blog.noetech.com

A state-wide ban would eliminate the "giving what clients wants" factor -- this argument might hold up in the current-day situation, where a town that has banned smoking borders a town that hasn't, and the clients shun businesses in the first town for the second. This new ban would create an even playing field.

And, why should people who don't smoke have to stay away from public establishments? I personally don't avoid bars because of my health: I do it to avoid smelling like an ashtray when I get home.

In a workplace, such as a resturant or a bar, are you saying that someone should have to deal with working while you blow smoke in their face? Maybe we should just make it that all smokers need to become waiters and waitresses and bartenders. Sure. There's nothing wrong with that...

I've never been convinced on the whole "second-hand smoke" thing. There are people who smoke for 50 years and die by getting hit by a bus; there are people who smoke for 5 years and get cancer. I think that it's more of a combination of things. However, a paper by a law professor exposing the "lie" doesn't quite sell me that there is no connection, either.

The point of the paper is not to prove it doesn't, but rather to show that no one can say that it does.

A state-wide ban may even the playing field, but it still removes the rights of the owners. Removing everyone's rights isn't any better than removing a few people's (well maybe a little). It also won't make them lose less money. People will avoid bars, or go for less time. Instead they will spend more time at home, drinking with friends.

People who don't smoke don't have to stay away, they can if they don't like it though. Just like I avoid places that have atmospheres I don't like. That is the way commerce is supposed to work. That is the normal practice. It is not the an owners responsibility to make every person love their place, nor is it the government's job.

As far as working in a restaurant or bar, too bad, it's the environment you choose to work in. If you don't like it, find a job that suits you better.

Now to add something I meant to say in the first place. If a state wants to pass a law requiring a bad-ass amazing ventilation system where smoking is permitted, great. I encourage that. I'm all about making people more comfortable, but not at the expense of property owner's rights.

"If a state wants to pass a law requiring a bad-ass amazing ventilation system where smoking is permitted, great. I encourage that. I'm all about making people more comfortable, but not at the expense of property owner's rights."

Wouldn't something like that BE at the expense of the property owner, though? I imagine a "bad-ass amazing ventilation system" would be quite pricey, too.

Of course it would, but it doesn't cost them their rights. They still have the right to allow smoking it just cost them money. Just like a liqueur license does or a patio license.

Making something cost money is not the same as removing the right all together. Like I said, it's a *compromise* that I support.

i do not agree with under age smoking,drugs,sex.i dont see why people have childeren at a young as after the baby is born they don't have a life as such because they leave there baby with somebody else if they wanted to look after sombody else's child they would have there own

i do not agree with under age smoking,drugs,sex.i dont see why people have childeren at a young as after the baby is born they don't have a life as such because they leave there baby with somebody else if they wanted to look after sombody else's child they would have there own

You know that people die because of smoking in bars my grandma was knocked out and gave ciggarettes to little kids it cool now ok!

Look i know that your rights are important to you and ours are too. Im a smoker and enjoy going to a place where i can smoke. Why do we have to give up being comfortable for you to be? I'm not saying that you have to avoid the places where we are. Also you only smell like an ashtray if you are with someone who smokes or you yourself do!!!!
Why should we get our rights taken away,and made to feel like freaks put on display,when we have to go to a certain place to be able to smoke!That even includes outside and we've done it to respect our fellow non-smokers. All we get is griping and groaning from all yall anyway.Now after what ive just seen from yall fuck it im not being nice anymore. Im sick of being put in the back seat just because i do some thing that some people dont!!!!!

hey i need some help please help me by tomarrow thanks so much ok how does smokeing help people???(cigs) it's a class project thanks you so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hey i need some help please help me by tomarrow thanks so much ok how does smokeing help people???(cigs) it's a class project thanks you so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whether you want to admit it or not, second hand smoke causes cancer. You can find anyone to create a biased study that says otherwise. I should not have to risk getting cancer so you can be comfortable, nobody is saying that you can't smoke, you just have to walk ten feet and take in some fresh air while doing so. Why should I have to deal with having my hair, clothes and body smell because some smoker wanted to "fit in" with the crowd when they were a teenager, instead of using their personality like the rest of us. People that oppose smoking bans remind me of southerners opposing the removal of Jim Crow laws during the 1960's. What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.

