As bad as the air quality is in our area, what with the chemicals from plants and the diesel fumes and coal dust from railroads, you would believe that the filters on cigarettes are prolonging lives!

 

If you don't like it just move to the arctic or somewhere where the air is cleaner. Right??

I don't know. I don't really think any unnecessary dangers should be allowed at a place of work.

 

That would eliminate about 80% of the worlds jobs.

If you don't like it just move to the arctic or somewhere where the air is cleaner. Right??

 

True! I hear that they are in desperate need of worker's at the North Pole.

That would eliminate about 80% of the worlds jobs.

 

How so. I am the safety champion at my work site. We do everything in our power to make sure our workplace is safe. Note the word unneccesary.

Wow, I create a thread, go to my son's game and come back and its got 64 posts. I am well aware of my right to not frequent these places and that was my point. I do not frequent them because of this. My point was, when will some or all of them go smoke free so I can actually enjoy my time and money spent.

 

I personally dont have anything against people that smoke. I know I have the right to walk away or leave. The fact that NKY is being inundated with all the Southern OH folks who are crossing the river because Cincinnati is smoke free is what is irritating.

Actualy, it's really not that simple at all. Wish that it was.

 

All businesses, given the option, will try to cater to widest audiance possible. That's just good business. But sometimes, one small group's preferences directly impact another group. What the law does is level the field. It allows a business to do the right thing without the need to worry about being placed at a disadvantage to it's competition

 

I am glad that our city council down here, is too naive to really hurt the businesses with our ban. Basically if you get cited (only one per 24 hours), the first offense is $50, the second $100, the third and on $150. I know of a bunch of places that still allow smoking and have "tip" jars up to help pay the fine, IF they get fined. Another pub in the east end simply charges you $2 for the right to smoke inside. I say kudos to those places.

And the people that work there?

 

Most of which smoke, or aren't really bothered by it, as I bartended for about 7-8 years and it didn't bother hardly anybody that I worked with.

I am glad that our city council down here, is too naive to really hurt the businesses with our ban. Basically if you get cited (only one per 24 hours), the first offense is $50, the second $100, the third and on $150. I know of a bunch of places that still allow smoking and have "tip" jars up to help pay the fine, IF they get fined. Another pub in the east end simply charges you $2 for the right to smoke inside. I say kudos to those places.

Hopefully, the city will wise up and put some real teeth in the law.

 

A funny thing just happened. I was sitting here wishing I could think of an approriate quote to support what I was trying to say. A show about the founding of America is playing on my TV behind me. Suddenly, I heard this quote, and it made my ears perk up.

 

"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint."

 

-- Alexander Hamilton

 

The Lord will provide!

Hopefully, the city will wise up and put some real teeth in the law.

I would've thought they would. Simply because it can be moderately ignored right now. Either way, it just got re-written this past Thursday, so it will be at least a year until it is re-visited.

This whole thing probably belongs in P/R. Here's my question. As laws go, isn't it usually illegal to cause harm to someone else? It has been proven that second hand smoke is harmful correct?

 

Smoking harms if you go near smoke. You can choose to stay away from smoke.

 

It's more on principle. Do you want the government to tell someone if they can smoke or not? Because using your logic, since smoking is harmful, then it should be made illegal.

It's more on principle. Do you want the government to tell someone if they can smoke or not? Because using your logic, since smoking is harmful, then it should be made illegal.

It has nothing to do with preventing people from smoking at all.

Smoking harms if you go near smoke. You can choose to stay away from smoke.

 

It's more on principle. Do you want the government to tell someone if they can smoke or not? Because using your logic, since smoking is harmful, then it should be made illegal.

 

Basically I'm just stating one side of this debate. Personally it doesn't bother me. The smoking bans are coming. So really its moot.

I have a rather mixed opinion on the issue. I generally object to government intervention in private affairs. I don’t like being told what to do, especially by the government. If you don’t like smoking when you go out, go to non-smoking places, or don’t complain about going to places where smoking is allowed. No one forces you to do that. On the other hand, smoking produces the rare effect of causing me physical anguish due to someone else’s personal decision. If someone wants to eat a steak and baked potato drowned in butter, that doesn’t physically affect me. If someone lights up next to me, I have no choice but to inhale it. I feel that is an encroachment on my liberty, to some extent. We are also a country governed by laws. If someone chooses to open a business, they must conform to a wide variety of regulations and standards. Not only that, but they are responsible for their actions once open. If you feel that a smoking ban is too intrusive into your business, then don’t open one or close it down. I believe that capitalism works both ways; people may refuse to patronize a business, and a business may refuse to open itself to people. If a law is too constrictive, then the people and the government will surely feel the wrath of its constraint.

 

I also personally feel that laws and regulations should be administered in the least intrusive way possible. A law against smoking in public places could be enacted so that those who choose to smoke may do so directly outside of the establishment. It is not terribly difficult to go outside to smoke. Personally, I don’t like breathing the smoke, and I hate reeking of smoke after going to an establishment where smoking is allowed, even for a brief period. I also hate being told what to do and being forced to conform to the desires of other people simply because they demand special treatment. I guess I’m right in the middle. Either way, you won’t see me joining hands across America to make a point about this issue.