominican cigars. This guy lives in Hawaii where they have very tough smoking bans. I smoke--I mean, he smokes, knowing that it will shorten his life. He choses to walk places as opposed to driving when possible, eats organic foods, drives under the speed limit, doesn't drink alcohol and lives a life off grid. He doesn't smoke indoors and respects others by not smoking in their presence. He knows it's bad for him, but refuses to quit because he enjoys it. Where does "he" fit in this conversation?

Sincerely,

A conflicted Hypocrite

One thing to remember - the Gov't "experts" that tell you second hand smoke is dangerous, also say:

"A Marlborough Ultralight is just as dangerous as a Camel Unfiltered."

Really? Because your own Gov't data shows the Ultralight has 1/10th of the tar and nicotene.

So if the tar and nicotene isn't the dangerous part, then what is?

(All you smokers will know how stupid the Gov't looks when they say an Ultralight and an unfiltered are the same.)

Also, 1 in 3 Smokers who get cancer would have gotten it anyway. I bet no one has ever told you that.

Or that the Chinese smoke way more than we do, only have 1/1000th of the Doctors we do per person - and they -

wait for it

OUTLIVE US.

Too bad we don't treat money like tobacco. Money causes harm everywhere, all the time.

"In order to protect, we must infringe on them, ok? We'll get to you eventually, sucker. Thanks for the help."

Smoking can harm your health. It is unique. Smoking affects others. Again unique. Not so? Try thinking. Ban money then. Ban cars. Ban industries. Ban ban ban. People smoke badly because of money. Money causes everything outside of the natural world.

Ban farts. Ban bad breath. Both can make another ill. You are being set up. First we go after this group that no one will suport. Then we associate this group with the previous group and so justify the wrong behavior of oppression. Ban skiing. Ban walking. Ban tanning. Ban those with "wrong" genes. Ban ban ban. Laws are just admissions of no solutions. Freedom does not exist, ever. "I want a job." "Ok, here start killing the animals." "But I don't want to do that." "I guess this job isn't for you then." Ban hospitals. Ban insurance. Ban everything. Money made this happen, just like all the other ugliness we experience. Abandon money and we will be able to achieve dynamic equilibrium. Ban Government. Ban law. Ban cars. on and on and on. I am a smoker and my sense of smell is allegedly reduced (I believe this) and I'm here to say that the cheesy smell of some non-smoking venues would benefit from some stale tobacco smoke. Ban packaging. Ban anything that anyone could complain about.

We're still in the box here. ,Remember'everything that happens in the money system is for YOUR benefit,

Look at it this way- if it came about through law, it is wrong.

Do you people not understand the constitution FREEDOM,everybody is allowed the choice to smoke if he or she chooses,so if you don't smoke that's fine but don't judge people who do.

I don't care if you smoke. I DO care about if you pollute the air around me when you are doing it! Smoke on YOUR property, in YOUR house and in YOUR car (hopefully not around your kids though) and we are copacetic!

It's not an issue of judging you for smoking. It's an issue of MY rights not to have to breathe it. Frankly, I don't want to smell pot (although I'm not opposed to legalization) and I don't want to put up with a sloppy or aggressive drunk either.

What this is about is consideration -- and the fact that when smoking WAS legal in many bars and restaurants, consideration toward non-smokers didn't exist.

While I think you would be healthier, probably happier and definitely richer if you DIDN'T smoke, it's still your choice. The difference is that your choice doesn't infringe upon our health.

I have friends that smoke. They are considerate not to smoke around me and it's appreciated.

BUT, just as an aside, there is no "constitution freedom" to use tobacco -- even though tobacco was a big part of colonial America. Interesting.

The sale of cigarettes should be banned altogether. It's the most disgusting legal habit that imposes on the health of others. I know a lot of smokers and almost all of them want to stop, however they're too addicted.

Yeah, because you can absolutely never to somewhere else if someone nearby starts smoking.

As a nonsmoker, I think it's kind of seriously a dick move to harass people who do smoke just because you don't approve.

Steve-2570999

I can smell the smoke when I am riding behind a smokers car on my motorcycle

Good Grief

To Newsvine -- Please restore original comment. It was neither disrespectful or in any other way a violation of the rules -- other than that several smokers apparently didn't agree with it.

Yeah, because you can absolutely never to somewhere else if someone nearby starts smoking.

Outdoors, you certainly can. It's no big deal. Indoors, as in a bar or restaurant, not without leaving the establishment --- and you shouldn't have to do that NOT to be exposed to smoke.

As a nonsmoker, I think it's kind of seriously a dick move to harass people who do smoke just because you don't approve.

I think the same way about smokers who blow it into your face too -- and I put up with that for years before the laws tightened down. Perhaps if so much of THAT hadn't happened, the laws would have become so draconian now.

Personally, I see no harm to non-smokers in "smoking clubs" -- kind of like the old drinking clubs. If the establishment exists for the sole purpose of smoking, it's pretty obviously not a place that a non-smoker would find enjoyment or services (unlike a restaurant or a store).

I think we should promote smoking around children. How else are they going to learn that smoking is cool. The tobacco industry is big business, and we need more successful big businesses. After all, we're in a deep recession now, and more smoking would be good for the country's economy.

So banning smoking means you're against job creation.

I don't smoke and I feel that smokers should have the right to smoke as long as it doesn't effect anyone else's right to breathe smoke free air (smog and other pollution aside, that is another conversation).

The problem is, smoker's don't (or don't want to) understand what that really means: I go where I want, when I want and breathe smoke free air. Period.

The only place I can imagine that not applying might be a bar or restaurant that specifically catered to smokers. I wouldn't want a 'non-smoker' section or similar to take away from their space to enjoy their smoking. I also wouldn't go near the place, and in turn would have a problem with it being near a sidewalk or similar that I needed to travel on to get where I DO want to go.

Unfortunately this issue has no room for give and take. No matter what I am not trying to force clean air into the lungs of people that need smoky air to breathe healthily. While smokers are not trying to force me to breathe the smoke, the proximity has the same effect.

Smokers are free to smoke all they want.

I am entitled as a basic human right to breathe smoke free air and that means not a single molecule of smoky air. Period. Inside OR outside.

I go where I want, when I want and breathe smoke free air. Period.

I believe the south had polices similar where the rights of one group superseded the rights of another group. I believe it was call Jim Crow.

Nice try not thinking aloud, if you dig a little deeper that logic flips and you are the oppressor trying to maintain the status quo which was Jim Crow.

biker4life... unless you live on a planet none of the rest of us have ever heard of you have never breathed clean air in your life... and you never will... and it has little to nothing to do with smokers. Maybe you shouldn't breathe?

Yes Ann, the air of this planet has many things wrong with it. This thread relates to tobacco smoke.

Calls herself a libertarian then votes for herself. Priceless.

Where I lived there was plenty of non smoking establishments before the state wide ban on smoking in restaurants, bars, and other places of that sort. What I want to know is why isn't there a ban on having a drink or three then going out into your car and driving. Oh it is against the law but I never see people tell the drunk guy not to get in the car unless the barkeep says something. Does that not inflict damage on others? I am pretty sure a lot of the drunk driving accidents could have been prevented if that happened.

I would have to say that it is up to the owner of the establishment to decide what they want their patrons do. If you don't like it don't go there. No one is forcing you at gun point to walk into a restaurant or bar that caters to smokers. No one is forcing you to go to the nudie bar if you don't want to go there. The problem really is with people that insist that a report that the government put out and was subsequently thrown out of court by a federal judge based on falsehoods in the report is the gospel. So instead of minding their own business and going somewhere that caters to them they have to make the world submit to their whims and tell everyone else if you don't like it we don't care.

I'm an ex-heavy smoker so I see both sides of the coin. My feeling is there are three types of people:

1. Smokers

2. Non-smokers

3. Anti-smokers

To the anti-smokers - I get your point. You don't want your quality of life impaired by breathing secondhand smoke. But how about my quality of life being impaired by screaming children or dogs crapping on my lawn?

Also: If (or when) the smoke Nazis get their way and ban smoking entirely - which is their goal - what's next? Will they come after greasy food? Sugar? Soda? Happy Meals? Oh wait - that's happening already.

Remember people: THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU.

nosferatu-499026Restored

It just basically reinforces that smoking is cool because you consider places we smoke as desirable and you want to take them over.

You do know that data shows that the regular smoker population is generally less educated and of a lower income bracket than the non-smoker population, no?

Yah, smoking is cool!

GuyGuy

Do you people not understand the constitution FREEDOM,everybody is allowed the choice to smoke if he or she chooses,so if you don't smoke that's fine but don't judge people who do.

Actually, by smoking around anyone w/o their express consent, you are doing exactly what you're complaining about...removing choice from others as to whether they smoke or not. If you're that worried about FREEDOM, then you know this is a no-brainer...you have no right to smoke around someone who doesn't want to smoke...you're limiting their freedom to choose. What you do by yourself or surrounded only by consenting adults is your own choice...but that's it. That's all you get.

JJMurray

JLM - Keep saying that to yourself and when the government decides to ban something legal that you like, say peanuts or milk or butter or cologne, then just remember, you can still eat those things and smell nice in private - until they use the power you are giving them to take it out of your house as well. Remember, MA has already tried to do that too.

GREAT example. Because EVERYONE knows that drinking milk around others is the EXACT SAME as smoking around others. Yep..that milk seeps out of the pores and forces its way into those around you. Great analogy dude!

jchoney

I'm always amazed at the people that are against smoking in bars because its not good for you yet they will go to said bar, drink too much, pick up a total stranger for the night as if THAT's not hazardous to your health.

Personally, I don't want Uncle Grundy in anything else at all. He's got too much power as it is.

Again - not a well-thought out analogy.

If I go into a bar and get drunk..I'm not forcing you to get drunk just because you chose to enter the bar, too. And the stranger I pick up once I get drunk, supposing I'm disease ridden? They have option to turn me down...and those who do turn me down don't get conversational STDs by doing so.

Smoke around me? You're making me smoke, whether I want to or not.

It always amazes me the lack of logic used to defend smoker's "rights" while blatantly ignoring those of everyone else.

mary0816b

The restauranters are not doing fine. Their places are empty and they are going out of business faster than they can get established, because other than the special occasion crowd coming in for dinner, their main clientele were people eating dinner and then sitting at the bar afterwards drinking and smoking. So the non-smokers got their way, but at least you'll always get a seat!

As a former bartender who worked through the institution of a smoking ban in my state, this is simply not true. Though I will say I now know what all that cigarette smoke was covering up (hello, body odor!!) Restauranteurs are struggling for the same reasons all of us are struggling - bad economy.

Barkingshins

I have a question for you pro-ban folks:

When was the last time, honestly, that you were forced, against your will, to be amongst smokers in a bar or restaurant?

As a former bartender struggling to put herself through school and still have time to attend all the classes and labs & put in the hours studying needed for my degree..therefore limiting my job options in order to eat, sleep, pay tuition, etc by only working at places where I could earn the cash in a short amount of time such as...hmm, let's say bars and restaurants...I steadfastly raise my hand!!!

Browns Backer

Oh, wait, that's right, since about 3.50-4.00 of my over 5.00 pack of smokes is taxes I guess the drug dealers in Washington can only regulate where you use it not "that" you use it.

I'd love for you to calculate how much money total is collected that $3.50-$4.00 collected in taxes from your packs of cigs over the years of your life...then contrast that w/ the amount of taxpayer money that will be spent on you as you die slowly from a tobacco-related disease, having lost your job & insurance due to long-term chronic illnesses. Wonder which figure will be bigger?

ski55

It is also interesting to note that this same anti smokers club will be singing an entirely different tune when I start gagging and choking when forced to sit next to their mother's God awful perfume stench on Easter Sunday. How about having a cologne, deodorant and perfume free section in all public restaurants for ten or fifteen years , then slam the door on it with an all out public ban.