You should be fucking ashamed to compare your cause to the struggles of the black community. It's fucking disgusting.

Did you read anything I said? I'm not forcing you to be around anything. Eat somewhere where they don't allow people to smoke. That's the fucking point, to let the market decided. We do live in a capitalist country right?

A researcher from the Cato institute and a federal judge are not "anyone". If you had read the comments you would have known that my point is NOT that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, rather that no one has proved it.

The small amounts that one inhales while briefly around a smoker will not kill anyone. For almost all cancer causing agents, brief exposure is not an issue, rather it's a lifetimes worth that kills you. Smokers die, not people in restaurants.

But I digress, the point is that it is a legal product, and it should be allowed on private property. If a bar or restaurant owner wants to ban smoking that his right, and it will happen if there is a demand for it.

Oh, and your last line:

what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right

applies more to my argument than to yours. Smoking is not "popular" and my stand is most certainly not either.

Your use of profanity illustrates your narrow minded thinking and lack of intelligence. If the tobacco companies are going to creatively glorify smoking and pathetically denounce it in commercials, then the users of the product are the ones that are going to have to teach children not to start. They are going to teach children by showing them what dregs they will become later on in life which might prevent them from ever starting.

You think that your one cigarette does no harm to anyone, but when you multiply one cigarette by 20 patrons suddenly one becomes a pack. How many times have you been to a bar and only had one cigarette? So if 20 patrons all have 5 cigarette, suddenly there are five packs in the air. Does that seem like a minimal amount?

You are trying to exclude a group of people from doing something they have the right to do, ("stay out of a bar if you don't like smoke") so it does not infringe upon your enjoyment. Maybe us non-smokers should just be happy with our seat in the back of the bus.

Any way you look at it, second hand smoke is harmful and people should not be subjected to it anywhere in public if they chose. And you say that they can’t prove that second hand smoke causes cancer, but they can’t prove that anabolic steroids causes cancer either, so would you like to ask Lyle Alzado if he agrees? You can go outside and smoke, we cannot go outside and drink or eat our dinner in fresh non-toxic air.

As far as the "what is popular" statement I made, why don't you travel outside of your nicotine stained bubble to a New York City bar and tell me how popular that law is with bar and restaurant owners and smoking patrons.

And know this, when non-smokers see you outside a bar hovering under a tarp choking down a cancer stick, we get a nice chuckle at the spectacle that you, "daddy didn't hug me, I want to be James Dean, please be my friend attention seeking" outcasts have become.

My use of profanity shows my anger at your outlandish comparison. I'm disgusted by your comparison to a movement that fought to give equal rights to a whole race of people. Non-smokers are not being turned away from fountains or restaurants, nor are they being lynched. They are certainly not being forced to sit "in the back of the bus."

Non-smokers have a choice. They can choose not to patronize a private space if they allow smoking. That is what makes America America. Freedom to make choices and a market that responds to those choices.

Your one cigarette multiplied by patrons comment is inaccurate. The smoke coming off the cigarette is mixing with the air in the space. At worst it's a 1 to 9 mixture, at worst. This is nothing compared to what a smoker intakes, and still the majority of smokers don't get cancer.

I am in no way trying to exclude a group of people from doing anything. You on the other hand are. You are trying to stop a private property owner from allowing legal activity on his property. Private property rights are a big part of our constitution. Restricting what people can allow on their property (as long as normally it is legal activity) is a huge violation of those rights.

As far as the "what is popular" statement I made, why don't you travel outside of your nicotine stained bubble to a New York City bar and tell me how popular that law is with bar and restaurant owners and smoking patrons.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Just because my view is popular in one small group of people doesn't make it popular. The law most likely would not have been passed if it was unpopular, don't you think?

If you want to continue the conversation please refrain from personal attacks. You know nothing about me. Also refrain from making huge generalizations about whole groups of people. Oh, and I know way more non-smokers than I do smokers. I don't travel in a "nicotine stained bubble".

Smoking seems to be on the decline. As stated previously, you know way more non-smokers than smokers. Doesn't this make a point of, why should many suffer for the actions of a few? When I go out, whether it be bars, night clubs, or even resturants, I feel like smokers are the minority. Doesn't this take away the rights of the non-smokers to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere?

