State Wide Smoking Ban Proposed

[sportsfan41]

THis is crap. Banning a legal activity? Welcome to the dictatorial states of America. What liberties will they take away next? Limits on how often we can eat fast food? How about China-style internet bans over material prohibited by the government? Does the ban of organized religion soon follow?

 

I don't smoke but this is ridiculous IMO. MSU is instituting a smoking ban and if I weren't graduating I would personally pick up smoking and smoke all over campus. Come on KY stick up for your rights, even if you don't smoke this is just going to lead to more bans, censorship and the prevention of rights.

 

They already took away my right to supersize my value meal.....:irked:

 

This is certainly a slippery slope, I'm not sure how any one wouldn't be concerned about having their rights taken away simply because it "for your well being", thanks government but I think I'm old enough to take care of myself and look out for my own best interests.

[CatsCatsCats]

I posted this in the other thread but thought it was applicable here.

 

Personally, I am a proponent of individual liberty. I generally think people should live and die by their own choices. On the other hand, liberty doesn’t mean doing anything you want. Liberty requires that you do not impede others’ efforts to do as they please as well. Beyond this, I’m willing to make exceptions to the general principle of liberty if the policy serves a reasonable or necessary purpose with as little intrusion as possible. This is the background from which I approach the debate over smoking bans.

 

First, smoking doesn’t just affect the smoker, but all of those around them. There is both a health risk and strong, irremovable smell that attaches itself to anyone nearby. So, a smoker isn’t just making a personal decision, but physically imposing themselves onto those around them. This would be entirely unacceptable in almost any other situation. Second, a smoking ban comes with a miniscule burden. Smokers are asked to step outside to smoke. That is, at most, a minor inconvenience. Establishments are insulated as well, as the ban affects all equally rather than forcing one or two to embark on their own bans by themselves where they would be more likely to suffer. Third, and related, people go to these places primarily to eat, drink, or socialize. No one goes to these places purely to smoke; they simply might in addition to those other things. Non-smokers, on the other hand, don’t get to choose whether to not-smoke, as it were, because the smokers choose for them. This is why it’s not particularly convincing for those to say people have the “choice” to go where there isn’t smoking. They do, technically, but it’s a secondary aspect. If I want to go to the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and where most of my friends are, then I’m going to go the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, where most of my friends are and possibly suffering the smoke, not one with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and no-smoking. Conversely, a smoker, especially in an area that has banned smoking, doesn’t have to make this sacrifice or calculation, as they can smoke anywhere already.

 

With all of that said, I find little reason to oppose a smoking ban. I think it corrects something that the market simply can’t, for reasons I identified, and it comes with minimal burden. Perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Isn't it illegal to smoke outside in alot of places? That's more of what I'm talking about. I do believe that one should be allowed to smoke in a bar, sports bar, resturaunts where there is enough seating so that there can be an actual non-smoking area, etc.

[UKMustangFan]

I posted this in the other thread but thought it was applicable here.

 

Personally, I am a proponent of individual liberty. I generally think people should live and die by their own choices. On the other hand, liberty doesn’t mean doing anything you want. Liberty requires that you do not impede others’ efforts to do as they please as well. Beyond this, I’m willing to make exceptions to the general principle of liberty if the policy serves a reasonable or necessary purpose with as little intrusion as possible. This is the background from which I approach the debate over smoking bans.

 

First, smoking doesn’t just affect the smoker, but all of those around them. There is both a health risk and strong, irremovable smell that attaches itself to anyone nearby. So, a smoker isn’t just making a personal decision, but physically imposing themselves onto those around them. This would be entirely unacceptable in almost any other situation. Second, a smoking ban comes with a miniscule burden. Smokers are asked to step outside to smoke. That is, at most, a minor inconvenience. Establishments are insulated as well, as the ban affects all equally rather than forcing one or two to embark on their own bans by themselves where they would be more likely to suffer. Third, and related, people go to these places primarily to eat, drink, or socialize. No one goes to these places purely to smoke; they simply might in addition to those other things. Non-smokers, on the other hand, don’t get to choose whether to not-smoke, as it were, because the smokers choose for them. This is why it’s not particularly convincing for those to say people have the “choice” to go where there isn’t smoking. They do, technically, but it’s a secondary aspect. If I want to go to the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and where most of my friends are, then I’m going to go the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, where most of my friends are and possibly suffering the smoke, not one with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and no-smoking. Conversely, a smoker, especially in an area that has banned smoking, doesn’t have to make this sacrifice or calculation, as they can smoke anywhere already.

 

With all of that said, I find little reason to oppose a smoking ban. I think it corrects something that the market simply can’t, for reasons I identified, and it comes with minimal burden. Perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Ace is complaining about people smoking outside of establishments though. Where does the ban end? Should we bring prohibition back too? I mean drinking causes harm to not only oneself, but others as well.

[Plato]

There are several other ways people can get their fix. Put in a dip or a chew. The spit is gross but it doesn't float over to the space I choose to be in.

When your decision has a direct affect on me, your right to make that decision demishes in my opinion.

[Plato]

There are several other ways people can get their fix. Put in a dip or a chew. The spit is gross but it doesn't float over to the space I choose to be in.

When your decision has a direct affect on me, your right to make that decision demishes in my opinion.

[Run To State]

Because these days everyone wants it their way (Thanks Burger King) and that goes for the smokers as well.