Oh yah, that's exactly the same. Yet another brain-damaged smoker's attempt at justification for forcing their dirty habits on anyone around them. When inhalation of someone else's cologne or deodorant is shown scientifically to be linked w/ the same morbidity & mortality rates as second and third-hand smoke..I'll be interested in your opinion.

Nope saws, nobody forcing you to go in smoking bars or restaurants.

ANDROLOMA

The hypocrisy of this thread, and the comments by all the sanctimonious control freaks who feel the need to express their delicate, overweight opinions is quite demented, and typical of American self-righteousness. Bloody disgusting. Worse than gay porno.

The hypocrisy of this thread, and the comments by all the sanctimonious addicted freaks who feel the need to justify forcing their nasty, disease-causing habits onto those around them all in the name of their "rights" and expression of their delicate, chemically imbalanced opinions is quite demented...yet typical of smokers' self-righteousness. Bloody disgusting. Worse than eating the cigarette butts they thoughtlessly cast out upon the world as though the world is their personal ashtrays.

Hahaha Love It Saws!

I think it's great.

What better way to make people pay for all the healthcare they're going to require further down the road?

D.Man - Yup, you keep going with that argument and when they start to up those taxes on cheese, peanut butter, sugar, salt, butter, milk and all of those other things which can also cause health problems well, you just smile and take it because that's what you are advocating.

nycguy

How do you propose to pay for uninsured healthcare costs related to smoking and cancer and emphysema?

Yeah they're gunna tax the @!$%# out of everything in due time if given the chance. Might as well tax the taboo's (alcohol, cigarettes, weed) and get some profit off of it. I won't stop buying cigarettes, that's for sure.

The taxes you pay on cigarettes are used mostly for other purposes than paying for healthcare.

D.Man, I thought that states such as NY sued big tabacco to replace all the funds they had to pay out (Medicaid) for all things attributed to smoking? Remember that? One town, in NY, used their share to build a river walk.. How nice!

We've already been handed that "to pay for smokers health care bills" crappola.. Sorry, we're not buying it this time.

nycguy - and how do you propose to pay for all the uninsured health care costs of people who eat too much, drink too much, get STDs from having unprotected sex, or who have car accidents? If you are not willing to ban all of those behaviors then your argument falls flat.

@ D.Man and JJMurray - Not to mention most all of that money is not used for anything health related. It's all blown along with every other dime they collect somewhere else. Which means if it does in fact ever decrease smoking too much, the governments will be forced to replace that lost revenue by raising taxes on something else. Maybe something you use next time D.Man.

@JJMurray:

As soon as milk and cheese cause 1 out of every 5 deaths in the country, I will welcome higher taxes on milk and cheese.

Your "slippery slope" argument is...well...slippery.

I wouldn't object to cigarette taxes and smoking bans nearly so vehemently if we weren't also subsidizing tobacco farmers. Seriously- you can't smoke anywhere but we're going to raise revenues by increasing the sin tax but we're going to pay farmers to grow the product that we don't want you to use. Who does this make sense to?

I agree that governments should stop depending on tobacco as a major revenue source, because it creates a conflict of interest. You can't advocate public health whole-heartedly if you're funded by the enemy.

Instead, tobacco tax revenue in excess of regular sales tax should go directly to health care spending. Or else consumers should be required to carry proof of health insurance to purchase tobacco (like drivers are required to carry proof of auto insurance.)

I think the tobacco lobby (and tobacco revenue) are the only reasons why smoking is still legal in the US.

There are literally no arguments for keeping that industry around if you exclude jobs, economy, and tax revenue.

After that, it's just something that kills people and costs states and the nation billions in healthcare costs and lost productivity. Over the years I bet the costs are above $1 trillion.

@Andrew

I thought heart disease was the leading cause of death. Isn't that caused by clogged arteries from all that cheese?

@ Andrew - The very same thing can be said for alcohol.

Andrew - Yup, just like the makers of swimming pools which kill hundreds of children every year. Oh yeah, and of course those high performance cars have to go too, after all, what purpose do they serve anyway? I mean what do those things contribute to the world except jobs, money, and tax revenue and they kill plenty of people too.

In the City of Chicago you pay Federal, State, County, and City tax to the tune of $4.65 per pack of cigarettes, and when you buy a pack you pay sales tax on the entire pack. So you pay sales tax on $4.65 of tax.

That's @!$%#ing not right.

Assuming we're all adults...if you all don't see a difference between tobacco and swimming pools, high performance automobiles and even alcohol in the context which I made my comments, then I can't help you, and I assume that you've not only made up your mind already, but you've concluded that there is more to lose from engaging in a reasonable conversation than there is to gain.

So with that I will at least give you credit for being aware of where your argument fits into the overall scheme of the debate. There are implications to your awareness though, and I'll leave it to you to figure those out for yourselves.

Liberty is being trampled your moron. The liberty of a PRIVATE business owner to decide on his OWN whether to allow smoking in his establishment or not. If you as a non smoker hate it so much do not go someplace you know there is smoking. As far as us smokers our rights are trampled on by the majority which is nothing other than mob rule. I find certain drinks distasteful too and maybe we should ban drinking indoors of Bourbon? Maybe we should just ban drinking once again because it does create undo hardships on families of alcoholics, people killed by drunk drivers and destruction of liver tissue. So don't even try that pathetic argument of not harming others like smoke does. The problem with people like you is the fact they can rationalize their need for their vices but find everything wrong with someone else who has a different vice.

Look hard enough you can find reasons to limit or ban anything. How about peanuts or any other offensive or unsafe activity. Freedom of choice people is what this is about as an owner and a consumer. Don't like don't buy it or visit it.

Lynyrd Sky- Isnt that what democracy is? The majority rules, thats why we vote MORON. The same arguement works for you. If you dont like the smoking ban so much then dont go. Oh but wait, non-smokers arent polluting the air? So its still comfortable for you to go in whether its smoking or non-smoking? Oh so you just want it to be an inconvenience for everyone else and not you because of your habit. Got it. So this is all over the fact that were making you walk outside to smoke instead of bothering everyone and thier children, as long as your happy. Get a grip

I think all the deaths and health problems that they try to link to smoking are extremely exaggerated.

Given all of the carcinogenic pollutants in our modern world that come at you from all directions, smoking is really only one small part of the big picture.

It is essentially scientific fraud to try and pin it all on tobacco smoking. It is utterly impossible in today's world of diverse toxic chemicals that permeate our entire environment, in just about every way, to isolate just that one variable.

Also, there's a direct link between the increases in cigarette taxes and youth smoking rates....it's the only thing that's ever been a siginficant difference maker.

I find it comical how tobacco products directly kill 100s of thousands of Americans every year and yet September 11th happens, kills 4,000 people, everyone gets up in arms there are subsequent hundreds of billions spent on counterintelligence and governmental agencies to "protect Americans".

Ok small town we were suppose to be a constitutional republic not a democracy. A big difference. This is not about my rights MORON it is about the owners right to chose. What right do you think you have to tell anyone else how to run their business? You make it sound like they had a choice to go smokeless or not. They had no choice. I go into non smoking places all time abide by their rules and their choices. But again it was my choice to visit them and their choice to be smokeless. Never once did I say it was my right to smoke in a non smoking establishment but obviously you feel the need to control what every FREE business owner decides to do within his OWN place.

This has nothing to do with my going outside. If you are so worried about your child's health you would never allow them to go outdoor. SO YOU GET A GRIP.

We may commonly, and mistakenly, refer to our government as a democracy, but LynyrdSky is correct.

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic form of government.

@Gendolkari,

You've obviously never grew up around smokers, otherwise you would've easily seen firsthand just how real the daily morning hacking coughs are, the wheezing while walking, and the various cancers are.

Andrew, your argument is a failure as it occurs. And if you can't see that, it's useless trying to teach you.

What I've never liked, is the Government telling a PRIVATELY Owned company what they can and cannot allow on their own property. Now the owner of the company I work for smokes. She OWNS the company. She OWNS the building and the land the building sits on. But she's NOT allowed to smoke in it. To me that's just down right stupid. Now if a company owner wants to make their company smoke free, that's fine. They have a right to. But I don't believe the Government requiring it is right at all. Sorry.

@LynnrdSky--A "private business" owner gives up the right to determine that when they open a business that depends on public accomodation (restaurants, bars, etc.) so take your libertarian nonsense and shove it.

To those who are whining about other people's actions--did you ever step up and tell them they need to take a shower or their rotten kids are ruining your evening out? If not, then quit whining.

Both of my parents smoked.

I'm not saying it's healthy. What I am saying is that it is only one small piece amidst all of the extremely unhealthy things that Americans and people in all other industrialized countries participate in every single day. That brand new car interior out gases a lot of carcinogens over the first 3-4 years, and is comparable to smoking 3 packs a day in the summertime if you sit in it for an hour a day. The exhaust coming out of your car contains carcinogens. The products in your home out gas many carcinogens. That coal fired power plant near your home emits many carcinogens, and toxic metals such as mercury. There are endless examples all around you.

You really can't escape the ever growing levels of toxicity that permeates the world we have built around ourselves, and that is exactly why we are seeing a steady increase in cancer rates across the board.

I have an idea. Why don't we shut down the tobacco companies, get rid of smoking all together. We don't want to give anyone the choice to make the decision, of whether to smoke or not, for themselves. After we do that, we will ban the production and sell, of all forms of liquor. You should not have a choice of whether to drink or not. Let's just make everyone good little government controlled robots. Next we will let the government tell us how many kids we can have, when we are allowed to breath and when to go take a potty break. Oh, what a wonderful world it will be. We won't have to make any decisions for ourselves. And everyone will live happily ever after. (sigh).

@Gendolkari

Agreed....however, being someone that samples indoor air quality at residentail/commercial buildings, I can tell you we normally detect "off gasing" of various solvents/vocs at 1-15 parts per billion in a basement whereas cigarette smoke is super concentrated, at-source exposure.

It's the equivalent of huffing a can of Raid, versus being 50 yards downwind of it while it's being sprayed.

Andrew

cause and attribution of cause are not the same thing. Bias, opinion, special interests, lawyers etc. skew things. That's not to say that smoking isn'twithout consequence. Name one thing in this life that is without consequence. Just another example of our government harming a minority by not protecting rights. The sad thing is it is a springboard and precedent for the next issue of control.

PS Smokers die earlier and hence do not burden the healthcare system. Money creates scarcity in every sector. That is why health care is expensive. You do what you want. Sky dive, ski, scuba, date skanks, use drugs, whatever.

Yeah let's ban cigarette's. Cuz' the war of drugs had been going smashingly for the 30 years. At least for police force budgets.

I was going to say that I had to laugh at all of this, but, what I find that changed my mind on it was the fact that non smokers wants the government to force their will on smokers. That, I do not find funny at all. Where does it stop? When you give the government the right to force, not only your will, but their will on all others, that is a very dangerous game you are playing. Because it will not stop at just smoking, it will go on and on until you have no free will left in your life. Non smokers, the government or I have no say over the free will of any humans, that is not in our hands. So please, don't try and force your will down any ones throats. This could end up with more than just the smokers rights being on the chopping block. An argument can be made against almost everything within this world we live in, and believe me, when you start forcing your will on others, the table WILL be turned, and one day, what you always felt was not a bad thing you do, may just end up being forced out of your life. Many people forget, we were not put here so we can force those around us to bow to our own will. People are so afraid of death, yet they forget, that no matter what you do today to stop death from happening to you, it will in fact catch up with you, because physical death is inevitable, you just never know what day it will happen. So please, live and let live.

"How do you propose to pay for uninsured healthcare costs related to smoking and cancer and emphysema?"

...Ummm, lets see...Oh, I know...why dont you use the 80%% tax paid on every pack of fekkin' cigarettes to pay for it...AND we can also cover all you fat folks knee surgerys & diabetes treatments and probably STILL have $ to spare!

1 pack of cigarettes in NY - 9$... 7$ of which is tax stolen from smokers & given to non-smokers...so shut ur pie-hole you thief, before I ask you to pay for all the bull@!$%# you skate on currently.

