And you didn't answer my question as to why I see so many cigarette butts all over the place that are thrown carelessly on the ground by smokers! They don't seem to care about anything but their smoking and it's because they are addicted to it. They need it, they have to have it, they carve that cigarette, and they can't live without it for too long! Strange to me for someone to allow something like a tiny cigarette to control someones life!

 

I have seen the same thing with fast food trash,beer cans and other litter.I think it's bad to litter period...and it is against the law.Im not sure what this has to do with second dand smoke...

Oh but they do.......

 

Just the other night my wife and I were sitting in a non smoking restaurant enjoying our dinner when the distinctive smell of cigarettes entered the area we were eating in and lo and behold it was a family and the father smelled to high heaven of stale cigarettes. The man left the dinner table on two different occasions to go outside and smoke leaving his wife and kids alone. Sort a felt sorry for the man because to be addicated to something so strongly causing you to leave your family twice during a hour and a half dinner really is sad.

 

BTW can any of you smokers please tell me why you and your kind find it necessary to throw out your car window your cigarette butts? Do you honestly think the world is your personal ash tray? Just look at any red light at a exit off the expressway and all you see are cigarettes butts everywhere. Honestly most of the litter now days isn't from the McDonald's of the world or pop cans as like in the past but cigarette butts. I guess it goes with the mentality of those who smoke...........

 

Really surprised with the stone casting here.

I actually don't agree with it being put on ballot, in this case. Again, for me it's simply about individual right to decide how they will run their privately owned business. It is not be me or anyone else to decide.

 

I seriously doubt that it would pass if put before the public.

I seriously doubt that it would pass if put before the public.

 

Don't count on it. I didn't think it would either.

Don't count on it. I didn't think it would either.

Doubt if it ever comes to a public vote here.

No the point was a smoker can go into a non smoking restaurant and still go outside to smoke, while those who have a hard time medically dealing with cigarette smoke, can't go into a smoking establishment.

And as I stated, I felt sorry for the man to be so addicted to something so badly, that he had to leave his wife and kids.

The point is that the owner of the establishment should be able to decide weather or not he wants to allow smoking in his estblishment.

 

 

And you didn't answer my question as to why I see so many cigarette butts all over the place that are thrown carelessly on the ground by smokers! They don't seem to care about anything but their smoking and it's because they are addicted to it. They need it, they have to have it, they carve that cigarette, and they can't live without it for too long! Strange to me for someone to allow something like a tiny cigarette to control someones life!

Toatally and completely irrelivent to the issue.

Oh but they do.......

 

Just the other night my wife and I were sitting in a non smoking restaurant enjoying our dinner when the distinctive smell of cigarettes entered the area we were eating in and lo and behold it was a family and the father smelled to high heaven of stale cigarettes. The man left the dinner table on two different occasions to go outside and smoke leaving his wife and kids alone. Sort a felt sorry for the man because to be addicated to something so strongly causing you to leave your family twice during a hour and a half dinner really is sad.

 

BTW can any of you smokers please tell me why you and your kind find it necessary to throw out your car window your cigarette butts? Do you honestly think the world is your personal ash tray? Just look at any red light at a exit off the expressway and all you see are cigarettes butts everywhere. Honestly most of the litter now days isn't from the McDonald's of the world or pop cans as like in the past but cigarette butts. I guess it goes with the mentality of those who smoke...........

 

Can't agree with the bolded. We pick up trash in our rural county twice a year for a fundraising (get paid $50 per mile) and the trash we see is mostly soft drink and beer containers as well as fast food bags/food containers.

That would be to American for some to stomach...

I would be all for a statewide vote...Most non smokers I know are against the Government being involved in this ban...

 

MOst non smokers I know think this is a great idea.

The point is that the owner of the establishment should be able to decide weather or not he wants to allow smoking in his estblishment.

 

 

.

Actually it is not what you posed above.

 

Since we as a society says that when a private owner INVITES the public onto their property as customers, we as a society have the right to demand certain safety and health issues be followed. Look at OSHA, plumbing/heating/electric regulations.

 

The question is does smoking fit into the umbrella of health and safety issues that the government can mandate laws on it like they do with the questiion of "Where does the businesses sewage run to when it goes out of the building?"

