Alcohol destroys people's lives and can result in death. Smoking, too, can result in death.

And 2nd hand alcohol is much more deadly than 2nd hand smoke. Innocent families being ravaged by drunk drivers.

BTW, I'm not a smoker.

My point is, the government, at the urging of special interest groups, has come down hard on the tobacco industry. Maybe rightly so, maybe not.

But the alcohol industry doesn't have to worry about it. And the problems its products inflict on people's lives are just as grave and deadly.

The Knight Time Wrote: OR, smokers can sit home if they're that desperate to smoke.

Exactly, and who's decision should it be to make a restaurant smoke-free or smoke-friendly? Answer: The business owner. Do I have a right to dictate what legal acts you can do in your own home? If I'm a contractor, coming into your home to hook up your cable, should I tell you to stop smoking?

As for point two,

Quote:People shouldn't be driven away from a restaurant because they're worried about their health due to the influx of cancerous smoke in the air, PERIOD.

Again with the "innuendo" that you have a right to go to someone's restaurant. Wrong.

Quote:A restaurant is there to serve food, not be a personal smokehouse for people who choose to smoke.

On the contrary, the restaurant is there for whatever reason the owner wants it to be.

Quote:Finally, nobody has any right to impose danger upon another person's health.  When someone sits in close proximity to smokers, that's exactly what's happening.

I think you are confusing something here. You are assuming that you have a right to dine in a restaurant, yet the owner doesn't have a right to decide who he wishes to cater to.


You guys that are for this are heading down a VERY dangerous path. You are essentially saying that it should be against the law because you don't agree with it. I can remember at one point in time white rednecks not wanting black people to drink out of water fountains that they drank from. Our laws are based on the Constitution, not your feelings.

i can honestly say that smoke has never been a problem for me at any establishment. where do you people go, when it comes to having dinner with your families?

Quote:Finally, nobody has any right to impose danger upon another person's health.  When someone sits in close proximity to smokers, that's exactly what's happening.

When you sit behind the steering wheel of a vehicle on any street in America, you are imposing danger upon another person's health. Maybe automobiles should be outlawed.

The Knight Time Wrote:Finally, nobody has any right to impose danger upon another person's health. When someone sits in close proximity to smokers, that's exactly what's happening.

As best I understand it, the science on this is actually very weak. That said, when I'm around smokers, it's almost as if someone pumped a fistful of dirt directly into my lungs and sinuses. Even though I benefit from such bans and tend to be contemptuous of smokers on a personal level, I believe it is wrong in principle.

I just wish that if restauranteurs feel it is in their interest to allow smoking in their establishments that they would invest more in air purification. But, how many of us have expressed that to a restaurant owner and/or manager? Sadly, not me...

moloch_322 Wrote:The last time an entire nation passed a law like this, over 50 million people died by either combat or extermination - Hitler absolutely loathed tobacco and alcohol and sought to purify his master race from them.

Outside of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law' target='_blank'>Goodwin's Law</a>, how on earth is this relevant? There are only 24 posts in this thread ... you're way ahead of schedule.

Motown Bronco Posted: Jun 25 2005 Wrote:[soapbox] On a side note, I just don't get the draw of smoking. Yes, it has that nicotine "kick". But the trade-off is bad breath, stained teeth, stanky clothes, and a home and car that perpetually reeks from stale smoke (and I'm not even considering the health effects here). When I get back from a bar, I can't imagine my entire house continuously smelling like my jeans. Not to mention it's a pretty expensive habit. I mean, how many 'poor' people supposedly short on cash smoke in this country? [/soapbox]

It is an expensive habit primarily because of government regulation through sin taxes. I'm mostly surprised that there isn't a larger black market in cigarettes.

As an objective comparison, given a choice of being around someone who hadn't bathed in 3-4 days versus someone who was smoking, I am generally less offended by the former than the latter. Smoke causes a clear physical allergic reaction with me. I can stomach bad smells much better.

I45Owl Wrote:

moloch_322 Wrote:The last time an entire nation passed a law like this, over 50 million people died by either combat or extermination - Hitler absolutely loathed tobacco and alcohol and sought to purify his master race from them.

Outside of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law' target='_blank'>Goodwin's Law</a>, how on earth is this relevant? There are only 24 posts in this thread ... you're way ahead of schedule.

Just trying to end a discussion of which nobody will ever agree on.

I'm simply just stating that the last time there was an extensive and rather successful anti-smoking propaganda movement by a government was during the height of the Third Reich. Not twisting any debate, just presenting a fact. Hitler's anti-smoking campaign brought tons of money to the Nazi war chest through high taxation and greater control of people and businesses within Germany. Maybe I came off the wrong way by mentioning "50 million died in combat or extermination", but their anti-smoking campaign - as well as the many other societal issues - are often overlooked in an era centered (and taught) around the war and the holocaust.