I agree with DrSebby, 100%. I'll smoke, you won't. But I shouldn't have pay threw the nose because you non-smokers expect someone else to pay for your health care.

I love it. Hey, if you smoke, that's your right but remember, it's YOUR habit, not mine. Don't blow it in my face. If I go to a resturant, I shouldn't have to be okay with you sitting next to me, puffing away and making me sick because you can't wait until you go outside.

Carolyn. I don't smoke in public. So you are wasting your breath on me. Every smoker is not out to get you. Also, didn't realize there were any restaurants left where you can smoke.

Lacy, I wasn't trying to get to you, but the smoker who feels it's okay to puff in everyone and anyone's faces. If you smoke, so be it, just not in my space. I like to drive my car but I'm not going to drive it through your backyard or on the sidewalk. I don't intentionally impose my habits or way of life onto others without regard for their feelings, why should I tolorate others doing it to me whether it's smoking, passing gas or any other rude act. According to the article, there are several states who still allow smoking in resturants, bars and the work place.

PS Smokers die earlier and hence do not burden the healthcare system.

Well now isn't that special. I could have swore they did burden the healthcare system. Could have swore that early death was a huge loss of human capital. I guess I was wrong.

cause and attribution of cause are not the same thing

I think the phrase you're looking for is "correlation is not causation". So that's why we have research that establishes causation. Weren't you the one that just said "smokers die earlier and hence do not burden the healthcare system"? Many problems there...

Money creates scarcity in every sector. That is why health care is expensive.

Healthcare is expensive for many reasons - none having anything to do with "money creating scarcity", as I understand you to mean that.

I agree there should be a ban on indoor smoking especially in businesses where children may be present. But when it comes to places like bars or casinos, I think only the business owners should have the right to decide if they want to be smoke-free or allow smoking, if they own the property. (It's ok to pickle your liver as long as you do not smoke while you do it!)

As far as the argument about taxpayers having to pay for uninsured smokers, smokers paid through the nose every time they buy a pack of cigarettes, which the federal and states do not put away to use for their medical costs! (The same goes for the taxes on alcohol.) How about all the uninsured drug users, obese, people with diabetes who do not follow the doctors orders, etc.?

To bad people can't get this fired up over corporate pollution. Like I'm suppose to believe that the smoke coming out a persons mouth is somehow more dangerouse than the smoke coming out of an industrial complex. It kind of seems like being worried more about the scratch on your knee than the gaping wound in your chest.

Yea, ban all health risks from our environment. Oops. guess we are back to dark ages. How much water and air polution (-cigarette smoke) is a product of all we do?

WHO OWNS THE AIR?

SameLameName- The difference is being in a convined space with smokers vs being outside. You dont have to go stand in front of the industrial smoke stacks to order your dinner.

Heres a question, if you all think its ok to smoke in a restaurant, why not in a grocery store, clothing store, movie theatre? Point is, its optional for you to smoke, its not optional for me to breathe. I dont understand why you fight to preserve the right to pollute air in a convined space that everyone in that space must share. Thats putting your rights before everyone elses, I thought this country stood for everyone being equal.

@somelamename: People do get fired up over corporate pollution, and it is heavily regulated.

People would get even more fired up about it if corporations pumped their smoke from coal power plants into restaurants and bars. In fact, people would be so fired up that they would support government putting an end to it.

Smalltownpete is right. Someone elses smoking puts me at risk. What you do to the air in your own home is your own business but what you do to the air in public places is everyone's business. My right to clean air trumps your right to pollute it unilaterally and without any benefit to me. The days of "screw you I can do whatever I want no matter how it affects you" are gone. We're wiser than that now.

Banning smoking in public places is economically sound public policy. The only argument against it is some kind of "smoker rights" thing, and that's borderline ridiculous given that there is no ban on smoking generally, given the harm to non smokers, and given that it's not reasonable that I should not ever go to restaurants or bars if I want to avoid exposure.

There are people who have cardiopulmonary problems - old people, for example, and people with asthma. So they should not eat out or should have to leave a restaurant when someone lights up a cigarette? I don't think so, and neither do the overwhelming majority of people in my state who agree with the ban now that it's been in affect for a while.

I don't smoke and I feel that smokers should have the right to smoke as long as it doesn't effect anyone else's right to breathe smoke free air (smog and other pollution aside, that is another conversation).

The problem is, smoker's don't (or don't want to) understand what that really means: I go where I want, when I want and breathe smoke free air. Period.

The only place I can imagine that not applying might be a bar or restaurant that specifically catered to smokers. I wouldn't want a 'non-smoker' section or similar to take away from their space to enjoy their smoking. I also wouldn't go near the place, and in turn would have a problem with it being near a sidewalk or similar that I needed to travel on to get where I DO want to go.

Unfortunately this issue has no room for give and take. No matter what I am not trying to force clean air into the lungs of people that need smoky air to breathe healthily. While smokers are not trying to force me to breathe the smoke, the proximity has the same effect.

Smokers are free to smoke all they want.

I am entitled as a basic human right to breathe smoke free air and that means not a single molecule of smoky air. Period. Inside OR outside.

No... smog etc. isn't another conversation. Now you're being a hypocrite. You are essentially saying, I'll choose to breathe this garbage but not this because I said so. Get over yourself biker and to your last line, I'll print what I did above...

Unless you live on a planet none of us have ever heard of, you have never breathed clean air... and it had little to nothing to do with smokers. Maybe you shouldn't breathe?

Yes Ann smog IS another conversation. Smoking is an elective, optional activity with no benefit to commerce other than lining fat cat big tobacco pockets with profits.

Most (not all, but this discussion is about tobacco smoke) other particulates got there as a by product of some sort of commerce.

I would much rather we were all driving and flying zero emission vehicles and our power was generated with zero emissions. Not because I think so or wish to foist my beliefs on others, but because we all wish to be as healthy as possible and it was the most economical option.

Time will tell if that is possible or desirable for the rest of the population.

And if you imagine 'biker4life' as some sort of bicycle riding hippie green weenie, the bike I refer to has an engine.

Since you're quoting yourself from above I'll return the favor:

'Calls herself a libertarian then votes for herself. Priceless.'

Exactly, libertarian, that's exactly how it works. As a society we choose to live with some amount of certain air pollutants, and other amounts of others.

So your argument is that because there is some pollution then all pollution is OK?

Is libertarianism really about mob rule and might makes right? I thought libertarians were supposed to be "thinkers"...and as thinkers you must see distinctions between situations, like pollution from power generation - a social necessity for which the net benefits outweigh the costs, and smoking, which has no benefit for me whatsoever...in fact, it can only harm me.

Yes, the issue is a difficult one. No, throwing in the towel and saying "do whatever you want" or "cars pollute so everyone should be able to pollute however much they want" is not consistent with reality. That's parallel universe stuff.

Oh give it up on the "libertarian" comments you jokers, you only make yourselves look even more uninformed, tightassed and ridiculous.

You attempted to skew what I said to fulfill a nonsense agenda. Smoking isn't the great pollutant, so stop talking about banning smoking creating clean air. You have never breathed clean air in your entire life, stop being foolish. Oh and Biker.. I never gave what your name meant a second thought, I didn't/don't care what Biker means, but since you brought it up you're even more foolish if you scream about clean air and then ride the single most polluting form of transit out there. What a hypocrite.

Oh... and I see I voted for myself twice on a post that I supposedly voted on... How did I manage that? Get over yourself Biker, you're really offensive. And Andrew you're just a cowardly pile-on queen.

Do you still not understand somewhere in that head of yours the difference between 'clean' air and smoke free air?

Guess I hit a nerve on the old bitty. If you want to get nasty go right ahead, but when your post is full of nasty but lacks any articulate points to refute my comments you make yourself look pathetic without any help from me.

Still repeating yourself with zero additional content. A pleasure to read.

I guess setting yourself up extra user ids gives you a sense of belonging with you and your imaginary friends. Popular!

Please bring back some more nasty. Entertaining to say the least.

Good lord if you're going to insult someone at least spell it correctly. It's biddy not bitty. And don't try to insult someone with "zero additional content" with something you've done with every single post you've made on this thread. If you weren't so lazy and did a little reading you'd see most of my posts have differed. So now we know you're a lazy, hypocrite.

You don't know what clean air is because you've never breathed it you hyper polluting fool.

That's my girl! Predictable as the sun rising in the east.

That's my hypocritical fool. Absolutely nothing to say but refusing to admit it.

And you know tard ball, I don't even smoke cigarettes anymore. So! Stop polluting my planet.

God Almighty ProAmerica

Glass Houses ...... sheesh. You are a HATER of all

I hate people with elevated blood pressure. These people should not be allowed in public.

proamerica - I'm guessing you don't have kids, aren't married and possibly live alone. How else would you be able to deal with life....jeez, all those PEOPLE!!!!

What i like some states sell alcohol in State stores only, make money selling it and the State Police lock you for drinking it, then you go to the state court house and pay a huge fine or go to a State jail. All run by the state. How convenient.

Like it or not. Tobacco is one of the things that built this nation. Our early exports were not cars or technology. Besides there was an article about alcohol killing 10 times the amount of people worldwide as tobacco does on msnbc just a couple months ago. I am for doing away with both alcohol and tobacco in this country, but I am not about going after one and ignoring the other.

Steve-2570999

I can smell the smoke when I am riding behind a smokers car on my motorcycle

Good Grief

You obviously don't have any children and especially do not have any relatives that have children who suffer from Autism or any other Mentally challenged children such as Down's Syndrome, or Asperger's Syndrome.

My mother always said that those who speak ill of others will one day be faced with the same. So don't be surprised if someone you love whether it be a child of your own in the future or a niece or nephew or grandchild for that matter will come to you in your life in one way or another with the same mental challenges these poor kids face and will have to deal with all of their lives and you will remember what you just wrote on this site. Remember life comes full circle and it never misses anyone.

Good luck to you.

Amen Pro America! dont forget the bunnyhuggers in California that eat too much broccoli and spinach. They should have to wear a plastic "fart suit" so they arent polluting my fresh air and destroying the environment we depend on with their obnoxious greenhouse gasses!

Rushfan...what is a "bunnyhugger"? I live in CA and have never heard of it. Please impart your wisdom upon me, and upon us all.

And please cite the research that says vegetarians "fart" more than others. I know a fair number of vegetarians, and empirically I can tell you that it's quite the opposite. Meat-eaters are the ones who fart more often, and it isn't pleasant.

And apparently you aren't aware that cows that we use for meat, obviously, are very high on the list of greenhouse gas emitters. I'm still trying to figure out how vegetarians produce more Co2 than meat eaters, given the facts.

I assume you can fill us all in, because clearly you have some facts that the rest of us don't have. Please fill us in on these facts. A list of references in citation form should suffice. You know...authors, journals, and page numbers...so we can check out the data ourselves.

Thanks! I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Andrew547

.....says vegetarians "fart" more than others. I know a fair number of vegetarians, and empirically I can tell you that it's quite the opposite. Meat-eaters are the ones who fart more often,....

THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE

Two grown adults arguing about who farts more...

This level of intelligent debate is rarely seen outside the floor of the Senate.

to add to the comment about tobacco helping build this country:

Dude if your going to take that approach, hemp helped build this country. Yet at any given bar, resturant, or any building or outside any building for that matter I cannot smoke a joint. Not in my car, not in the bar, not even on the sidewalk. Talk about taxes and crap you dont want to pay, tax weed i'd be happy to pay if i could smoke it!!! It's way less harmful than tobacco and not addictive (staments have been proven). I quit smokin cigarettes, they made me cough a lot, hack in the morning. I would get winded while walking/ exercising, and now that i quit I HATE the smell. After you smoke a cigarette i can smell you in the next room, i smell it when your smoking in your car. you complain about "your rights" and blah blah blah, what about my rights to smoke what I want to!? complain about taxes and rights all you want, but when i get caught smoking the less harmful of the smokes it's YOUR tax money that will keep me in jail. complain about that!