I can entirely see the point on why establishments should be able to set their own standards on what is allowed on their private property. I believe they are more willing to continue an environment that allows smokers because they are less likely to lose as much business that way. Even if you choose not to believe it, second hand smoke causes health problems, not to mention overall discomfort.

You mention that smoking is legal, but why don't we allow our children to buy cigarettes? Why should we subject our children to a smoke filled environment at a resturant? They never chose to smoke. Please don't make that decision for me or the youth.

Thomas, from what I have read it seems to be that you believe the government is out to get you. There wouldn't be such a movement to try to decrease the smoking establishments if it wasn't bad for you and the your fellow patrons. The government is trying to protect the rights of everyone, but which is more invasive of personal rights? Discouraging you from smoking in areas with non-smokers, or taking away clean air? I don't think it's too much to ask of you to step outside for a couple minutes if you want to enjoy a cigarette.

I don't think the government is out to get me. I just think they are over stepping thier bounds. I believe firmly that the constitution is setup in a way that puts private rights above public saftey.

This to me includes smoking. And I don't know how many diferent ways I can say this. No one is forcing you to be around cigarette smoke. Go to a resturant that doesn't allow it. It's that simple. Let the free market decide. That's what capitalism is all about after all.

goob for you

I THINK WHEN YOU ARE ABLE TO WORK AND EARN YOUR OWN MONEY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY YOUR OWN CIGARETTES. I AM 17 YEARS OLD AND I SMOKE HALF A PACK OR MORE A DAY. I WORK AND BUY MY OWN CIGARRETES. I LIVE IN HARRISONBURG, VA AND AM PROUD I SMOKE. I ENJOY SMOKING NEWPORTS!!!!!!!!!! FUCK YOUALL CLOWN WHO THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTROLL US YOUTH. REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOUR OLD AND GRAY AND IN A NURSING HOME AND I AM TAKING CARE OF YOUR CRIPPLED ASS. ILL BEAT YOU AND BLOW MY SMOKE IN YOUR FACE BECAUSE IT IS MY CHOICE

CHOICE FREE AMERICA

I was recently tested and told I have the health of a thiry year old. I am nearly fifty. I smoked 4 packs of camels a day for many years then quit for 15. I smoke cigars now and a lot of people who have PHD's in tobacco from CNN and newspapers tell me I will die and that it stinks. Thank god for deoderant. How putrid and terrible of a life humans had to suffer before the time of modern day chemicals that kill bad smells. I have some that kill smoke smells. Cigarettes and machine made cigars have over 500 chemical additives that are not considered in the cancer issue. Its to important to our economy to look at that possibility. Everyone knows that tobacco is all the same. Just because Winston Churchill, George Burns, Milton Burl and other celebs smoked tons of natural leaf cigars,lived to be old and didn't get cancer doesn't mean anything. My Doctor says they were super human. Too bad John Wayne wasn't as he got lung cancer from cigarettes. By the way, who knows the exact day I will die and what will be the cause? Hope everybody doesn't get to bugged about what others are doing. Isn't that how genocide starts. Intolerance of others.

i actually have a question not a comment ....but anyway a couple of my friends and i were wondering when the legal smoking age law came into effect??? mm/dd/yy??

well.....actually i do have a comment.... i am 17 years old and i smoke a pack a day....i know theyre bad for me ....but ya only live once and you might as well do what ya want while you're here..... we have freedom in america....and if us smokers wanna smoke .... it shouldnt bother anyone else....its a decision that everyone has control over...kinda like shopping for clothes....you buy what YOU want to wear not what everyone else wants you to wear....most people smoke b/c they want to and ill be damned if id quit smoking for someone else...i do what i want and all the nonsmokers just need to keep to themselves b/c everyone has a flaw..and smoking just happens to not be yours...but you have one and no one is judging you...so if you dont smoke.. it shouldnt bother you that other people do ,its their bodies not yours
thanks for everyones time

I have a question. I have a friend whose son is a cashier. Is it agains the law to sell cigarette lighters to minors - under 18 ?? The store has no policy on that - cigarettes, yes, of course, but not lighters. We were just wondering.
Thank you,
Bonnie