And with that I will not talk about the Nazis anymore in this thread. Nevertheless, we don't need more big government, but less intervention to legal businesses and individuals. The intentions of this law may be good, but ultimately it invades the privacy of business owners and citizens. We are given the freedom to choose and if you don't like something you can make a choice to go elsewhere - its the simplest and most effective way to disapprove! I don't know about you guys but I like my freedom and don't want to be told what I can do especially in my business or home!

moloch_322 Wrote:Just trying to end a discussion of which nobody will ever agree on.&nbsp;

Nope. That would be <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#Other_laws_and_corollaries' target='_blank'>Quirk's Exception</a>:

<!--QuoteBegin--Quirk's exception+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Quirk's exception)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual. [/quote]

Quote:Maybe I came off the wrong way by mentioning

Quote:The last time an entire nation passed a law like this, over 50 million people died by either combat or extermination

yathink? Hyperbole aside, you're wrong on facts (<a href='http://www.answers.com/topic/smoking-ban' target='_blank'>England, Ireland, New Zealand, Sweeden, Italy, Australia, Iran, Montenegro, Malta, Norway, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda</a>). But there is certainly a large body of "sin taxes" (War on Drugs, anyone?) and other civil law that has been duplicated world-wide without any real implications regarding more important civil liberties (slave labor, eugenics, genocide, extermination, and the like).

Quote:but their anti-smoking campaign - as well as the many other societal issues - are often overlooked in an era centered (and taught) around the war and the holocaust.

Let's see: Krystalnacht, Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Homosexuals, Trains ran on time, Can't smoke in restaurants, ... Yep, I think I missed that one. While history may not forget about the Nazi smoking ban, I think it's unlike to ever percolate to the top of the list.

<a href='http://193.78.190.200/smokersclub/klass2.htm' target='_blank'>Hitler's Anti- Smoking Campaign</a>
<a href='http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html' target='_blank'>Hitler's Anti Tobacco Campaign</a>
<a href='http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450' target='_blank'>The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45 </a>

Me thinks you're a little short-sighted on history.

moloch_322 Wrote:<a href='http://193.78.190.200/smokersclub/klass2.htm' target='_blank'>Hitler's Anti- Smoking Campaign</a>
<a href='http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html' target='_blank'>Hitler's Anti Tobacco Campaign</a>
<a href='http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450' target='_blank'>The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45 </a>

Me thinks you're a little short-sighted on history.

Wow, that sure is a slippery slope. Let me see if I can summarize....

1. A leader helps implement a policy to get cancer causing carcinogens away from pregnant women, young ladies, people under 18, and the workplace.

2. This leader was Adolf Hitler.

3. Adolf Hitler was the most evil man of all time.

4. Everything Hitler did was terrible.

5. Because Adolf Hitler did #1, it too must be a terrible policy.

6. If we implement this policy, we will also implement all of the other actions of Adolf Hitler.

7. Unless you want to start WW III and kill millions of Jews, we should never ban smoking in public places.

Is that about right?

As you stated, "Me thinks you are a little short sighted on logic." :stupid:

moloch_322 Wrote:And with that I will not talk about the Nazis anymore in this thread. Nevertheless, we don't need more big government, but less intervention to legal businesses and individuals. The intentions of this law may be good, but ultimately it invades the privacy of business owners and citizens. We are given the freedom to choose and if you don't like something you can make a choice to go elsewhere - its the simplest and most effective way to disapprove! I don't know about you guys but I like my freedom and don't want to be told what I can do especially in my business or home!

I, too, am for limiting "Big Government", but the reason we do have any governement is to protect its citizens. Your arguement about if you don't like it, go elsewhere doesn't really make sense. Let me list some other activities that have laws associated with them and see if they should be repealed as well.

1. Speeding. Let's repeal this law. If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the road.

2. Church services in public school. If you don't like my sermon, go to another class or school.

3. Murder. If you don't like the possibility of getting killed, get your own gun and shoot me first.

4. Sex in the streets. If you don't like watching me fornicate, close your eyes.

Need more? Let me know.

All of these activities have laws associated with them for a reason. The reason, without a law a citizen may not take the best interest of the communtiy as a whole into consideration, but the best interest of the individual. (If you need links associating second-hand smoke with cancer let me know. I figured it was pretty common knowledge at this point.)

blah Wrote:If you need links associating second-hand smoke with cancer let me know. I figured it was pretty common knowledge at this point.)

i could use them. i thought that whole thing was still being debated?

blah Wrote:1.&nbsp; Speeding.&nbsp; Let's repeal this law.&nbsp; If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the road.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that roads were paid for by tax dollars. You are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be a race track.