OMG...here come the stoneheads again - what a zoo... quite amusing

ProAmerica: You are hilarious. ROFL. Don't ask me why. ROFL.

No sir, huh uh, the whiny *ss little soccer mom's would NEVER allow that. They'd have no control over anything.

Smokers account for less than 20% of the clientele, but one smoker will drive away the other 80% by polluting the establishment. Unfortunately, establishing a no-smoking policy can be a headache, because a lot of smokers make a scene and retaliate against the wait staff who insist they don't smoke. That's why so many businesses insist on a universal smoking ban, so they don't have to bear the brunt of anti-smoking enforcement, or watch their non-smoking patrons leave when the place gets smokey.

To assume that restaurants even want the opportunity to cater to smokers is wishful thinking. They don't. They'd rather cater to the majority without the hassle of smokers, and even attract the business of smokers without having to put up with their smoke. The ban is a win-win. Smokers still patronize... but they don't bring their smoke with them now.

There was one casino in Las Vegas that was Non -smoking...Guess what?

It went bankrupt and closed it's doors. I believe in less then 1 year.

Unless they all were non smoking, of course the only non smoking one would fail. I fail to see the connection from banning it in all public buildings to a single casino among many others doing it.

If all the casinos banned smoking at the same time, that casino would still be open. It would be up to what they offered inside to keep the doors open.

I can't believe all the people willingly putting their head in the noose. I do not refer to smokers in particular. I refer to the Winstons crying, "Do it to Julia!"

I have liberty, I am a criminal.

Alejandro,

We couldn't have that now, could we? That is called freedom. Isn't it peculiar how the anti-smokers won't allow that type of freedom? They're worse than fvcking religious fundamentalists. They can't even see their way to allowing businesses to decide their own smoking policies. I can't even express how much I despise those nazi a$$holes. They want choice-but only for themselves. What is worse- they don't see anything wrong with THEIR smoking every time they crawl into their vehicles and poison EVERYBODY with carbon monoxide- much more deadly than any cigarette. Their breathing problems are ALWAYS from some guy's cigarette no matter how far away the smoker is, and is never from the millions of vehicles (including their own) that poison the entire atmosphere. And they'll also consider campfires to be great fun even though that is the equivalent of a huge unrolled cigarette, and b/tch at the guy who lights up as he warms himself next to said campfire.

As they take away the smoker's method of releasing tension, do they have the decency to replace it with something equally effective? NOooOOoo. Anyone who demands that a smoker put out a cigarette should drop to their knees and deliver some world class oral sex to replace the stress relief provided by that cigarette. People forced to quit should have some anti-smoking cutie of the opposite sex assigned to them for that purpose- no hags allowed. A little quid pro quo seems to me to be only fair. Of course, that won't happen. They'd rather just use the legal system to twist an arm to get their own way. I'm on a crusade too, you see. I also want to propose a national tax on car purchases in the $10,000-$15,000 range. It will go to road maintenance and offsetting the costs of their accidents, police patrols, hospitalizations, property damage, and the costs of health problems related to the 2nd hand poison pumped from their vehicles. Fair is fair, eh?

Merlin

grog.

Money is the obvious problem. Money buys everything. Everything.

I see one three ends:

We evolve past money; God arrives; or destruction. Money will not change these paths.

The reason the non smoking casino went out of business is simple: The same ignorant people that think smoking won't affect their health negatively think they can beat 'the house' at gambling.

It's the perfect demographic pairing. Suck on that smokers.

Merlin-

Don't you see that non-smokers want the 'freedom' to breathe clean air? Which one is actually a human right? Smoking or breathing?

If a business is allowed to have smoking patrons, what is to be done about the health effects of the non-smoking employees? Hence the laws. To preserve the rights of these employees to have the freedom to breathe clean air.

There is an underlying current to these arguments about these laws: Smokers don't believe that smoking will really kill them. So how can it hurt a second hand smoker?

The 'smoker's rights' advocates might want to think about who pays for the brochures and the advertising and the sponsored commentary, etc that attempts to build some sort of 'smoker's revolt' attitude about these laws.

Follow the money. It always leads back to big tobacco. And that makes you a manipulated tool for their profit.

Smoke up Johnny.

There is no clean air. Stop breathing.

Would you prefer the term 'tobacco smoke free air' Ann?

No, I'd just prefer you stop breathing. Problem solved.

The employees have the rights to choose to work somewhere else if they don't like the policy of the owner.

WTF are you anti-smokers all crying about?

You demanded....DEMANDED....that the following places ALL be smoke free zones:

• airplanes
• trains
• buses
• subways
• taxicabs
• ships
• hospitals
• medical offices
• churches
• schools, incl adult venues (ie colleges)
• school grounds
• restaurants
• bars
• stores
• theatres
• banks
• public bldgs
• pretty much any indoor place of business & all workplaces
• stadiums, even open-air
• parks, both public spaces & private (ie, amusement parks)
• golf courses
• campgrounds
• rental vehicles
• within X # of ft from entrances/exits of all these places

You demanded these places be smoke free & you GOT them to be smoke free. Even places like restaurants & bars that had clearly defined & separate smoking areas w/ separate ventilation systems installed at great expense to the business owners, who had no choice but to comply w/ this initial phase of the law. Laws were passed. Arrests were made. Fines were imposed.

So again.....WTF are you whining about here?

Are y'all stuck back in some 90s time warp w/ all this moaning about how the evil smokers are polluting your airspace?

YOU GOT THE SMOKE FREE AIRSPACE!

All the smokers have left is pretty much their own vehicles, homes (& try to rent as a smoker; not EZ these days), & the great outdoors X # of ft away from all your preaching & pissing about it.

What exactly is being infringed upon by smokers at this pt? There's nothing left. You wanted it smoke free & you took it, inch by inch, piece by piece, place by place, & have made every single step you take a smoke free environment.

You can CHOOSE to stay the hell out of smokers' homes, vehicles, yards, & in fact, you can choose to stop socializing w/ smokers entirely. Nobody's forcing you to hang out w/ ppl while they are smoking. It's just the opposite.

Smokers, on the other hand, are still stuck w/ YOU. And they can't even grab a few drags to deal w/ the aggravation of your holier-than-thou 'tudes. Bitching & crabbing like 2 yo's b/c even tho you can choose to never ever be around cigarette smoke w/ all the anti-smoking legislation that's been relentlessly shoved thru in the last 15 yrs or so, you're STILL not happy?

I mean, what's it going to take to make y'all STFU already? YOU WON. You have successfully ostracized smokers & turned them into pariahs. Anti-smokers are rude, ignorant, self-righteous little twits who will go out of their way to cross a street & deliberately inhale secondhand smoke despite knowing how "dangerous" it is to your health just to deliver a scathing lecture, a screaming tirade, tell smokers they stink (what, are y'all, like, 5?), & throw a hissy fit that someone dared light up on YOUR planet. That's the ONLY time you are ever exposed to cigarette smoke & you CHOOSE to do that. The smokers aren't walking up to you & inviting your BS gum-flapping. They're staying the requisite X # of ft away from your ass so that they don't have to put up w/ your @!$%#, but you march on over & invade their airspace anyway.

WTF? What is your problem? Cars, some of the great outdoors, & homes if they own them, that's all smokers have left. You don't have to be anywhere near those things. There's nothing left to cry ABOUT. Quit groaning & gloating & be gracious winners already, jeez!

scar-tissue- If you would have read the article you would know that there are states that do not have indoor smoking bans.

Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming DO NOT have indoor smoking restrictions.

The number of states with comprehensive indoor smoking bans went from zero in 2000 to 26 in 2010

Also, some states have bans on different venues.

Another 10 states have laws that ban smoking in workplaces, bars or restaurants, but not in all three venues.

Some other states have less restrictive laws, like requiring smoking areas with separate ventilation.

Thats what this article was about, and what this discussion is about. Whether or not there should be a universal indoor smoking-ban.

Thank you Gary, They say that it is a leading cause of death but fail to study smokers who live in clean environments against those that live in the city. Every time someone yells about a smoker around a child I remind them that the child stands outside, close to the road, waiting on the school bus inhaling tons of pollutants. What's bad is they just don't get it, brainwashing in this country is out of control.

You guys hit it on the nosey nose. I used to live in Riverside Cali and they had reports of just living in that city was the same as smoking 20 smokes a day. In fact they called it Riversides Revenge when smog came in it sat in the valley as it is basically one big bowl (mountains and hills on all sides). Screw the politics agendas, lets see some real tests that show real study results.

Well, developed nations tend to have higher cancer rates than undeveloped nations. Probably due to the plethora of different chemicals that we are exposed to on a daily basis. If tobacco wasn't a cultural norm, it would be illegal, same with alcohol probably. I personally don't care if they raise the taxes on smoking a 1000%. If people continue to buy it, then that reflects poorly on them, not the government.

Matt

I don't care if they raise YOUR taxes infinitely. Do you see your error, or are you that gone? Freedom is an illusion, liberty is not.

Kedbob7, If they raised my taxes indefinitely on something that I didn't NEED to live, I would stop. Its not hard to do, unless you are a poor drug addicted sop, which unfortunately, many smokers are. After all, if they weren't hopelessly addicted, why would they keep paying more and more for an item they truly have no need for? I like to drink, but if the federal and state taxes got too high on alcohol, I could and would not drink. As I've stated previously, if they weren't cultural norms that have been with us for centuries, both alcohol and tobacco would most likely be illegal.

Yessir Gary! These are the same people that will lean out the window of their idling lincoln navigator 7.3litre diesel and tell you to put your cigarette out!

I agree fellow Rushfan, car (or specifically diesel) pollution is bad and might even exceed smoking's hazards.

But particulates are additive, so the more we can eliminate the better. And this thread was about smoking, so most of us are focused on that.

One pollutant at a time.

If they raised my taxes indefinitely on something that I didn't NEED to live, I would stop.

So, how much are you willing to give up?

B/c last I saw, talk was that exorbitant taxes were being considered for all sorts of goodies....not liquor just yet, o no, that's too profitable, more profitable than cigarettes....just ordinary, everyday food & drink items that the govt has determined "may" be hazardous to your health & "might" contribute to this or that health issue, etc.

We need to eat, gotta eat to live, right? So once prices begin skyrocketing on all your fav treats, goodies, maybe even some "normal" but artery-clogging or diabetes-inducing items, how content are you going to be w/ eating the same blah thing every day?

What if you had to pee in a cup to keep your health ins coverage & they could determine from that test that you'd consumed numerous "bad for you" foodstuffs/drinks, & spiked your premiums accordingly? It's done to smokers right now, you don't care b/c you're not one, but ya gotta eat, right?

They're coming for your junk food as we speak here....then it'll be your transfats....your red meats....your dairy....your seafood....heck, they might even get around to your liquor after all, once they run out of stuff to tax profitably.

And that's the pt ppl have been trying to make.

You shrug now & you don't care b/c it doesn't affect you. But someday in the very near future, it will affect you. I can guarantee it.

You're standing by & permitting the liberties of others to be infringed upon under the stance of "it's bad for us, the nanny state said so". Yeah, well, so is soda pop, potato chips, candy, steak, butter, milk, lobster, cheese, pepperoni, hot dogs, apple pie, Kentucky bourbon, & they'll get to that in time b/c your inaction will have let them set the precedent for it.

Who's going to speak up for your rights & freedoms?

Not smokers, or even ex-smokers. They'll be laughing their asses off when it's your turn to twist in the wind.

Wasn't there a poem to that affect? Something about the hangman, who took the outcasts first and then came for everyone else.

You got some splainin to do Mr Rodriguez. Wait no let me guess, the Lizards are controlling us for their agenda with HAARP amoung other devious devices.



Mr. Pink

you just can't think about it can you? Makes you uncomfortable doesn't it. Best to avoid it, eh? You think there is such a thing as democracy. You think we are exporting democracy. You think your vote matters. You think you are being protected. The hallmark of a great conspiracy is that it is in the open and not provable. But it doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Don't die a fool.

