Designated Smoking Areas

And I look forward to the day drugs are decriminalized. :-)

I'll gladly trade weed for cigarettes. People who smoke weed are generally more relaxed and less confrontational than littering loitering cigarette smokers.

People smoking cigarettes can’t get arrested for OWI, people smoking weed can.

My point was only that none of this stuff (cigars, weed, heroin, whatever) should be illegal, in response to PyroKinesis09's post about banning cigars nationwide. I'm not even in favor of laws banning the use of any of these things in businesses (a position I have not always held).

Being around people in public has greatly improved after states prohibited smoking in public areas.

Few things in the past two decades have improved my quality of life more than the bans on smoking in bars, restaurants, and public places. I would NEVER go to bars prior to the smoking ban, now I go all the time (unintendend consequence of drinking too much results, but oh well). Same goes for places like bowling alleys. I go much more frequently now, and take my kids too. Don't even get me started on "non-smoking sections" in restaurants. That was awful! Kudos to Disney for making this move, but I can see why they did it. Very little to lose.

I hate the smoking areas at Cedar Point, mostly because people don't follow the rules. I like SF's zero tolerance policy, and wish CP would enact the same.

What irks me more than anything is the smokers get the coolest chairs in all of the park, those nice white rockers. Why can't I sit on a nice white rocker in a non-smoking area?

Why be mad at the smokers for the chairs? I'm pretty sure the park put them there, so instead of complaining here about it, email the park about it. You say you hate the smoking areas because people don't follow the rules, but if people are smoking in the smoking section, they aren't breaking the rules are they? I'm a smoker as by now you probably guessed, but I'm respectful with it and limit my smoking to designated areas only.

I too enjoy the results of the smoking ban. But I don't enjoy the government telling private businesses how to run their establishments. The only tricky part of the issue for me is the health/safety of the employees. But the declining rate of smoking would have led to non-smoking establishments eventually, without Big Brother intervening.

DRE420, I'm not mad at the smokers because they have the nice chairs. How did you ever infer that from my post? And I can't be upset about people smoking in the smoking section, either. It's the ones who smoke walking down the midway or in line for a ride.

You really didn't read my post very carefully.

^To be fair, you did say that the thing that irked you more than anything was the chairs. It's easy to infer that when you say it directly.

In response to djDaemon's opinion that he doesn't "enjoy the government" telling private businesses how to run their business," I share my opinion that I support governments telling businesses what they can and cannot do when such mandates lead to improvements in my quality of life. For instance, I approve of governments prohibiting businesses from dumping waste in public easements, in the rivers, or in the lakes. And, I approve of governments telling restaurants, bars, (and bowling alleys) that they cannot allow smoking. For, all such mandates have increased my quality of life.

It is utterly nonsensical to compare smoking inside a private business to a business causing external/environmental damage.

The only scenario in which a business' smoking policy would have any effect on your "quality of life" would be if you were to choose to patronize that establishment. In which case YOU are having an effect on your "quality of life."

MaverickLaunch said:
I hate the smoking areas at Cedar Point, mostly because people don't follow the rules.

How aren't we following the rules when we are indeed in a smoking section is my question.

Pfft... next thing you know, you people will be telling me to get a measels vaccination.

<disengage sarcasm>

Sorry, I was referring to those who smoke outside designated areas, just like I said about down the midways and waiting in line. You're trying to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not, which I know is standard fare for Pointbuzz.

I'm a free market guy about 99% of the time. But I don't think the smoking ban was a government overstep at all. Sure, you could argue (and you have, DJ) that the markets should decide for themselves, meaning if people don't want to be around smoking, then don't go to those establishments that permit it. But on the other side of that coin you have a majority of the population who is now unable to visit those establishments without putting their health in jeopardy. That's not right either.

Those who advocate no regulation whatsoever would probably not like what would happen if, for example, the health department stopped inspecting restaurant kitchens.

Last, DJ's suggestion that heroin and other narcotics be decriminalized is perhaps one of the worst ideas I've ever heard in my life.

In response to djDaemon's opinion that "it is utterly nonsensical to compare smoking inside a private business to a business causing external/environmental damage" I opine that such comparisons do make sense.

Not only does the comparison make sense, but I think harming the health of actual people is much worse than harming the health of the environment. That's just an opinion. But certainly the analogy was legitimate.

MaverickLaunch said:

...a majority of the population who is now unable to visit those establishments without putting their health in jeopardy.

Businesses were already going smoke free on their own, in an effort to cater to the majority of their potential customer base. It makes no sense long term to go after 14% of the market if it means losing the other 86%.

Those who advocate no regulation whatsoever would probably not like what would happen if, for example, the health department stopped inspecting restaurant kitchens.

Hello there, straw man. *waves*

Last, DJ's suggestion that heroin and other narcotics be decriminalized is perhaps one of the worst ideas I've ever heard in my life.

The US has spent more than $1 trillion dollars in the War on Drugs, with the end result that drugs are more readily available than they have ever been. It's a total and complete waste of money. If history has taught us anything, it's that if people want to do drugs, they're going to do them whether or not they're legal.

And more importantly, what business is it of the government what a private citizen does in the privacy of their own home?

MaverickLaunch said:

...I think harming the health of actual people is much worse than harming the health of the environment. That's just an opinion. But certainly the analogy was legitimate.

No, it wasn't. The only customers harmed by smoking establishments are people who willingly enter those establishments. No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you inside. Don't want to deal with second hand smoke? Simple - don't go.

The same is obviously not true with regard to environmental damage, making it an absurd comparison.

MaverickLaunch said: You're trying to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not

The difference is, you did indeed say it just like that. Maybe word yourself different next time? Just a suggestion.