I agree, everyone wants it their way. That's why the only sensible thing to do is to leave it up to the owner of the establishment. I can't think of anything more American than that.

[UKMustangFan]

There are several other ways people can get their fix. Put in a dip or a chew. The spit is gross but it doesn't float over to the space I choose to be in.

When your decision has a direct affect on me, your right to make that decision demishes in my opinion.

 

But you're wanting your decision to not smoke affect them. Why is your right better or more important than theirs?

[Run To State]

That's the whole point Ace. This holier than thou act you're putting on about how your rights are more important than theirs is the problem.

 

You have the right to not breath in smoke. He has the right to smoke anywhere he choses.

 

I hate being in smokey environments. I hate breathing in smoke, and I loathe having my clothes smell like smoke. So you know what I do? I use my right to choose. I decide to not go to bars, restaurants, etc., that allow people to smoke. If I do go to a place that allows smoking, it's on me if my clothes stink or if I breath in smoke. I made the decision to be in that environment.

 

You'd very easily be able to do the same, but then again, I guess sitting there complaining is the easier thing to do.

Crazy concept, huh?

[Run To State]

I posted this in the other thread but thought it was applicable here.

 

Personally, I am a proponent of individual liberty. I generally think people should live and die by their own choices. On the other hand, liberty doesn’t mean doing anything you want. Liberty requires that you do not impede others’ efforts to do as they please as well. Beyond this, I’m willing to make exceptions to the general principle of liberty if the policy serves a reasonable or necessary purpose with as little intrusion as possible. This is the background from which I approach the debate over smoking bans.

 

First, smoking doesn’t just affect the smoker, but all of those around them. There is both a health risk and strong, irremovable smell that attaches itself to anyone nearby. So, a smoker isn’t just making a personal decision, but physically imposing themselves onto those around them. This would be entirely unacceptable in almost any other situation. Second, a smoking ban comes with a miniscule burden. Smokers are asked to step outside to smoke. That is, at most, a minor inconvenience. Establishments are insulated as well, as the ban affects all equally rather than forcing one or two to embark on their own bans by themselves where they would be more likely to suffer. Third, and related, people go to these places primarily to eat, drink, or socialize. No one goes to these places purely to smoke; they simply might in addition to those other things. Non-smokers, on the other hand, don’t get to choose whether to not-smoke, as it were, because the smokers choose for them. This is why it’s not particularly convincing for those to say people have the “choice” to go where there isn’t smoking. They do, technically, but it’s a secondary aspect. If I want to go to the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and where most of my friends are, then I’m going to go the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, where most of my friends are and possibly suffering the smoke, not one with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and no-smoking. Conversely, a smoker, especially in an area that has banned smoking, doesn’t have to make this sacrifice or calculation, as they can smoke anywhere already.

 

With all of that said, I find little reason to oppose a smoking ban. I think it corrects something that the market simply can’t, for reasons I identified, and it comes with minimal burden. Perfectly reasonable to me.

As I already pointed out to you, it should be up to the individual owner of the establishment, not smokers or non-smokers. The fact that people like you don't like smoke is and should only be relevant in the decision of the proprietor since they know their clientele, it should not be controlled by government.

[CatsCatsCats]

There are several other ways people can get their fix. Put in a dip or a chew. The spit is gross but it doesn't float over to the space I choose to be in.

When your decision has a direct affect on me, your right to make that decision demishes in my opinion.

 

Aren't alot of places going tobacco free though? THat prevents the dip or chew as well.

[acemona]

i am not complaining, I am responding to a thread. Why should you be forced to go to someplace that is your second choice just so someone can participate in a habit that they don't HAVE to do? I am not holier than thou, I am saying the "rights" door in this situation swings both ways.

[acemona]

This was a current example that is why I used it. And we can do it all day, I agree but people are always complaining about smokers rights, smoke has a negative effect on the non-smoker. What is easier to do, pick a third option place to eat or not smoke. I think the one that is 'put out' less is the smoker. Simply get it done before going in, or after you leave. Don't smoke for the hour you are in a restaurant so EVERYONE has the choice to enjoy the atmosphere with the fear of an asthma attack.

[Walter]

I didn't take the time to read every post in this thread, but add me to the group of folks who hate smoking and being around it.

 

I won't go to a bar in NKY because the majority of them allow smoking and I hate coming home smelling like an ash tray.

 

I enjoy playing pool but won't go to Billiard Hutch off 25 anymore because the last time I went, it was so smokey I couldn't even breathe.

[UKMustangFan]

This was a current example that is why I used it. And we can do it all day, I agree but people are always complaining about smokers rights, smoke has a negative effect on the non-smoker. What is easier to do, pick a third option place to eat or not smoke. I think the one that is 'put out' less is the smoker. Simply get it done before going in, or after you leave. Don't smoke for the hour you are in a restaurant so EVERYONE has the choice to enjoy the atmosphere with the fear of an asthma attack.

 

I assume you're saying not smoking is the easier, which leads me to believe you don't understand the powers of the smoking addiction. For many smokers, and it's sad, but true, not smoking for an hour or so is a heck of a lot more difficult than it is for you or I to go to a different establishment. JMO.

[acemona]

What if there are no establishments in my community that are smoke free . . . I am then left without a choice.

 

I still don't see how someone's right to smoke trumps another person's right to breathe. That seems pretty simple to me.