Kedbob, I'm trying to understand if you are implying that we have absolutely no personal freedom of will whatsoever, or if you are making some overture about how both political parties are inherently interested in maintaining the status quo, and therefore the democratic system is a farce on many levels? If you believe in predestination, then yes, there is no freedom OR liberty, as everything that is happening now was preordained by god, some computer whose simulation we are living in etc. Which scenario are you referring to?, and what does it have to do with people not being allowed to smoke in bars and public buildings?

If I own a bar or restaurant, it should be MY choice if I want to allow smoking. Servers, etc. can decide not to work for me if they don't like smoke, and you can decide to go somewhere else as well. What you are advocating is letting the government tell us what we can and can't do about something that is perfectly legal in our own businesses. You just wait until they band peanuts, gluten, perfume, cologne, and deodorant from public places because someone can get sick or hurt by exposure to those items (all proven in studies as well). It's not about the right to smoke, it's about the right to decide what we do inside a private business that we own. Remember the more power you give the government the more they will expand it until some day they will ban other perfectly legal substances from use in your home. Of course by then it will be too late for you to complain, you'll have given the government your consent.

That argument came up time and time again when the establishment that I worked for became non-smoking.

The fact was though that the majority of the waitresses and bartenders were smokers who not only missed being able to smoke inside but the revenue lost when smokers no longer frequented the establishment...drinking, gambling and smoking go hand in hand. And eventually missed the job that was lost when the business went under!

I don't know about bars and casinos, but restaurant owners aren't particularly interested in the choice to allow smoking. Smokers just want to think some restaurant out there is dying to cater to them, but can't because of the law. Truth is, it's not much of a business opportunity. Smokers are content to patronize non-smoking establishments if that's their only choice, and non-smokers make up a bigger chunk of clientele anyway.

The only reason smoking was allowed before the ban was the hassle of enforcing no-smoking policies.

JLM - I'm SO glad you can speak for the entire restaurant business. I guess that's why you support the government being allowed to tell private business what legal things they can and cannot have, because you know all, see, all, and therefore are the best person to take care of all of the rest of the country. "Truth is" even if it's only a few places why is the government preventing them from allowing the use of a legal product in their establishments if they so desire? No one here seems willing to address that point.

Wow!!!! You mean JLM is God?? Nice to meet you god. I have a question. Do they allow smoking in heaven? After all everyone there is already dead.

cyndeem. You better stop breathing all together. Do you realize all the cancer causing pollutants in the air? I only smoke at home, but nothing gives me the right to tell someone else, where they can or cannot smoke. But please, don't breath around me, I might get your germs. And please don't drink and drive, you might run over me. Do you see a ban on breathing or liquor. Didn't think so.

Cyndeen

say the same about your grill, your car, your ____. Proven? You are easy. It is not a healthy thing to smoke, just like most everything. Ban PMS it affects people! Dictate to the citizens what they will accept as the majority unaffected, then dictate to those unaffected by using precedent (law). I'm willing to bet you do something that can be condemned by other small minds. Ban children - they add costs to my taxes. No? Right. That's stupid. So is the suupport for bans against smokers. The solution is for owners to decide what they offer to the public and accomodate those that attend.

Kedbob, so using your logic, then if I own a business and want to cater to crack heads or heroin addicts, I should be allowed to because its pointless to ban anything because EVERYTHING is bad or annoying to someone on SOME level? PMS and kids may be annoying, but last I checked they don't cause cancer. You could make a case for car exhaust being bad, but cars are required by most to get around. Smoking is not a necessity to live your life, therefore, its fair game for regulation. If you don't like the smoking bans than either go outside to smoke, or stay home and smoke there. All the smokers who are poor add to my health care costs, AND my taxes when they get cancer and go to the hospital, who then passes on their insanely high cancer treatment costs to me.

Matt, sorry but your argument is flawed from the beginning. Why? Because crack and heroin are illegal substances. Cigarette's and cigars are legally sold, regulated, and taxed commodities.

As far as the rest of your diatribe on health care costs, taxes, the necessity of smoking, etc. that too is personal opinion on your part. Car's are not required. They are a luxury. People can, and some still do, walk. Time was when most people used horses, mules and donkeys to travel with. Know what, people complained about the animal feces during those times too!

Truth is, smoking is a choice made by lawful, tax paying, voting citizens. My personal thought is if the product is legally sold in a regulated business, then the consumer should be able to legally consume it in a regulated business. There are laws on the use of alcohol as it pertains to driving and yet thousands are killed by people who drive drunk every year.

Food service workers, wait staff, and employees in general who work in an environment where cigarette or cigar smoke exists still do have a choice. They can, after all, choose to work elsewhere. There is no inherent right for a business to employ someone who does not agree with the operational decisions made by the owner.

With regard to health care, banning smoking from businesses may reduce the incidence of second-hand smoke related illnesses but as the article states, there is no proof of such a benefit yet due to the long period of time it takes for alot of cancers and related illnesses to appear. As far as it costing the public additional monies, obesity costs the public additional money; alcohol abuse costs the public additional money; drunk drivers cost the public additional money. Get my point! So why is it alright to single out a specific group and prohibit them access to privately owned businesses where they can enjoy consuming their legally purchased cigarette or cigar? Let's ban the consumption of alcohol in restaurants and bars so that we can reduce the amount of people who drive drunk! Now does that see practical? Let's add a usage tax to people who are obese since they take up additional space and their un-healthy lifestyle contributes to an additional cost to the general public! Now is that practical?

Attacking smoking, and therefore by extension tobacco use, is wrong. Does smoking and tobacco use cause health risks? Without a doubt the answer is yes. But so do many other things that are legally sold, regulated and consumed. Bottom line is that we cannot and should not pick and choose what an individual may do in a private business or limit where they can use a product that the government receives revenues form while seeking to limit that very products usage.

Sayitaint, Where do you live where cars are not a necessity? Our cities and towns are not designed to be walkable. Sure, some people get by with out a car, but the vast majority of people in this country require a car to get to work, get food and other things for themselves and their families, etc. Smoking bans don't prohibit people from entering anywhere, they simply prohibit people from engaging in a specific activity within the premises. Drunk drivers don't have to drink and drive. However, if you smoke in a enclosed space, you can't help but force the smoke on those around you. There is a difference between the two as you could see if you actually thought about it some. As for the legality of tobacco, thats irrelevant to my argument. Morphine and cocaine used to be legally sold goods as well. However, people realized that it wasn't worth it to keep them legal due to the social costs of those drugs. Tobacco is just as addictive as many opiates, and, as I've stated, were it not a social norm that has been with us for centuries, it would probably be illegal.

Our cities and towns are not designed to be walkable.

Actually outside of LA(which was designed by crack heads) almost all cities and town since the founding of the first city are designed so you can walk around. And in most cities its quicker to walk rather than fight your way through a horde of idiots in traffic.

Hey JLM, here is a little info that you seem to be lacking. Here it is...............smokers are human beings, just like non-smokers. Try remembering that when you discuss the subject of smoking, they are human just like you. I'm not sure where you get your information from like this, "Smokers just want to think some restaurant out there is dying to cater to them, but can't because of the law.", you sir, are about as well informed as a three year old. That statement is as full of crap as you are.

"Smokers are content to patronize non-smoking establishments if that's their only choice,"

Here is a little more info to enlighten you, smokers don't always need to have a cigarette burning while eating or shopping, and many of them do go to non-smoking establishments because they do like those places, NOT just because that's their choice.

The only reason smoking was allowed before the ban was the hassle of enforcing no-smoking policies.

Um, no.

It was "allowed" b/c:

• It's a huge money-maker for our economy.
• Have you seen those vintage cigarette ads from the 30s & 40s where drs recommend doing it b/c it's "healthful"?
• Smokers were the majority, not the minority, probably within your lifetime unless you're under the age of 20.
• Until the late 1960s, smoking was not "bad" at all.
• Even then, it was a cautious, guarded "may cause...." whatever, maybe we should play CYA & put a "warning" on the packs so we don't get sued.
• Did you notice that the "smoking is bad" campaign neatly coincided w/ the bright idea of "sin tax"?
• Do you understand just how much freakin' money the federal & state govts makes off cigarette smokers simply by adding $7 in taxes to a $2 product?
• Do you notice that whenever it's boasted there's a dip in the # of smokers (ie, ppl get fed up w/ high cost & quit) that sin tax creeps up & up & up?
• Hello, it's still "allowed"; it's still a legally grown, produced, sold, taxed into the stratosphere American product.
• It will never be made illegal unless every last one of the 20 mil or so of Americans who smoke crush out their last butt & there's no more profit to be made on it in the US.

It doesn't bother you at all that this concerned nanny state of ours that wants to decide what is & isn't "bad" for us is completely hypocritical on this subject?

If the US govt truly wanted a smoke free country, all they would have to do would be to make it illegal. Y'all keep whining how much it stinks; I think the offenders would be immediately noticed & carted off to swamp US jails along w/ the pot smokers. Your avg Joe is not going to go down to the 'hood & deal w/ the drug cartels just to get a pack of smokes. It'll turn into a rich ppl's indulgence just like fine wine & they'll buy it offshore & the govt'll turn a blind eye to the smuggling & try to blame it on the Mexicans like everything else.

Do you ever wonder what's going to happen if the anti-smoking campaign suddenly becomes a 100% success & ponder what they'll tax the hell out of next?

Another highly educated person heard from again....oh wait, that was obviously for a post that had some intelligence in it.

this is not a political issue. please don't try to make it one.

Democrats must not smoke. They would never buy nasty cigarettes from a republican. Obama must grow his own.

Three idiots out of four, you select.

I could have sworn Al Gore raised tobacco....

"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it." -- Al Gore, 1988

Oh, I guess I was right.....

i know smoking is bad for a person, but it is legal and bans are a intrusion into peoples rights. if it is banned, then alcohol should also be, because i have seen more lives distroyed by it than smoking. i worked in health care for 30+ years. and what about AIDS. maybe they should ban all acts that pass this disease on. like homosexual sex acts. and blood donation by high risk individuals. who wants to be the next target of the "i know whats best for you" police.

Not a political issue?? Tell that to the senators and reps from the Carolinas and their constituents. If not for them and the tobacco lobby smoking would have been banned out right long ago.

You of course realize a good number of smokers are or have been soldiers...we tend not to sit back and take it, we tend to stage revolutions.

Again not thinking, I am ex-military, ex-smoker, wised up, got a brain, stopped being a victim and took responsibility for my own health.

What makes you think I'm not willing to take up arms to defend my right to breathe smoke free air?

Wonderful for you. I've survived for sixty some odd years now, I'm happy with my life. F*ck with my happiness and bad things start happening.

I can also out fight, out run, and otherwise embarrass men a third of my age. Without once dropping my cigar.

Cigar smoker? Oh different issue! Smoke them all you want.

Pretty sure you are going to get more resistance from everyone else though. But that's probably better all things considered. I get to keep my baby holstered.

You know everyone says that. An Iranian Army Colonel once told me that the damn jihadists and the bloody communists would never seize power...that was in '77 if memory serves.

And revolutions have happened for less...whiskey comes to mind.

a

Every one starts smoking as a kid. Ever heard of a smoker that took it up at age 19 or older? Nope, only young idiots who can't comprehend the consequences of their decision choose to smoke. Then they're addicted so they continue as adults. Their own parents probably don't provide the cigarettes (at least not deliberately), but it happens anyway.

If smokers were law-abiding citizens in the first place, instead of juvenile smokers, we wouldn't even have a smoking population. Kind of ridiculous to argue about "rights" when you didn't even have a right to smoke when you started!

I started smoking at 17 when it was LEGAL to purchase tobacco products at 17 in my state. How can you possibly state that smokers are not law-abiding citizens? That is a generalization that should not be made just like I should not say that all people who drink are out committing DUI which is a crime.

If you have been to a dinner party, bar, restaurant and drove after consuming more than one 8oz beverage per hour you sir are NOT a law abiding citizen!!!