Actually it is not what you posed above.

 

Since we as a society says that when a private owner INVITES the public onto their property as customers, we as a society have the right to demand certain safety and health issues be followed. Look at OSHA, plumbing/heating/electric regulations.

 

The question is does smoking fit into the umbrella of health and safety issues that the government can mandate laws on it like they do with the questiion of "Where does the businesses sewage run to when it goes out of the building?"

 

1. Building, sewage, heating, electric are regulations irregardless. They are regulations of any building including your home, and no matter how many time people want to make this arguement it is still not relevent.

 

2. The INVITES comment is such a huge stretch. So you're telling me if I invite you into my home, I can't allow people to smoke in my home? You can demand it of me, because I invited you? The business isn't inviting you, it's offering you a service. A service that they should be doing to the best of their ability to satisfy as many people as possible to maximize their investment.

 

3. You make your demands known in the private sector with your money and your support. You have a right to support the business or not support the business that is the right you have.

So those in favor of this ban, you're also in favor of them putting a ban on the use of peanuts or peanut oil in all public establishments/restuarants?

1. Building, sewage, heating, electric are regulations irregardless. They are regulations of any building including your home, and no matter how many time people want to make this arguement it is still not relevent.

 

2. The INVITES comment is such a huge stretch. So you're telling me if I invite you into my home, I can't allow people to smoke in my home? You can demand it of me, because I invited you? The business isn't inviting you, it's offering you a service. A service that they should be doing to the best of their ability to satisfy as many people as possible to maximize their investment.

 

3. You make your demands known in the private sector with your money and your support. You have a right to support the business or not support the business that is the right you have.

1. Farmer's get a waiver in this state. My plumbing had to be inspected by the plumbing inspector. If I would have had a larger farm, it would not have.

 

2. You didn't fully quote me, I said, "INVITES the public onto their property as customers." Notice the AS CUSTOMERS.

 

3. And when those demands are not listen to and society fills that the silence is for an issue that is a civil issue (not serving minorities because of skin color) or health/safety issue (smoking) than the government steps in. That is what is being determined now. IS IT a big enough issue to warrant the government stepping in. We are saying YES, you are saying NO.

So those in favor of this ban, you're also in favor of them putting a ban on the use of peanuts or peanut oil in all public establishments/restuarants?

 

Different issue as the peanuts may very well be part of the recipe for the food that is being eaten in the restaurant.

 

Hopefully, smoking is not part of many of the FOOD recipes being served.

1. Farmer's get a waiver in this state. My plumbing had to be inspected by the plumbing inspector. If I would have had a larger farm, it would not have.

 

2. You didn't fully quote me, I said, "INVITES the public onto their property as customers." Notice the AS CUSTOMERS.

 

3. And when those demands are not listen to and society fills that the silence is for an issue that is a civil issue (not serving minorities because of skin color) or health/safety issue (smoking) than the government steps in. That is what is being determined now. IS IT a big enough issue to warrant the government stepping in. We are saying YES, you are saying NO.

 

What an incredibly liberal statement. When you can't get your way turn to the government and force your beliefs on someone else. Because we know your rights are more important than the other person's.

 

Once again. I don't smoke and I don't like smoking. But I understand the importance of private property, and this foot in the door liberal attack is just that, an attack on the private property of someone else.

 

Something that you would normally be 100% against.

 

But since you seem to have a personal agenda on this one you're switching teams.

What an incredibly liberal statement. When you can't get your way turn to the government and force your beliefs on someone else. Because we know your rights are more important than the other person's.

 

Once again. I don't smoke and I don't like smoking. But I understand the importance of private property, and this foot in the door liberal attack is just that, an attack on the private property of someone else.

 

Something that you would normally be 100% against.

 

But since you seem to have a personal agenda on this one you're switching teams.

 

Your statement is what is so disappointing. No one should be so dogmatic about everything. LBBC is not a libertarian. He/She is someone who looks at an issue and decides on that issue alone, not some ideological stance that says every issue should be decided the same way. AND more importantly, there are no teams - it is not about winning and losing, it is about this issue. LBBC, I believe also wants the government to step in and keep women from having abortions, so LBBC is not on a team, LBBC makes decisions on issues. That is the way it always should be.