...as for your other comparisons, the previous statement is also applicable. It's a private business. How sad that you are siding with this unconservative stance.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

blah Wrote:If you need links associating second-hand smoke with cancer let me know.&nbsp; I figured it was pretty common knowledge at this point.)

i could use them. i thought that whole thing was still being debated?

<a href='http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html' target='_blank'>Canadian Cancer Society</a>

<a href='http://www.pregnets.org/mothers/secondhand.cfm' target='_blank'>Pregnets</a>

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2053840.stm' target='_blank'>BBC News</a>

<a href='http://www.drdecker.net/second%20hand%20smoke.htm' target='_blank'>Dr. Decker</a>

and just so that I am presenting both sides here is the only link I saw saying that there is no association. It doesn't look quite as reputable as the others, but you be the judge.

<a href='http://www.smokingaloud.com/ets.html' target='_blank'>Smoking Aloud</a>

for argument's sake, i'll agree with you and say 2nd hand smoke causes cancer. what does that have to do w/ restaurants allowing smoking? wouldn't it take a lot more 2nd hand smoke than that to give someone cancer? you'd have to be in said restaurant every day for many hours/day, right?

If all bars and restaurants in the COUNTRY decided in unison to ban smoking outright, I wouldn't be in this argument. However, this is, as hard as it may seem, a private business......as hard as that concept is for some of you.

moloch_322 Wrote:Me thinks you're a little short-sighted on history.

It is hardly surprising that a totalitarian regime would impinge on civil liberties. Nor is it surprising that the Nazis would want to deny a potential enemy of a revenue stream (:wave: Ayatollahs).

The corrollary - that impinging on smokers rights is a harbinger of totalitarianism is very weak, and the evidence suggests otherwise. While I ask you to note that I disagree in principle with the bans, they are coming at a time of perhaps the greatest economic and civil liberties in world history (aside from Iran, etc., the list I posted could include parts of the United States and Canada, and includes some of the "free-est" societies in history).

I guess it's time to ask what your point is, rather than inferring bizarre implications (as your stated goal was to bring the topic to a close).

RebelKev Wrote:

blah Wrote:1.&nbsp; Speeding.&nbsp; Let's repeal this law.&nbsp; If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the road.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that roads were paid for by tax dollars. You are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be a race track.

...as for your other comparisons, the previous statement is also applicable. It's a private business. How sad that you are siding with this unconservative stance.

Ok, if you want regulations based on private business, how about Strip Clubs. Each State/City has its own special rules reguarding that form of business. i.e. some states/cities it is no alcohol if the dancer is totally nude and alcohol is ok if the dancer is only topless. In Washington DC the "strippers" are forced to wear pasties. Obvously these are private businesses that are put under a blanket of laws to protect its citizens and/or regulate the industry.

Need another example in the restuarant industry? How about health inspections/FDA requirements. Do you really think any restaurant would abide by all of the rules of HACCP or the local health inspectors if there were not rules driving this behavior?

How about a hair salon? Even if I own the facility, I need to hire certified hair stylists that are licensed. It's a law. I can't just have Joe Schmo cut hair because he works cheap, even if my clientel is happy with the way Joe cuts hair.


Kev, you know I am about as conservative as you can get, and I am not a big fan of taking people's freedoms away, but when the act impacts someone else, you have to look at it. (i.e. I think you can figure out my stance on abortion.)

Cajunman02 Wrote:Also, both of my parents have been smokers for over 25 years (don't worry, my mom quit when she was pregnant with my sister and myself). I have never complained about having to sit in the smoker's section at a restaurant. I don't find it at all discomforting to be around them when they smoke. It just doesn't bother me.

Since when are laws personalized?

"Hey that gang just attacked a little old lady, not me. Doesn't bother me, why have a law against battery?"

Quote:I just think this law discriminates against a person's right to smoke.

Just like those pesky traffic laws discriminate against a person's "right" to drive. Hell, driving is legal in all 50 states...why shouldn't I be able to drive where I please? (with a few exceptions).

RebelKev Wrote:If all bars and restaurants in the COUNTRY decided in unison to ban smoking outright, I wouldn't be in this argument. However, this is, as hard as it may seem, a private business......as hard as that concept is for some of you.

I understand this. BUT, if you are a private establishment and ban smoking on your own, you will likely get grief about this.

I lived in an apartment and asked why they couldn't have the smokers in specified buildings, instead of randomly throughout the complex. The response was: we could get sued for discrimination.

Ironically, Montgomery County, Md (where this apt was) now has laws against smoking, and they've considered extending this to apts.

And BTW, the restaurants report no drop in sales. They remained flat.

This is not a commentary on whether smoking is "disgusting". The fact is, that smoke spreads through the air. Your right to smoke stops when someone else unwillingly breathes it in.