I don't drink alcohol at all so do I have the right to say that you can't drink because you "might" get into a car and kill someone? Nope. Yet alcoholism is a disease recognized as a "Disability" and people are out there driving drunk everyday taking chances with lives.

I won't buy any argument that alcohol doesn't kill or endanger either...every idiot who gets behind the wheel after drinking is taking the general public's life into their hands...I've lost 3 friends to accidents caused by drunk drivers and yet I have not seen anyone keel over dead because I was outside of a building having a cigarette.

Actually JLM most of my platoon took it up when they found out our drill sergeants offered smoke breaks. We were all over eighteen at the time, the average age was in fact 19.

Then you have med students who take it up to deal with the stress, hetic scheduels, and blood.

Numbers

you keep believing that. It is essential. Laws are decided and enacted by tiny minorities. ,Oh' wait' EVERY politician I voted for did just what I wanted,

don't be a fool. Fools can't solve.

I dont have to be a doctor to know I am ill. I don't have to know the exact solution to know that things are very wrong.

Numbers guy : made up by majority overthown by the courts and than given to minorites

JLM-268998

Every one starts smoking as a kid.

Ya, right EVERYONE....you know everyone don't ya...

Ever heard of a smoker that took it up at age 19 or older?

Yup.....

What a couple of misinformed statements to start out a diatrab with....

Laws are made by the majority? What a joke! Laws are made by politicians who are bought by corporations. If the government was so concerned about our health and well being, drinking any alcohol and driving would be illegal.

They tell me how addictive it is but they won't add it to the list for the Americans with Disabilities Act even though alcohol and yes, heroine are included.

Being under the influence of nicotine does not cause an immediate danger to yourself those around working around you unlike the other two examples you used. The ADA protects you once you start getting sick and suffer all the side effects of smoking though.

Also where did you get your number that over 20% of the population smokes? Compaired to the remaining 80% of non-smokers that does not make your stand into a majoirty of "the people" those cowardly politicans are not willing to protect. (Granted politicians no longer care about the people anyway, only what the lobbist give them)

If the place wants to allow smokers in their establishment then please give me a warning before I even open the door is all I ask. I for one and glad that I don't have to worry about my day being ruined by a smoker indoors. I don't enjoy or want the constant irritation to my nose, throat and lungs from your second hand smoke. Your welcome to smoke all you want outdoors. There I don't have an issue, I can walk around you, away from you, or get upwind.

Chris - The ADA is not about immediate danger, it's about "disabilities" and they have decided that addiction is a disability, just not if it's nicotine. And as far as I know (I could be wrong), lung cancer is not covered by the ADA. BTW, did you know that less than 30% of all smokers get lung cancer? Seems like that would be closer to 100% the way they go on and on about smoking being the cause.

As for the 20%, actually the last time I looked this up the number was 24% of the "population" smokes, that's out of 300+ million people. Again, remove almost all of the people under 18 from that 300 mil and your percentage of smokers among those who can legally smoke (i.e. adults) will be considerably higher. No, it's not a majority, but it's actually higher than a lot of other "groups" that people give special treatment for their benefit.

As for inside vs outside, the real argument is if I own a restaurant and i want to allow smoking, the government should not be allowed to ban this legal behavior/product from my business. If I'm willing to lose the business of those who don't want to be where smokers are, then that's my business risk, my financial choice. Agreeing to these bans only gives the government the power to ban anything they want from a business (remembering that illegal items are already banned). Wait until the day peanuts, whey, gluten, MSG, milk, cheese, butter, etc. are all banned because the government has decided that they are "harmful" to you.

Every one starts smoking as a kid. Ever heard of a smoker that took it up at age 19 or older? Nope, only young idiots who can't comprehend the consequences of their decision choose to smoke. Then they're addicted so they continue as adults. Their own parents probably don't provide the cigarettes (at least not deliberately), but it happens anyway.

If smokers were law-abiding citizens in the first place, instead of juvenile smokers, we wouldn't even have a smoking population. Kind of ridiculous to argue about "rights" when you didn't even have a right to smoke when you started!

I agree that Nicotine is an addictive substance, and should be treated as such. If it wasn't addictive there would not be such a big industry on helping people quit.

My Grandmother and Mother in Law both got their cancer in the bladder first. Both were tied directly to the chemical additives and nicotine from smoking. My Grandmother quit cold turkey that day and thankfully the treatments worked and it never spread. My Mother in Law however was not so foturnate. She never quit and she continued smoking up until the very end. I think they use Lung Cancer because of the tar in cigarettes is something you can see and they can show an immediate cause/effect relationship in a 30sec PSA on TV.

Peanuts are getting closed to be banned already in schools because the allergies children have to them now can be deadly just from inhaling peanut butter fumes. The rest I doubt they will ever ban because when you smoke you directly effect the health of everyone around you with the cloud of smoke you exhale, when you drink/eat dairy or breads you only have a direct effect your own body. (Unless you know you are lactose intolerant and the effect is not chemically laiden cancerous cloud - just someone being rude)

I would like to point out that banning peanuts in schools is a different situation from banning smoking in privately owned restaurants, if you're talking about government schools.

But as far as foods and food additives are concerned, the U.S. government already has a tool with which to ban those; the FDA. A restaurateur or food producer can affect the health of quite a bit more people than a smoker.

Ah....More states where I get cast aside like an animal because I smoke....I can get things like restaraunts, especially family oriented ones, but a bar? c'mon guys. For those of you arguing that we're forcing lung cancer or something God awful against you, just a bit of info: You have to sit in a smoke filled room for 12 hours for it to equal one cigarette. If you're going to a restaraunt every day, you're probably fat, or you work there. Even if you work there, I seriously doubt you work there for more than 12 hours.

Also, have you seen these new smokers areas they have at most airports now? It's literally, a glass box. if you're gonna make me smoke away from everyone else, do me the pleasure of giving me a privacy curtain so I don't have to look at the old people walking by and shaking their heads.

i have a real problem with alcohol and drug addiction being disabilities. get a grip on your self and dump the drugs. get a job. get a life.

Todd - will you be so happy when they ban peanuts from restaurants? Or how about gluten, or whey, or milk, how about deodorant and cologne? You think that's far fetched? Why? They're already banning all kinds of things in various cities and states and here you are supporting giving the government even more power to determine what perfectly legal substances can be present in private establishments. If I want to allow smoking in my establishment that is MY right and it should trump your so-called right to clean air. If I allow it I understand I may not be appealing to you as a customer and I am willing to do without your business, but that should be MY choice. I bought the place, I run it, I pay the bills. This is no different than if you don't like Chinese food you don't go to a Chinese restaurant, but you would have the government ban them from serving Chinese food so that you wouldn't have to smell someone's Moo Goo Gai Pan.

JJ, Good Point!

JJ- The problem is you don't want to placate the 20% of smokers against the 80% on non smokers. I have nothing against smokers, I have everything against me breathing in second hand smoke. I cannot take precautions against it as I could peanut allergies. Would you like me to go around misting you with mercury?

If the buisness was opened with a government loan then the city/state can have a say in how you run your business when it comes to smoking. Our tax dollars is what helped you get that loan.

If you opened the buisness on your own or through a private lender, then I agree you can cater to whatever type of customer you want. All I ask as a non-smoker is a clear a warning that you allow smoking in your establishment before I walk in the door.

Chris, All I ask is you let me know when you drive down my street so I don't have to breath your fumes.

Governments are charged with providing for the "safety and well being" of their citizens. California based their no smoking laws on employee safety. Most other states/localities passed smoking bans to protect all their citizens. The high taxes are to discourage the use of an addictive drug and help pay for health problems down the road. Although tobacco may be legal, it probably shouldn't be. We have much tighter control over other addictive substances and making tobacco illegal would be a logical next step. People complain about the cost of smoking now but it is cheap compared to something that you would have to buy on the black market

The government tells people how to run their businesses all the time; for instance, businesses are not allowed to ban people from their places of business because of their race. Many businesses require licenses to operate. Places over a certain size have to make accommodation for the disabled. Local zoning ordinances, environmental laws, and labor laws must be followed. The reason for all of these is that we have collectively decided it's a public good for all races and disabled people to be served, certain kinds of specialized industries to have licensing for health or safety reasons, and that it is not a good idea to allow sweatshops or environmental dumping. Given the known health risks of smoking to everyone in the vicinity of the smoker, it seems as if states are deciding this is an area where it will benefit them, in lower health care costs among other things, to regulate.

There is no serious national move afoot to ban butter, because if the person next to me consumes butter, my arteries don't suddenly clog up. So that's kind of a straw man. The slippery slope argument can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

Chris, a warning sign was apparently not good enough - maybe non-smokers don't read well, but the government felt it had to take that choice of "eat here or not" out of our hands. I don't go into the perfume or even candle stores at the mall, because I have allergies that could kill me (very quickly). I didn't even need a sign to warn me, I can smell them a mile away, but non-smokers can't make that choice on their own, therefore the smoking bans.

You are correct. This is about the right of the business owner. Hey, if you have a "bar" with a pool table, sports on the T.V. and the comraderie that goes with it, you should be allowed to make it smoking on non-smoking. Your clientel are grown adults (hopefully not children) who want to relax and enjoy. If they don't like the smoke, they do not have to come. If you hire someone, don't hire non-smokers! Come on people. We would not have been here if it were not for the raising and exporting of tobacco. Like it or not people, it is a very large part of our heritage. Is it good for you? No. But if an owner wants to allow it, that is his or her choice. Just post some signs and say on your employment application: SMOKERS ONLY. Hey, employers now have the right to say NON- Smokers only!!!

http://goo.gl/AR94O

I'm sorry, but...once you open a business, even if it is privately owned, and you allow ANYONE to come in without restrictions or a membership....then you have created a PUBLIC PLACE. As such, you should follow the laws set by the government. If you want to set your own rules, then make people apply for a membership to go there which waives their rights to clean air and a healthy lifestyle by making them acknowledge they are choosing to breath in the nasty smoky air. Sorry to tell ya, but even though one has the right to smoke....they dont have the right to pollute public air and harm the health of everyone around them. Go kill yourself in the privacy of your own home and stop trying to bring everyone else down with you. These law are not disciminating against smokers....SMOKING is a choice. It's not discrimination if you CHOOSE to do it.

Public places have nothing to do with this, the subject is about purely private places. Privately owned, the decision rests with the owner. If you don't like it, then you never have to go there.

There seems to be some confusion here about what constitutes private or public. Privately owned business that cater to the public are still public places. The only real exceptions anymore are membership only clubs and the like.

Most restaurant and bar owners I have discussed this issue with privately state that the smoking ban law makes their job easier. They don't have to be the bad guy and can blame the law, but they still get the smoking and the non-smoking public's business. Publicly they don't wish to alienate any segment of the public so they don't put it that way when discussing it with smokers or in general conversation in their business.

If smoking only establishments wished to exist (and automatically eliminate the non-smoking segment of society) and employ people who wished to work in that environment then that would be fine, problem is when these employees figure out how bad this really is (as you all will eventually) they would sue and use other various legal remedies for compensation.

I saw someone comment that only 20% of smokers get cancer. Who said it was cancer that was going to kill you?

Ever see all the ads for drugs to help people with COPD? How do you think people get COPD? According to health statistics I DID NOT MAKE UP, 80-90% of people with COPD got it from chronic smoking.

So- and nothing is for sure- just much higher risk- instead of dying in 3 months from lung cancer, you get a long slow 10 year death sucking for air on the teat of an oxygen tank.

And the only way you know for sure you aren't going to get any of the numerous diseases caused by smoking, is on your death bed when you die from something else.

Otherwise it is hanging over your head right up until the moment the lights go out.

Sweet dreams.

PS to all... Mr. Clean Air above rides a motorcycle, the single most polluting form of transportation there is. Can you say hypocrite?

