New smoking ban

[craigwatanabe]

Re: New smoking ban

Your twisting my words. Age, gender and race can't be changed. Religion is guaranteed by the Constitution. Smoking is a choice - and is not guaranteed.



In concentrations found in a typical lunch room? At a "altitude" of a typical nose?

Gender can be changed...just ask that transexual paddler that had his birth certificate changed from male to female. I couldn't understand how in the world that could happen. How can you change what sex you were born as? But apparently the State of Hawaii allowed that to happen.

And Alohakine for the third time...there is no constitutional right to smoke!!! So no civil liberties are being abused here.

But you say you're gonna smoke anyway so get arrested and make that attempt to prove your point in a court of law. If you win then hats off to ya and I'll be the first to congratulate and apologize to you.

But the law is the law and right or wrong, if you don't follow it you'll be in another situation you really didn't need to be in. You can be in my face all you want with my vices, but the difference is my vices are legal and not habit forming. I won't get arrested or charged for drinking a cup of Benzine laced coffee. I'll be even so bold as to drink a cup in front of an officer while offering to buy him one too. I'll bet good money he won't arrest me. But try blowing a puff of cigarette smoke in his face while offering him a drag and see if he doesn't write you up riight there.

That's the difference between drinking coffee and smoking a cig. When they make drinking coffee against the law I'll just drink where it is legal. No big deal. My life or ability to function isn't hampered that dramatically as to thwart the law for a vice.

If that's the case for you then you really need to consider yourself addicted to smoking and should seek help. You may not care whether you live to a ripe old age but I'm sure those who love and care about you do. Think about them when you consider your life as a short fuse. You die and you leave your loved ones in misery and they would be saying it was a needless death if he only quit earlier.

Life is short so have fun, is a great way to live for now, but life goes on long after you're gone, not your's but the lives of those who did care about you and have to go on living with that memory of you and how they could've saved your life but didn't try hard enough to persuade you to quit.

You can think of this law as an attempt to help those who can't help themselves...or a hinderance. Either way it's the law. You have the freedom to speak out against it but not the freedom to disobey it. It's your choice.

[glossyp]

You have the freedom to speak out against it but not the freedom to disobey it.

Of course he has the freedom to disobey the law - it's called civil disobedience. Certainly, there are legal consequences, but the freedom exists.

A 40-year study published in the British Medical Journal reached this conclusion:

What is already known on this topic

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is generally believed to increase the risk of coronary heart disease and lung cancer among never smokers by about 25%

This increased risk, based primarily on meta-analysis, is still controversial due to methodological problems

What this study adds

In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure

These findings suggest that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed

Active cigarette smoking was confirmed as a strong, dose related risk factor for coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The study ran from 1959-1998 and was conducted by UCLA. It is disregarded by some as it was funded in part by the tobacco industry just like people disregard global warming science because it's funded by environmental action groups - oh wait, that doesn't happen does it? Link to UCLA study.
The study only addresses the medical impact of secondhand smoke and not the social impact.

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

And Alohakine for the third time...there is no constitutional right to smoke!!! So no civil liberties are being abused here.

Freedom of expression, smoking is a form of expression - 1st amendment. It comes down to your side of this political issue. There was a time that it was accepted that black slaves did't have a right to liberty. Times have changed for the better now on that issue.

[1stwahine]

Re: New smoking ban

Will It Go Round In Circles

I've got a song I ain't got no melody
How'm I gonna sing it with my friends
I've got a song I ain't got no melody
How'm I gonna sing it with my friends
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
I've got a lil' story ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while....

No frixken way!

No Smoke ~ Live Longer!

Smoke ~ DIE...No Cry!

Auntie Lynn

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

This new ban will have a large negitive impact on the bars and night club's bottom line. The backers of this law say it will not because if they say any thing else , the businesses will revolt against the law which will cause the law to fail or bars to be exempted. They are about to find out that the antis lied to them. Standing in the street or parking lot 10 times a night during the rainy season does not make for happy smoking customers - when customers are not happy, they don't come. Where the law in other places gave smokers special enclosed areas or nice patio areas, the effect on business was much less. This is not that kind of law. Smokers are left without opitions.

[damontucker]

Re: New smoking ban

This new ban will have a large negitive impact on the bars and night club's bottom line...

who knows... the bar's and night club's might bank off of this....
Charge a re-admission fee of $1.00 or give a "Smokers wristband" for an extra $3.00 at the door... then set up something outside near the door where smokers can still smoke...while others are still waiting in line.

They could set up a "Drink Rack" like a shoe rack at a house where you could put your drinks that you were holding in as you leave to have your smoke...(of course these would be small lockers that you have to drop a quarter into...to protect your drink...etc.) thus more profit to the bars... *UPDATE* of course this area would be 20 feet from the entrance.