Privately owned places mean that the final decision about the specific rules, such as smoking or not, are up to the owner. They are open to private individuals, NOT 'the public'. Were they public places, then the owner would A) not BE the owner and B) have no authority to kick someone out just for stumbling around drunk and breaking things.

Establishments exist that DO want to allow smoking, and the law is stripping them of their rights. Employees have no justification for suing the business that they CHOSE.

Wrong Ringo, a public place is a public place. You are confusing ownership with patronage.

Ann is just looking like a shrill shill for the tobacco industry. It's a shame she can't do any better than this.

A PUBLIC place is a public place, a PRIVATE place (the places being discussed) is not.

biker what a shame you don't have a platform to stand on and can only insult.

Oh my dear Ann, if I was trying to insult you I can do far better than this. Insulting for no apparent reason while simultaneously making no point whatsoever is your game, not mine.

A private place is your home, car, etc. A public place is anywhere that serves the public, privately owned or publicly owned. Again you are confusing public ownership with public patronage.

This has been an interesting 'back and forth' with both of you, and has provided substantial insight in to the type of mind that would continue to fight and defend the 'right' to smoke in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence of the negative health effects on ones self and those around them.

You may continue to post away and argue or insult further, I suppose there is no point in trying to convince you to choose a healthier choice for yourself.

This is America. Choose as you wish. I wish you both good health and long happy lives.

I wish you'd learn how to read. I don't even smoke cigarettes anymore. Had you bothered to read ANYTHING you lazy hypocrite you would have known that and not continued to make an arse out of yourself, post after post.

A private place is your home, car, etc. A public place is anywhere that serves the public, privately owned or publicly owned. Again you are confusing public ownership with public patronage.

Which only goes to show just how confused you are. Tell you what, walk into a nice restaurant while drunk and belligerent, and see how long you last. Or, if you'd rather, take a bunch of middle-schoolers on a tour of the bars downtown. Try renting a room at many hotels and motels as an 18 year old.

A privately owned business ISN'T open to the public, it is open to exactly the people that the owner chooses.

This has been an interesting 'back and forth' with both of you, and has provided substantial insight in to the type of mind that would continue to fight and defend the 'right' to smoke in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence of the negative health effects on ones self and those around them.

You have a right to sit on your ass all day, even though it is clearly bad for your health. You have a right to eat chili cheese fries for every meal, even though it is clearly bad for your health. If you aren't free to make decisions for no reason other than it isn't healthy for you, then you aren't free at all.

I suppose there is no point in trying to convince you to choose a healthier choice for yourself.

Which brings up the question of what YOU have been smoking, since I don't smoke anything.

Ringo, he's a motorbike riding jerk that just came on here to insult people. He had nothing of substance to say, in fact, he said the same thing over and over and over and then called others repetitive. What's worse, you just know that we're probably the only people that have spoken to him all week.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why smoker's can't have their own bars and non smokers have THEIR own bars and restaurants.

What about separate but equal don't non smokers approve of? It's not smoking, it's all about control.

You know why? Because they know the smoking bars would have much nicer people in them instead of the vinegar faces of people with imagined complaints. And they'd want to go there and feel the right to go there, but only if they can make the smoking go away. So there you are...full circle.

Funny, but I never heard any complaints about smoking back in the 60,s and 70,s, maybe even into the 80's. I'll tell you what it is. We live in a world full of candy's. Where the h#ll is your backbone America. Bunch of weasles. Can't think for yourselves, have to let the government do it for you. You listen to every bit of hype about everything. I'll decide what is best for me. And the rest of you can hang on to everything the media says. Smoking or non-smoking, the decision is mine.

Oh that's nothing. My Grandfather, a veteran of two wars, was yelled at in Wal-Mart the other day for having an unlit cigar in his mouth. The manager said it made other customers uncomforatable. When he refused to remove it, they escorted him out of the store...For an UNLIT cigar. It didn't even smell as it had not been lit yet.

Mike. What a jerk. Makes me not want to shop at Wal-Mart anymore. They should be shaking your Grandfathers hand for helping keep this country free. Tell him I said thank-you for serving our country.

For all you in favor of banning smokes, this is a good example of your will being imposed on others. Freakin commies.

Mike, your grandfather fought in WW1 and WW2? He must be like 120 years old!

Matt, did he say WWI and WW2? How about Korea and Vietnam? How about WW2 and Korea? How about Vietnam and Desert Storm? What did your history books stop at 1944?

Read Mike's post. He said veteran of two wars. Didn't specify which ones. If you are going to comment on a post, read it first.

Once again, this quote seems so appropriate....

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience

CS Lewis

You know, I don't care if you want to kill yourself by smoking - frankly, the faster you die off, the better.

But if I get sick - or I die from second hand smoke, or my children get sick or die, or my home or apartment burns down from a lazy smoker, then I ought to have the right to sue you so far and hard that by the time I get done there will be nothing left but a smoking (see what I did there?!) hole in the ground where you once stood.

And the argument about business being told what they can do is total and complete BS - it's just another health regulation, just like making sure that they keep food cold and mold free, etc. If you want them to un-ban smoking, then why not allow them to put glass in your food? Or rat feces? Or whatever else they want to save a buck?

Poison yourself all you want - you do NOT have the right to impose that upon anyone other than yourself.

Nobody is doing it to you. What are you talking about? It is not a health regulation. If that was so, they would ban alcohol. But then again, they did that already and look how well that turned out. There are not many people who smoke who deliberately blow it in other's faces.

You don't have to blow it in other people faces. It will just drift there on t's own in an enclosed space.

Please smoke more smokers. That way we can get rid of you faster.

And pick up my taxes please when we are gone the taxes must be paid so get your heathy checkbook out LIVE LONG AND PAY TAXES

To the second comment on this thread...I'd like to stress that it takes 12 hours of sitting in a smoke filled room to inhale enough smoke to equal one cigarette. Trust me, you aren't gonna get sick from inhaling cigarette smoke for a few seconds, or a few minutes, or even an hour.

All the advocacy to ban smoking everywhere, and not a word on chewing tobacco. Almost any doctor in the world would prefer you to smoke over dip or chewing tobacco. When you dip, you're putting a cancer causing substance on the most absorbent tissue in your body.

I quit smoking in 1999, after 40 years.

I apologize to all of those non-smokers who had to put up with my cigarette smoke in a restaurant, plane, office... for all of those years.

To all of those folks who still think it cool, or their right to smoke, go do it in your car with the windows up.

It's nice to see someone acknowledge this.

See, I don't care if someone wants to smoke - but I do care that I don't have to deal with it, nor should my children have to, or my home.

I don't care what anyone does in their private time so long as it doesn't affect anyone else who may or may not have a choice.

"Do what you will, so long as you harm none" has been my motto for years.

Then stop driving cause your emissions are killing me!

Shawn, I really don't have a response to your profoundly stated post. Let me think a bit and maybe I can come up with something.

It's okay Michael, I'm just having some fun here. Yes, I smoke but have always been considered of other people. I grew up outside of Baltimore in the 50's and 60's but now live in the country. You know what, cities are as nasty as you people claim cigarettes are and I can't stand the smell. Point: Everyone has a right to be who they want to be.

We are trying to stop the car emissions too. Ever hear of a catalytic converter?

To all of those folks who still think it cool, or their right to smoke, go do it in your car with the windows up.

But that would damage the car's interior. Their lungs are less important I guess.

Really Rory?

Of all of the terms I can think of that a person might use to describe Michael in SJ that is not one of them.

But to each his own I guess...

Smoker's don't care who they hurt.

I was an ex smoker myself, made every excuse known to man to keep my nasty habit. Until the day came when my only daughter and me being a single parent told me that she didn't want my lungs to get sick and die. THAT WAS MY WAKE UP CALL and I started to think what would become of her without me? I threw away the pack I had and never picked them back up since. That was 16 years ago.

My daughter saved my life.

We are ALL gonna die...

"We are ALL gonna die..."

Correction: We are BORN dying...

Martin Heidegger

I quit driving eleven years ago. How about some consideration? Most nonsmokers and most smokers don't have any issue to worry. You vocal non-nons trying to live forever coddled and safely imprisoned are the only difficulty. If yo don't smoke, good. If I do, good. If I make you smoke, bad. If you make me not smoke,bad. The obvious soution is accomodation. It seems to me that some few establishments would cater to smoking-food-drink people. Any others would not need to attend and no one is forced into employment. That wouldn't serve the parasites that feed upon our division. Laws cannot solve.

Kedbob7

Dude, lay off the weed... let some oxygen to your brain man.. it might just be enough to generate a small neuronic spark to get that baby sputtering again so you can make a complete sentence that makes somewhat sense.

Clean air? Where do you live??

I am guessing maybe Denton. Doesn't matter where Denton is or how clean the ambient air is: no one should be allowed to contribute to the pollution by smoking.

Then tell Mother Nature to stop those forest fires that are started by her!

Shawn,

Most likely the forest fires were caused by smokers flinging their cigarette butts out the window of their cars.

Smoker's don't care who they hurt.

Denton, Ever hear of lightning?

Really??? Does that cause fire???

Denton

yer bruising my karma man. There oughta be a law. Take your false superiority elsewhere. Who is harmed by the bicycle? Take your idiotic judgements on smokers and insert a few other groups and see how foolish you are. You have no right to value your detrimental effects above those of any others including smokers. You only do it for money.

What false superiority??

My RIGHT to breathe clean air over your CHOICE (pay attention... yes, I said choice not right) to smoke forcing others to inhale your second hand smoke??

You call this idiotic judgements?? Oh please enlighten me how so?

Can't we all just get along? <sniff>

Denton- the story about your daughter was heartfelt and many appreciated it. Smokers are generally not going to though. It is their right.

Cigarette butts can and do cause forest fires, but the majority are caused by something else. Lightning is number one, an errant match, a catalytic converter (there's some irony for ya), etc.

A person's right to breathe is pretty high on the list of rights, if a smoker can be allowed to smoke in a manner that has no impact on the air I breathe that is their choice. I wish for their sake they chose differently, but at the end of the day it is their choice to make.

Andrew, What about all those fumes from cars, buses and trucks? Is government your answer to that also?

Shawn, please re-read my response to your post at #17.2.

@shawn:

Yes, yes it is. I appreciate the modern smog features cars have that were mandated by government. But for the government, we would be driving behind cars spewing black smoke like was so common in the 70's.

It's also a bad comparison to cigarette smoke because we typically don't die from sucking auto fumes - although if we did we probably would. Sitting in rooms with smokers for hours exposes nonsmokers to significant amounts of smoke. We don't sit in closed rooms with people idling their automobiles, but if we did we would be physically harmed, maybe even dead on the spot.

The government is not trying to ban smoking...just banning it where it causes harm to innocent bystanders. Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me.

Andrew, Ever sat in traffic for hours? People die from auto fumes also. Here's a bit of info for you: Cars made in the 40's, 50's and 60's burned cleaner that they do now because they burned the fuel hotter. Don't believe me check it out.

I'm a car guy. I've seen the smog reports and the charts of "allowable pollution", and older cars are allowed more because they emit more. Older model cars with very few miles emit significantly more pollutants than newer model cars with hundreds of thousands of miles on them. I will look into it, but the idea that a car from the 40's burns cleaner than a car from 2010 with a catalytic converter and 2 dozen smog systems on the engine seems really far fetched.

Also: cigarettes cause 1 out of every 5 deaths in the country. Automobile exhaust or even "smog" in general, I'm sure, doesn't come close...if it's even possible to attribute deaths to smog at all.

Andrew, No one has ever done a study on emission deaths but I'm sure that all lung cancer is not caused by smoking alone.

Well there you go.

Do an econometric analysis of death rates among the population, including data on smokers and non smokers, in areas with high smog and areas with no smog, and in areas both before and after smoking bans are implemented.

I bet I know what you find. You find that smoking bans in public places decrease death from smoking-related diseases. Given that the value of a statistical life is around $6M (not to mention human suffering associated with death and disease), this country is much, much better off when smokers aren't allowed to pollute restaurant and bar air.