[1stwahine]

Re: New smoking ban

This new ban will have a large negitive impact on the bars and night club's bottom line.

The only Negative Impact it will create is having Big Cry Babies like you whining over it! How ridiculous!

Auntie Lynn

[WindwardOahuRN]

Re: New smoking ban

.

Freedom of expression, smoking is a form of expression - 1st amendment. It comes down to your side of this political issue. There was a time that it was accepted that black slaves did't have a right to liberty. Times have changed for the better now on that issue.

I believe the First Amendment had something to do with freedom of speech, originally.

It's interpretation was expanded to include freedom of "expression"---broadly meaning artistic expression. Just what are you "expressing" when you exercise this supposed "freedom"?

Unless you are blowing extremely artistic aesthetically pleasing smoke rings, your spewing of carcinogen-laden fumes in the direction of another is probably not protected under First Amendment guidelines.

You could challenge the no-smoking regulations in court, you know. That's one of your rights.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: New smoking ban

Freedom of expression, smoking is a form of expression - 1st amendment.

Try it. Sue and use that in your court argument. I dare you.

I predict your case will be laughed out of court.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: New smoking ban

Of course he has the freedom to disobey the law - it's called civil disobedience. Certainly, there are legal consequences, but the freedom exists.

No he doesn't because freedom means to be able to do things without consequence. He will lose that freedom once convicted of that crime.

[brianca]

Re: New smoking ban

And Alohakine for the third time...there is no constitutional right to smoke!!!

True, but is there a constitutional right to be able to eat in any restaurant you want without facing anything you find objectionable or even somewhat dangerous?

I'm personally all for a business owner making the establishment smoke free. I certainly dislike it myself and can't understand why people still start smoking, but that's another issue.

What I don't like is seeing the government overstep their bounds, IMO by passing legislation requiring a stance on this issue.

It's a fine line though. I'm a very free market kind of guy who thinks that people should be allowed to run their business the way they choose with very little regulation I can certainly see how someone would come down on the other side. I guess if the government is going to err here, it's best to err on the side of protecting citizens. I'd just rather see them not err.

[dick]

Re: New smoking ban

I don't think "the right to smoke" arguement is what's going to do it. I don't care whether people who own bars and clubs choose to ban smoking.

My problem is when a legal activity (smoking) is prohibited in private establishments. That's what gets me. And may be the crux for getting rid of this silly ban. I can understand truly public places - airports, the stadium, whatever -- those places are funded by everyone's tax dollars, smokers and non-smokers. But a private bar is just that - a place owned by a private individual. It should be up to him/her to decide what happens there.

I still say that bars/clubs should become "tobacco retailers" to get around the ban. I wonder what the requirements are for a business to call itself a "tobacco retailer," and I wonder if it's possible to sell alcohol in such an establishment. If so, there's the solution to the problem -- a problem that shouldn't exist.

If bars that allow smoking will make such a windfall when non-smokers suddenly come out of the woodwork to frequent these newly non-smoking places, doesn't anyone think bars and clubs would have done this by now? Seems like it would make good business sense, right?

[brianca]

Re: New smoking ban

A couple of places I've lived have been dry counties (no alcohol sold), but private clubs were able to serve alcohol. Almost all of the restaurants were able to create simple, free membership cards and call themselves private clubs. Whenever you ordered a drink, they'd ask if you were a club member, and if not they'd give you a free card and serve you.

I'd think something like that would work here as well with smoking. Just call yourself a members only private club, and give out free memberships.

[damontucker]

Re: New smoking ban

My problem is when a legal activity (smoking) is prohibited in private establishments. That's what gets me. And may be the crux for getting rid of this silly ban.

I'm thinking some bar owner is going to really profit somehow...someway.

I just wish I was him!

Even though I'm quitting... I feel there should be some places that smokers who wish to come together and have a drink and a bite should be able to have that place... it might cost them a bit more to get in the door... but, guarantee...someone, somewhere is going to be banking off this.

[dick]

Re: New smoking ban

I was thinking about that "private club" thing as well. When I was in Salt Lake City, I was a "member" of several "private clubs." If memory serves, in order for it to be a "private club" they actually had to charge a fee. So it was something nominal like $2 a year or something. If anyone had a hard time with alcohol, they just would avoid those "clubs."

Hmmm... avoiding going into places you don't like? Sounds easy to me. I'm still not clear on why anti-smokers feel they have a "right" to enter a private establishment. Places can refuse service to anyone... maybe they should refuse service to anti-smokers... "You don't like smoke? Hmmm... sorry, but you're going to have to leave..."