I know I'm better off for having a lowered risk of cardiopulmonary disease. I don't need a study to tell me that, but I would welcome that kind of study.

Andrew, I agree with the bans in public places. No one has ever done a study on smokers in the cities against smokers in the clean country air. Has to make you wonder.

I actually think that would be a good study because it may put some of these questions to rest. We could see just how much cigarette smoking affects health compared to other air pollutants, and we could quantify how effective public limitations on smoking are.

We agree!

ciggarette smoke causes 1 in 5 deaths in the US huh....

How many of those are caused by second hand smoke? Y'know? the one you're so worried about?

Rory, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about banning cigarette smoking in public places like restaurants and bars, which has been a huge success in CA.

At the very least, banning obese individuals from restaurants sounds pretty ridiculous. You can laugh all you want when "they try to pass good for you laws". Why you would laugh at me is a mystery, and why you would apparently assume I'm obese is a mystery too. If you aren't assuming that, you must be assuming that I am in some danger of being banned from something. That sounds a bit far fetched.

You should consider trying to figure out who is trying to pass these laws, and go laugh at them. That would be more productive.

Where were you 40 years ago when smoking was allowed indoors, Andrew? Weren't you whining ineffectually back then too? Why were the cancer rates lower then, when more people smoked, than they are now when less people are smoking?

Your logic, when read, does not compute.

Androloma: Because they're not! You just made that up. How silly. Cancer rates are not higher now than 40 years ago.

And what makes you think I was even alive 40 years ago? Strange post.

Given your premise, is whining "ineffectual" if it leads to action? Had I been alive 40 years ago to "whine" about smoking in public places, wouldn't that have been productive considering the outcome?

That's what I thought.

I'm a grandmother but I don't smoke around children, never have. It's true they breath more pollutants outside than what comes from a cigarette.

So, you're telling me that everytime I see a parent smoking in the car, windows up, with a toddler in the backseat(which sadly I see quite often) it's okay because that child is subjected to harmful pollutants in everyday breathing anyway?

Fortunately, my kids have not exhibited any health issues relating to my smoking in a closed car, a closed living room, or anywhere else.

Shawn simply needs to re-think his posts.

JAck, There are a lot of things out there that are damaging us everyday. We Boomers know because we grew up in the most pollution this country has seen. Then add to that all the pesticides we where exposed to. If tobacco damages the brain, after 40 years of smoking I'm still smarter than a 5th grader. LOL

Michael, if you are smoking around your children in a closed car, you are damaging their lungs. Seriously, please don't. The EPA says this can be extremely harmful, especially to children. Rationalizing this by saying, oh, they breathe all this stuff outside....why would you want to add nicotine, a toxin, to their overall burden of pollutants? It is hard to control outdoor pollutants, but controlling tobacco smoke inside is as easy as putting out that butt. Wait till you get home to feed your head.

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/insidestory.html#Intro1

Smoking in a car with kids is grounds for a punch in the jaw. What a selfish, stupid thing to do. Great parenting.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal in Colorado, smoking with chitlins in the car.

In my state it is illegal to smoke in a car with kids now.

DRK

Please read my post at #17.

Still legal to smoke in Colorado. And I'm rooting for Rory.

Oh, I'm sorry Michael, I didn't realize this was long ago. I'm glad your kids are OK. And I'm super glad you quit :)

I know this is kind of late but Sally who monitors your remarks? You just made a personal attack against me.

Um..Shawn, Jack is the one who said it, Sally was just pointing out why she suspended him.

LOL wow, maybe jack was right about shawn after all....

No, tobacco should not be banned. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition? All that would do is drive it underground.

You are absolutely right, DRK. Then the mob will become more powerful again like it did during prohibition.

All that would do is drive it underground.

While tobacco users are planted in the ground.

Prohibition already proved you ban something that is already established and you cause problems for everyone. So outright banning cigarettes will never happen no matter how much people may wish it to be true.

However, they should ban all the crap the cigarette companies add to their products to make them more addictive and so harmful to the immediate consumer and the people around them. They use cheap fillers like sawdust so you pay more for less actual tobacco used per cigarette. Fiberglass, Formadehyde, Cyanide, Phenol additional Nicotine and that is just to name a few of the non-food additives they put in their recipies. If the cigarette companies were not allowed to use additives and a cigarette was a 100% tobacco product I wonder how much it would reduce the amount of health problems doctors are treating later in a smoker's life.

not true the cost of Alcohol far out weights the cost of smoking Ive never been to a Funeral were they just lit up one cigarette and pow death But have been to Funerals were just had a few drinks and gone Or just went to buy some Dope gunned down Been to young friends funerals for guns alcohol drugs never for cigarette smoking

So right, on both posts. And thank you Chris for the info. Makes me really want to go light one up. Unfortunate for me and all smokers, you are telling the truth. But, if they did not add all the crap they do to cigarettes they wouldn't make near as much money off of them. Just another example of unethical business practice. And another example of what you can get away with if you grease the right palms in government.

Tobacco cannot be banned. Look at the great results which came from banning marijuana.

I say we ban people who call for bans.

Goozy - are you saying that the govenment should provide healthy meals for all citizens and eating anything that is not issued by the govenement should be considered a crime? Obviously you don't think individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions on lifestyles. Perhaps a North Korean style govenment would be preferable to one that was initally setup to protect individual liberties.

as I said before I'll smoke 20cigarettes to your 20 drinks let's see who gets Home Who would you rather have a disagreement with a person with? a person smoking a cigarette or a person with a few drinks ?

Goozy. Please don't go blaming McDonald's or any other fast food chain that give toys for making kids obese. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. When my kids were little they loved getting the toys and I saw nothing wrong with it and none of them were even remotely chubby. Parents have to take the blame on this one. And if they want to put a ban on smoking they better add drinking, bar hoping, scuba diving, alien chasing and just plain living, while they are at it.

Yes! A voice of reason.

They banned liquor during prohibition and look what happened.

Everytime the government gets heavy handed like this it creates a black market.

You cannot take away from the people if its something they want - they'll just find another way to have it.

sponge bob...true at face value...but that can be said for so many things in life. You realize for example that the second hand smoke "killing" estimate is 5 K per year. From household radon...22 K per year...should we say parents are "killing others" by being lazy ? How about cell phone users, should we say they are killing babies with their accident statistics ?

Truth is, the ban on public (the 5 K is for all second hand smoke) smoking might save some lives. but the reason people really support it...if you ask them very pointedly...is they don't like the smell, and smelly clothes.

As a 60 yo smoker I also hike, climb mountains, participate in marathons, etc etc....killing myself...really ?

PS, doctors and nurses kill 22 K per year with mis application of pharmaceuticals, and hospital errors may acount for as many as several hundred K more per year.

PS, my dad has lung cancer...never smoked, nor any smokers around him. I know two other non smokers who have had cancer...you best stay away from such casual observations.

PS...obsese people likely indirectly cause many thousand of deaths with the role models they set. Coffee drinkers take more breaks at work, as do runners and excercise advocates.

Plus since alcohol causes birth defects (according to the labels) women should be banned from bars. Also that is one example of a dangerous addictive legal drug that is legal (and coffee).

It has been shown the total health care cost of a healthy long lived person exceeds that of a some who dies of a disease (in spite of that short, high cost) at a younger age.

I doubt whether any "places" have smoking bans for health insurance reasons. Not being exposed to smoke in a building does not have any health insurance cost benefit unless the person never leaves that environment.

Rant over,

Only 30% of smokers ever actually get lung cancer. Once again we have someone who blames every single case of lung cancer on smoking and second or third hand smoke (neither of which has been proven to actually be harmful in a validated study). If the people who are inhaling the evil smoke directly only get lung cancer 30% of the time what is the real chance of someone who just gets the occasional inhalation of much less evil second hand smoke getting lung cancer from that? After all, you inhale far worse across the period of a day, especially if you live in a city, but heck, all those fumes from cars, buses, various exhaust fans from businesses, perfumes, solvents, cleaning solutions, preservatives, and the like, they don't cause any of these problems.

Spongebob,

Don't you realize that the girl you mentioned was condemned to death by her parents from birth? Not because they smoked, but because they were humans and the fate of ALL human beings is to die.

When we all stop smoking and lung cancer persists (which it will), what will we attack next? The air-borne pollution from power generation and all transportation? The chemical and drug industries? How about oil, plastics, mining, textiles, agriculture, etc? When we are naked in caves and still dying, whom will we blame?

At some point, we became a society that shifted its "norms" from the least common denominator (the one that represents the broadest portion) to the highest denominator (the thing its self). As a result, laws have become increasingly impositional, options more limited, and I would argue results less productive. The more we protect our society from ills, be they physical or moral, the more susceptable we become.

After watching my brother lay in bed, with stints in a wheelchair, for FOURTEEN years, I prefer to live my life on MY terms. Brother never smoked, drank, or chased women. But he did live in a world full of toxins and other people's germs. One of those germs destroyed his spine, paralyzing him. When do we mandate disease control? And where?

Great post, Bill!

Your comparison is flawed. Your comparing diabetes, and overweight people to a product that is designed to do one thing, and one thing only. Make you want more. It is a chemically addictive product. Chips are not, hamburgers are not.

Try aging.

Mr J....I disagree, his analogy is not flawed. Smoking is not banned in states because it is "addictive"...if you have any links that show addiction being the reason it is banned in public, please post.

The reason is the precieved health benefits (5000 K per year die from second hand smoke, per the cancer institute, I would say much less than that from second hand smoke in public places, since it is a subset of all second hand smoke). The real reason it is a smelly habit, and folks don't like their sweaters smelling like smoke :)

The indirect health impacts from super sizing fast foods (for example), the role models of obese individuals, and the couch potato role models parents give are likely to be the same as first

"they" say second hand smoke is as deadly as smoking...I say I sure made the right choice then. but it is a smelly dirty habit and smokers set themselves up for the ban by being inconsiderate.

Never said it was banned in states for being addictive, but it should be banned nation wide if anything. Thus your off point, but I'm game. So question, how does Fast Food eaten by one person effect another? I eat a hamburger, does grease oooze out and cause some one to slip and fall? Dont think so. If I light up a cig, I have to make sure I am not blowing into someones face, or close to them that may not like it. A further note, I am lighting up, because most likely I am feeling the urge, or the side effects of a chemically laced product. I eat a hamburger because...well gosh darn Im hungary! Comapring the two is like comparing apples to oranges. The two are totally two diffrent relms of debate, and thus the "Grasping for Straws Mentality" for smokers rights is nothing more than a fallacy. Lets not forget, Fact 1, a smoker caters to a industry that has lied, swindled, and decived the public from day one. Fact 2, The product itself is designed for one purpose and purpose only, to make you want more. Fact 3, Now we have learned that the second hand smoke is even worst. Not just for the smoker, but also their freinds and family. Fact 4 Smokers cater to the very polticians that will publically say out of one side of their mouth, (Dont Smoke, it's Bad), but then while they are smiling at you, their hand is behind their back collecting that nice fat tax. The very act of smoking a cig is in itself a sign of this countries inablity to make steps towards a better future, not just for the smoker themselves, but for their own families as well. In the end, as long as we have spin-less goverment suck-ups, will never see this problem solved.

Mr J,

The nanny state banned alcohol in the 1920's. How well did that work?

What most people fail to realize is that a big selling point on the repeal of prohibition was the Federal Excise Tax on distilled spirits, beers and wine. For much of US history, this was a major income source. It was so important in the early years that President George Washington, the largest distiller in the country at the time, directed the new Army to suppress the revolt against the tax, ie. The Whiskey Rebellion. Today, Indiana cigarette taxes are NOT directed to Medicare or Medicaid respiratory programs, but to fund CHILDRENS' health programs.

I want to know when we are going to tax and/or ban products with artificial scents or colors, also proven to be carcinigous in some cases, and dangerous to allergies and repiratory systems. Have you spent time NEAR a plastics plant, formulating or molding? How about a papermill? I don't believe they give their neighbors a choice either.